> I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented.
Reduction to practice is absolutely a requirement of patent law in the US.
Reduction to practice is absolutely a requirement of patent law in the US.
Perhaps the standard for "reduction to practice [0]" is a little looser than I'm imagining. I can't even see how this would be covered by sufficiency of disclosure[1] since the apparent non-existence of level 4 or 5 autonomy suggests that no person skilled in the art[2] yet exists.
If it isn't obvious at this juncture: IANAL.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practice
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_i...
> Reduction to practice may be an actual reduction or a constructive reduction to practice which occurs when a patent application on the claimed invention is filed. The filing of a patent application serves as conception and constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter described in the application. Thus the inventor need not provide evidence of either conception or actual reduction to practice when relying on the content of the patent application.