Why would AI invent?
-
From CP Newsletter UK Supreme Court rules AI is not an inventor - The Verge[^] It is a lawsuit, second one different country, where the same person is trying to claim that a 'AI' should be issued a patent. The AI. Not a person and not a company. My question would be what is the point? I can only suppose the person is attempting to prove that the AI is consciously intelligent. Makes me wonder how the actual person thinks the AI would assert any claim about patent infringement?
The AI is owned by a company and the company can then claim ownership or at least control of the patent. Think of the money you could make iterating through various spaces and patenting all of the spin off products that might follow onto a recent popular product. You would end up with many junk patents but in the mess there would be several that would be key patents and you would own them and control the future growth of new technology. Could be worth trillions of dollars.
-
From CP Newsletter UK Supreme Court rules AI is not an inventor - The Verge[^] It is a lawsuit, second one different country, where the same person is trying to claim that a 'AI' should be issued a patent. The AI. Not a person and not a company. My question would be what is the point? I can only suppose the person is attempting to prove that the AI is consciously intelligent. Makes me wonder how the actual person thinks the AI would assert any claim about patent infringement?
jschell wrote:
person is trying to claim that a 'AI' should be issued a patent
jschell wrote:
prove that the AI is consciously intelligent
Contrariwise, I think it's more likely that his intention is to prove the opposite. And is succeeding.
-
From CP Newsletter UK Supreme Court rules AI is not an inventor - The Verge[^] It is a lawsuit, second one different country, where the same person is trying to claim that a 'AI' should be issued a patent. The AI. Not a person and not a company. My question would be what is the point? I can only suppose the person is attempting to prove that the AI is consciously intelligent. Makes me wonder how the actual person thinks the AI would assert any claim about patent infringement?
Imagine a situation wherein the Supreme Court itself uses an AI to decide whether another AI can be issued a patent.
-
From CP Newsletter UK Supreme Court rules AI is not an inventor - The Verge[^] It is a lawsuit, second one different country, where the same person is trying to claim that a 'AI' should be issued a patent. The AI. Not a person and not a company. My question would be what is the point? I can only suppose the person is attempting to prove that the AI is consciously intelligent. Makes me wonder how the actual person thinks the AI would assert any claim about patent infringement?
During our recent house "floor remodeling " I had to move everything from my man cave. In slow process of moving everything back I have discovered "AI expert systems" book... I have never actually finished reading it , but this post brought up a question. What is a "difference" in today AI concept(s) and the "old" neural network? Or is there any ? Don't they both make best guess based on data collected? ( If you feel I am hijacking the tread...)
-
During our recent house "floor remodeling " I had to move everything from my man cave. In slow process of moving everything back I have discovered "AI expert systems" book... I have never actually finished reading it , but this post brought up a question. What is a "difference" in today AI concept(s) and the "old" neural network? Or is there any ? Don't they both make best guess based on data collected? ( If you feel I am hijacking the tread...)
Remember attending a few classes on AI, in 1989, 1990, at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru, India. Where the Professor was using the first edition of this book https://amzn.eu/d/8JPIHK2 Neural networks are around for eighty years now (1943 onwards). I feel that, the major differences between then and now is in the computational power, which fostered the advent of deep learning, and such.
-
From CP Newsletter UK Supreme Court rules AI is not an inventor - The Verge[^] It is a lawsuit, second one different country, where the same person is trying to claim that a 'AI' should be issued a patent. The AI. Not a person and not a company. My question would be what is the point? I can only suppose the person is attempting to prove that the AI is consciously intelligent. Makes me wonder how the actual person thinks the AI would assert any claim about patent infringement?
AI only does what you tell it to do. If you tell it to invent and teach it what that means and how that should be done it will follow your command. Instead of “invention” you could use the phrase “find a solution to a problem”
-
The AI is owned by a company and the company can then claim ownership or at least control of the patent. Think of the money you could make iterating through various spaces and patenting all of the spin off products that might follow onto a recent popular product. You would end up with many junk patents but in the mess there would be several that would be key patents and you would own them and control the future growth of new technology. Could be worth trillions of dollars.
-
jschell wrote:
person is trying to claim that a 'AI' should be issued a patent
jschell wrote:
prove that the AI is consciously intelligent
Contrariwise, I think it's more likely that his intention is to prove the opposite. And is succeeding.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I think it's more likely that his intention is to prove the opposite.
From the article "to name his AI as an inventor." Your contention is that they brought the lawsuit stating that because they wanted the court to rule against them?
-
During our recent house "floor remodeling " I had to move everything from my man cave. In slow process of moving everything back I have discovered "AI expert systems" book... I have never actually finished reading it , but this post brought up a question. What is a "difference" in today AI concept(s) and the "old" neural network? Or is there any ? Don't they both make best guess based on data collected? ( If you feel I am hijacking the tread...)
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I think it's more likely that his intention is to prove the opposite.
From the article "to name his AI as an inventor." Your contention is that they brought the lawsuit stating that because they wanted the court to rule against them?
Yes. As that was the only reasonable outcome.
-
Yes. As that was the only reasonable outcome.
-
lol...ok yes I can see that, but I am not sure that the person did it thought so. After all he tried the lawsuit in two different countries.
Which, in my opinion, supports my thesis. Ensuring that both systems have a precedent for rejecting the application.
-
Yes. However that process already exists. The person in this lawsuit is not requesting a patent for the company. They want the AI to be named as the owner. From the article "to name his AI as an inventor."
Yes, and that is the root of the problem. A patent must have an inventor. The inventor must prove that they have conception and mental dominion over the invention. A corporation cannot conceive of an invention because is has no collective consciousness to perform that mental act. (Corporations can own a patent, hence the reason employees working in research for a corporation agree to assign patent ownership to the corporation they work for). The inventor/programmer of the AI cannot assert mental conception over the invention because the AI process found it as part of it's algorithmic search. The AI must be declared to be a conscious, sentient entity with individual rights in order for it to be listed as the patent inventor. So far there has been no legal declaration of AI rights and so there is no way to patent what is discovered by the AI. Sagacity legal has a blog that provides more information about determining what makes a proper inventor. (also on what problems AI as inventor face) Can A Corporation be Named as a Patent Inventor? – Sagacity Legal Blog[^]
-
Which, in my opinion, supports my thesis. Ensuring that both systems have a precedent for rejecting the application.