It does however prevent someone from stating that anyone that makes use of their AI to derive something new owes them, and that the new invention belongs to that original creator.
I recall a seminar in grad school where they had a legal scholar come in and I remember her saying that the general prescient for ai is that it's viewed as a tool for creating the end product. I.e. my pen didn't make the patent for Jim's Amazing Patent (tm), but I did and I used the pen to design and sketch it out.
Is 'prescient' there supposed to be 'precedent'? Neither word makes perfect sense to me in that context, but I can't think of anything better.
Yeah, precedent is correct. I mean to say in the context of case precedent, which is what many legal arguments are often based off of.
In a lawsuit, each inventor can be forced to sit for an hours-long deposition, under oath. Better hope you don't screw up the answer to any of the questions...
This AI did invent anything in a vacuum. There is some analogy to a fitness function that drove it to a result. It is not self aware.
> It is not self aware
It's a bold move to encode that into law when we don't know if that woll hold true in some decades.
luckily laws are mutable.
Uh, the vast majority of humans don't invent anything in a vacuum either...
> It is not self aware.
I sense the rabbit hole of "how do we know?".
Then you lose the positive marketing you get by saying "I invented an AI which invents stuff".
Everybody knows that this so called AI is actually biological people in a call center.
The call center people would need to be listed as co-inventors or the patent is invalid.
Or you incorporate the AI as a business and assign the patents to that.