Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
1–10 of 183 posts
Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
#2AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view.
Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
#3AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
[deleted]
Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
#4AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
Doesn't your scheme point out contradictions in "intellectual property"? That is, a machine can churn out a discovery, demonstrating that the act of creation isn't special. And that undermines categories of justifications for IP.
The machines in question aren't motivated to create by a government granted monopoly on the fruits of their creation.
The act of creating the invention isn't special - a machine did it. No need to reward the machine for immense creativity or stunning inspiration.
Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
#5AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
Doesn't your scheme point out contradictions in "intellectual property"? That is, a machine can churn out a discovery, demonstrating that the act of creation isn't special. And that undermines categories of justifications for IP. The machines in question aren't motivated to create by a government granted monopoly on the fruits of their creation. The act of creating the invention isn't special - a machine did it. No n…
Yes, that's an additional benefit.
Start with all existing patents and have an AI add "on a computer", "using AI", and "using a LLM" to each one. Also ask the AI to predict novel variations. Gather all that together and randomly sample and combine chunks and use the AI to make those random chunks into coherent ideas. Bake for 3 months and boom, you publish The Tome of 1 Trillion Novel Works of Prior Art: Volume 1.
Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
#6AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
Doesn't your scheme point out contradictions in "intellectual property"? That is, a machine can churn out a discovery, demonstrating that the act of creation isn't special. And that undermines categories of justifications for IP. The machines in question aren't motivated to create by a government granted monopoly on the fruits of their creation. The act of creating the invention isn't special - a machine did it. No n…
> No need to reward the machine for immense creativity or stunning inspiration
Patents don't award owners for their "stunning inspiration" or "immense creativity" it gives them a temporary monopoly so they can recoup their r&d costs when taking their invention to market, in exchange for the public disclosure of the invention.
Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
#7AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
Doesn't your scheme point out contradictions in "intellectual property"? That is, a machine can churn out a discovery, demonstrating that the act of creation isn't special. And that undermines categories of justifications for IP. The machines in question aren't motivated to create by a government granted monopoly on the fruits of their creation. The act of creating the invention isn't special - a machine did it. No n…
yeah, making the cost of researh, patentably discovery negligible could kill the whole patent industry, an enourmous bottleneck to application of research and lower compound effects of discovery built on precedent discoveries. Case in point E-ink technology, still extremely expensive due to corporate choices that favoured "milking" over "scaling".
Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
#8AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
Doesn't your scheme point out contradictions in "intellectual property"? That is, a machine can churn out a discovery, demonstrating that the act of creation isn't special. And that undermines categories of justifications for IP. The machines in question aren't motivated to create by a government granted monopoly on the fruits of their creation. The act of creating the invention isn't special - a machine did it. No n…
[deleted]
Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
#9AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
Doesn't your scheme point out contradictions in "intellectual property"? That is, a machine can churn out a discovery, demonstrating that the act of creation isn't special. And that undermines categories of justifications for IP. The machines in question aren't motivated to create by a government granted monopoly on the fruits of their creation. The act of creating the invention isn't special - a machine did it. No n…
> demonstrating that the act of creation isn't special. And that undermines categories of justifications for IP.
The purpose of patents is simply to encourage invention and discourage keeping inventions a secret. It's not premised on the "act of creation being special".
The way this is most likely to play out is that humans will use AI as tools to help them invent things, not that AI will invent things all by itself. So the premise and need for patents will remain intact.
If, however, AI somehow accomplishes the same goal as the patent system, then the patent system becomes unnecessary and will go away. As long as the goal is still being achieved, that's OK.
Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says
#10One thing I never understood.. is who actually checks for honesty in this space?
For example we heard AI can't patent inventions, or copyright pictures/images. But how do you prove that my picture, or invention even used AI?
If I remove watermarks from AI pictures, either through code or photoshop; Or just credit myself for the invention (I made it up in my head), how is this enforced?
I see the only way of this AI stuff backfiring is if you tell someone.. yeah I got this idea with AI, and with the introduction of local LLMs, who will be the wiser?