Sanity! No AI has accountability so also should not own any benefits (not only patent but anything beneficial). Violate that and you created a blackhole of value creation.
I’m very much for not allowing trivial patents, but that’s independent from whether the invention was made by AI or by a human. The nature of the inventor should be immaterial for assessing the (non-)triviality of an invention.
You’d have to provide a convincing argument why that would be the case. You probably think it’s obvious, but it’s not at all obvious to me, and even assuming for the sake of discussion that it is true today, it might stop being true next year.
If we want to attribute non-humans inventor status at all (otherwise the discussion about AI is moot anyway), the assessment should be based on the merits of the invention, not on the nature of the inventor.
That doesn't follow at all. A baby doesn't have accountability, but has benefits.
I'm all for accountability being required for important descion making. I too wouldn't let babies make similar descisions.
This non sequitur just makes it sound like you're throwing around talking points and getting them mixed up.
A baby has the benefit of being attended their basic needs. Just like Ai is also being fed power.
Many babies have bank accounts given to them.
Quite a lot of them benefit from a roof over their head.
>Just like Ai is also being fed power.
How is that relevant to what sebastianconcpt said?
Noting two things share a property is not equavalence,
A whale and an Exocet missile both have mass, that says nothing about their other properties.
Unless you think babies can be held accountable for their actions, your argument is simply invalid.