AI system ‘should be recognised as inventor’
An artificial intelligence system should be recognised as the inventor of two ideas in patents filed on its behalf, a team of academics says.
more…
Tau.Neutrino said:
AI system ‘should be recognised as inventor’An artificial intelligence system should be recognised as the inventor of two ideas in patents filed on its behalf, a team of academics says.
more…
“So with patents, a patent office might say, ‘If you don’t have someone who traditionally meets human-inventorship criteria, there is nothing you can get a patent on.’
“In which case, if AI is going to be how we’re inventing things in the future, the whole intellectual property system will fail to work.”
Either-orist nonsense.
People are involved in the whole process, from creating the software to choosing which of the AI’s outputs should be submitted for patents.
The big question is how you split the rights between the owners of the software and the others involved.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
AI system ‘should be recognised as inventor’An artificial intelligence system should be recognised as the inventor of two ideas in patents filed on its behalf, a team of academics says.
more…
“So with patents, a patent office might say, ‘If you don’t have someone who traditionally meets human-inventorship criteria, there is nothing you can get a patent on.’
“In which case, if AI is going to be how we’re inventing things in the future, the whole intellectual property system will fail to work.”
Either-orist nonsense.
People are involved in the whole process, from creating the software to choosing which of the AI’s outputs should be submitted for patents.
The big question is how you split the rights between the owners of the software and the others involved.
I had thought this was a non-issue, no different to say software ANSYS asking for their name to be on every paper using that software.
But thinking further, it is rumoured that some pop music composers rely on AI software to write their compositions. But don’t acknowledge this.
What would be the consequence of the music AI software being registered as the composer and collecting the royalties from all sales of the music?
A dramatic drop in software sales i would expect.
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
AI system ‘should be recognised as inventor’An artificial intelligence system should be recognised as the inventor of two ideas in patents filed on its behalf, a team of academics says.
more…
“So with patents, a patent office might say, ‘If you don’t have someone who traditionally meets human-inventorship criteria, there is nothing you can get a patent on.’
“In which case, if AI is going to be how we’re inventing things in the future, the whole intellectual property system will fail to work.”
Either-orist nonsense.
People are involved in the whole process, from creating the software to choosing which of the AI’s outputs should be submitted for patents.
The big question is how you split the rights between the owners of the software and the others involved.
I had thought this was a non-issue, no different to say software ANSYS asking for their name to be on every paper using that software.
But thinking further, it is rumoured that some pop music composers rely on AI software to write their compositions. But don’t acknowledge this.
What would be the consequence of the music AI software being registered as the composer and collecting the royalties from all sales of the music?
A dramatic drop in software sales i would expect.
Autotune should get credit for some “musicians” performance ability