Also worth noting that that case involved the same plaintiff as this one, Dr Stephen Thaler, who has been on a mission to have a court recognise his AI system, DABUS, as capable of inventing patents.
Also worth noting that that case involved the same plaintiff as this one, Dr Stephen Thaler, who has been on a mission to have a court recognise his AI system, DABUS, as capable of inventing patents.
TFA links to an article about him being rejected in the US, https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-compu... . The interesting/surprising part for me is that Lawrence Lessig and some other academics wrote briefs supporting his claim.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-919/263320/2023...
Seems to be overly focused on the business impacts rather than the potential welfare improvements, but I can sort of see their point if I squint.
What, in the end, seems quite useful for people in general!
Publicity. And as you see he is getting it.
Move this to the "Autonomous vehicle" line of thought. IF we accept the risks of a vehicle without a driver, how do we accomodate the _culpability_ of that risk?
Same thing in patent law. Someone needs to hold that "culpability". Maybe there'll be a robust future systems of laws that assigns the correct weightings, but it's not today.
One fundamental problem with such approach would of course be money. The AI would need to have a means of paying the fees and the USPTO declaration (37 CFR 1.63) may also prove difficult for an AI - "wilfulness" w.r.t. to false statements comes to mind. But that's a whole new can of worms I don't want to open.
You can tell them to generate ideas, pick one and go from there.
[0] except for all the racism and sexism and slavey and arguments about animal rights and if unborn foetuses are people etc.