Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor

globallegalpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor

#71

Post by maybe_pablo »

LegitShady wrote: post #60
maybe_pablo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course we're more than just that, but if we agree on the definition of tool to be "an object that can extend an individual's ability to modify features of the surrounding environment" (lifted from wikipedia) then wouldn't you agree that humans are being used on a daily basis exactly this way?

If we agree on the definition of a broom as something that can sweep the floor and say that humans can also sweep the floor, wouldn't you agree that humans are brooms often on a daily basis?

I think that definition of a broom may be too broad for me to be able to exclude anything from it but I'll concede on the definition of tool from wikipedia being similarly also too broad.

Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor

#72

Post by LegitShady »

maybe_pablo wrote: post #71
LegitShady wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we agree on the definition of a broom as something that can sweep the floor and say that humans can also sweep the floor, wouldn't you agree that humans are brooms often on a daily basis?

I think that definition of a broom may be too broad for me to be able to exclude anything from it but I'll concede on the definition of tool from wikipedia being similarly also too broad.

I think you’re missing the point if that’s what you’re getting from my posts. The issue isn’t picking the right definition from wikipedia - the issue is not being able to distinguish between an object and a person.

Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor

#73

Post by himinlomax »

nIHOPp6MQw0f5ut wrote: post #57
himinlomax wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That being said AI patents are an issue, but I don’t think they’re quite there yet. The 1981 ZX81 Chess program that ran in 1kiB of RAM would have astonished a 19th century observer and would have qualified as "artificial intelligence" from their point of view. What's currently called "AI" is not that much different from that program. Claiming it has somehow any kind of personhood is just nonsensical, and probably…

Over time we realize things we thought required intelligence turn out to not.

The contention here is not about intelligence, but personhood.

Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor

#74

Post by imtringued »

bencollier49 wrote: post #66
skywhopper wrote: post #39

This is silly. You may as well try to credit “calculus” as the inventor of a patent whose key innovation was calculated using a derivative. Some human crafted the problem for the AI, chose the parameters of a good solution, and verified the results. That human or humans are the inventors, not one of the tools they used.

The same logic, by some people's standards, would see all patents credited to God then, I suppose. Human exceptionalism?

Well, a lot of kings derived their legitimacy from god so it's not that far off...

Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor

#75

Post by pfundstein »

alistairSH wrote: post #44
pfundstein wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest instead of viewing AI as the creator, it should be viewed as a tool, and the person/team who built the AI as the true creators.

Isn't that effectively what this outcome does? The AI is listed as the creator, but the patent is held by the person that crated the AI. IANAL, but doesn't that mean the Dr Thaler has the legal rights to the patent? South Africa has become the first country to award a patent that names an artificial intelligence as its inventor and the AI’s owner as the patent's owner. Edit - I not claiming this is the correct result…

No, what I'm saying is that the AI is a tool which its creators use to create the invention, nothing more. It doesn't get listed on the patent in the same way other tools don't.

Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor

#76

Post by Paddywack »

gitgud wrote: post #42

What does it even mean to have AI as the inventor, is that referring to the name of the file on the disk? AI software isn't like any legal entity that currently exists. Software can be duplicated instantly, people and companies cannot.

I feel an NFT debate coming on...

Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor

#77

Post by maybe_pablo »

LegitShady wrote: post #72
maybe_pablo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that definition of a broom may be too broad for me to be able to exclude anything from it but I'll concede on the definition of tool from wikipedia being similarly also too broad.

I think you’re missing the point if that’s what you’re getting from my posts. The issue isn’t picking the right definition from wikipedia - the issue is not being able to distinguish between an object and a person.

I still don't agree with your premise, people can be used as tools even when I can distinguish it from a person given other aspects (for example I may recognize that people can act autonomously and tools not). My initial question was precisely about semantics though and I think there's the possibility that my initial reasoning may not hold for some, more specific definition of tool.
Post reply on HN