Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

Post by 8note » Thu, Feb 15, 2024, 4:52 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #111

cycomanic wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which just shows the ridiculousness of the patent system. I mean what is the fundamental difference between a cooking recipe and the recipe for a pharmaceutical. I guess cooks just didn't have the same lobby power to get their exception reworked (pharmaceuticals were in many places originally excluded from patents as well)

> I mean what is the fundamental difference between a cooking recipe and the recipe for a pharmaceutical. The effort required for validating them. Pharmaceutical compounds can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars just for the clinical trials and certifications of production steps, and on top of that comes the cost to failed attempts which are rolled into the pricing of products that do make the cut. A cooki…

Post by exe34 » Thu, Feb 15, 2024, 12:48 PM UTC

ForIveSyntax wrote: post #118

exe34 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there will be a gap between agi and ASI. The definition of agi keeps shifting - any time an ai can do something, it's just engineering. Current AIs, although narrow, are already superhuman in what they can do. A language AI can converse in more languages than any living human can learn. A chess playing AI can beat any living human. So each time an AI wins on one metric, it's not going to be human level,…

Yes, they’re better at chess. No, they’re profoundly incompetent at conversation, just incompetent at many languages at once. Where else are they superhuman? The ability to generate unoriginal, uncanny art faster than a painter? Fair-ish enough. It’s not just moving the goalposts. It’s more like we didn’t know where the goalposts were.

Post by lallysingh » Thu, Feb 15, 2024, 3:25 PM UTC

hk__2 wrote: post #37

lallysingh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone challenged your patent, they can try to prove that you used an AI.

> If someone challenged your patent, they can try to prove that you used an AI. That not enough, they also have to prove that the AI did most of the work. From the article: > On Tuesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) said that to obtain a patent, a real person must have made a “significant contribution” to the invention This seems logical; it would be foolish (and impossible!) to completely forbid people…

Post by braunboffel » Thu, Feb 15, 2024, 4:20 PM UTC

kwere wrote: post #7

bediger4000 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Post by hk__2 » Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 9:03 AM UTC

lallysingh wrote: post #175

hk__2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone challenged your patent, they can try to prove that you used an AI. That not enough, they also have to prove that the AI did most of the work. From the article: > On Tuesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) said that to obtain a patent, a real person must have made a “significant contribution” to the invention This seems logical; it would be foolish (and impossible!) to completely forbid people…

I think that 'proof' would be making a prompt showing the AI's output, with it having done most of the "innovation."