By Dennis Crouch
I recently was thinking back to 1996 and the start of my senior year at Princeton University. Although I was a mechanical & aerospace engineering major, I had become fascinated with AI and so focused my senior thesis on developing a new AI model within the department of electrical and computer engineering. Instead of employing traditional layers, I utilized a fractal metaphor to design the neural networks. The main theoretical advantage of this approach was its potential to offer a deeper understanding of how the network operated, allowing us to peer into the brain and gain insights into its learning process based on the structure created. Furthermore, the model facilitated greater human control and direction.
This past weekend, computer law expert Van Lindberg reminded me of the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence that had a game plan of solving AI during the summer of 1956. My senior thesis project took 8 months, and met with roughly the same (lack of) success. I’ll write more about this later, but the project was one of the first to use massive parallelism offered by human players across the internet as the learning model. That part was a big success — as well as the Applet front-end developed mostly by my partner Ryan Kotaro Akita.
I feel like things are coming full circle for me, but this time the AI model has improved exponentially. The rapid progress in human-machine interaction and generative AI is astonishing. I find myself constantly exploring new, innovative technologies poised to disrupt bloated organizations. The venture capital landscape is necessarily shifting, as small teams rapidly develop and release disruptive products and services with higher speed but lower financial requirements.
Today’s exploration for me is autoGPT that allows users to stack various traditional and AI services to create the best autonomous assistant that I have seen so far. After being provided with general instructions, autoGPT can generate a dynamic project plan that it executes through online interaction and GPT-4 training results. This technology has the potential to equalize expertise, much like what happened with chess several years ago. However, unlike chess, which relies on a fixed board and finite options, this new model addresses real-time, real-world problems. Indeed, it’s a fascinating time to be alive.
This setup is wonderful but also so scary. Awesome in all senses. The AI is ruthless and without emotion or wisdom. It empowers anarchists, terrorists, and reckless operaters to inflict significant harm. GPT layering enables more sophisticated attacks that exploit a combination of human-social and technological weaknesses in a massively parallel manner. Scams, both big and small, are becoming increasingly easier to execute. Of course, there will be those who use these tools to fight for good. As the battle of technology unfolds, life may begin to resemble a futuristic graphic novel more and more.
What are your thoughts on where we are headed?
You first write: “NO ONE has held that AI is not an inventor (in the legal sense of the word).”
In response, I quote the opinion of the relevant Federal Circuit decision.
You response by stating “Well that slip opinion is simply in error.”
You could at least concede the point that you were wrong in your initial statement. It is one thing to disagree with the law (I do that frequently, for example). However, it is a different thing to mischaracterize the law – like you have. The fact that you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong is telling about your character.
The human aspect is directly related to law itself, and especially in patent law with the US foundation of patents ground in the Lockean nature of what a patent is meant to be, and tied directly to the Quid Pro Quo of turning a real human person’s inchoate right into a bundle of sticks of real legal rights upon satisfying the rules as set by — and only by — the Legislature.
You’ve repeated this word salad an untold number of times. As far as I can tell, NO NOE CARES. Moreover, it is not self-evident as to what you are talking about. I don’t know – maybe there is so shred of useful logic in your statement. However, I have zero interest into trying to parse anything out of your word salad. Your comment is EXACTLY how I would expect from an ivory tower intellectual, and it is very off-putting. As such, if your intent is to persuade me that my position is wrong and your position is correct, you are going about it in entirely the wrong way.
Also – YOU missed the point in joint inventorship cases. Clearly. DABUS case was about a single entity being denied. But in “joint inventor” cases, one will have – by definition – claims to which NO single HUMAN inventor would be properly deemed to be the complete inventor.
LOL. You really are grasping at straws. Your hypothesis is buttressed by an unsupported fact (i.e., claims to which NO single human inventor could be complete inventor). Since only a human can be an inventor (in the eyes of the law), if all the humans that were involved in the invention are named, then the complete inventorship has been properly named. You may want to argue otherwise, but that is a losing argument. You would have to argue that there was an inventor missing, and the question to you would be: who is missing? Your response would likely be the AI is missing. However, the Court is going to cite Thaler and say, the AI is not an inventor and so the inventorship is correct. There is no way out of that logic. You are stuck.
By your own standards (as you would have them), apply the law to ALL humans on an invention to which an AI satisfies a legal (as I would have it – akin to copyright’s photographer) inventor: does ANY human person satisfy the legal definition of inventor of that which that human person DID NOT invent?
May I suggest you rewrite that comment into something understandable. And BTW, a monkey (Naruto) pressing a button on a camera is not akin to inventing. I think most courts could easily make that distinction.
I certainly do understand that under US law, an AI cannot be granted a patent (and I have indeed explained why this is different than saying an AI can/cannot be an inventor).
BTW, this is where your two definitions of inventor come into play. Your first definition of inventor is “one who invents – with no limitation on who/what can be the ‘one'”. Your second definition of inventor is “one who can legally be named as an inventor on a US patent.” These are not coextensive definitions (i.e., two different definitions). And to repeat myself, a simian taking a photograph (i.e., pushing a button) is not the same as inventing no matter how much you want to make it the same.
omitting the fact that I used quotation marks to distinguish legal person from human person.
Then make that distinction more clearly. Seriously, you write as if people are mind-readers and understand all the hidden meanings you place into certain statements. You are fond of creating self-referential phrases that no one (outside of yourself) understanding the meaning of. It is sloppy, non-inclusive writing. You write for you – not your reader. Consequently and in many instances, only you understand what you’ve written. Reading your stuff is sometime like listening to someone mumbling to themselves – maybe there is some useful information to be gleaned, but there is usually a lot missing.
Regardless, I addressed your point. The end result is this: No Court is going to say that a “person” encompasses AI. If you don’t understand why, then you are out of touch with our society.
do please explain yourself. What (or whose) politics are you referring to?
LOL. Don’t like the tables turned on you. My comment is exactly what you do ALL THE TIME. And I’ll respond like you do when someone asks you a question to clarify your point – I’ll just say I don’t do explanations. Sorry, you’ll just have to figure it out for yourself. Frankly, it isn’t that hard if you’ve been paying attention.
the link should make it easy for you
Sorry, I’ve been Rickrolled by you before. Your link will go to another set of your comments that are just as unhelpful in understanding your position as your comments above. And BTW, cut and paste is a wonderful feature – you should try it. If you want to repeat what you wrote before, it’ll take you about 30 seconds to reproduce EXACTLY what you want me to read in this current thread. With that in mind, I’m not going to spend 5 minutes wasting my time trying to figure out which one of your ambiguous comments in the linked-to page are on point.
In response to Anon at 1.2.2.1.1.1.1
I agree with nearly everything that you just wrote in #14. This is why I have given up on trying to engage with (or even make sense of) your interlocutor’s produce.
The one point on which I disagree is that you write “[a]s far as I can tell, NO [ONE] CARES.” You would not have written 12 column inches of response if you did not care. As an apostle of sanity and contentment, however, I urge you to learn not to care. Just ignore. You will be both happier and better informed.
“Just ignore.”
Like Greg pretends to – as witness with his recent response directly to Malcolm (another with whom he has stated that he has ‘blocked’ and cannot read.
Oopsie.
As for Greg’s latest hidden message (“[“), just who is Greg signaling to with the DeSantis spin of the OMB/TDS 0bsess10n that he has?
As for “You could at least concede the point that you were wrong in your initial statement.”
I was not wrong, so no concession is in order. You just do not like trying to understand anything that does not fit your pre-conceived notions. I went on to tell you WHY the slip opinion is simply in error on that point as the nuance is not that AI cannot be an inventor, (think photographer), it is more that THAT type of inventor cannot be granted a US patent. I even explained the foundational view that drives this nuance.
But you would rather simply clench tight your eyes.
As for “However, it is a different thing to mischaracterize the law – like you have. The fact that you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong is telling about your character.”
LOL – you are the one with the character defect here, Wt. I have done NO mischaracterization of the law. YOU may want to except every decision – in every exacting word – with no understanding of nuance or understanding of differences in Dicta or Holding, but hey – you be you.
As for, “You’ve repeated this word salad an untold number of times. As far as I can tell, NO NOE CARES.”
First, it is not ‘word salad.” That you do not understand may be something that YOU are incapable of admitting to.
Second, whether you or “NO ONE” (and that is clearly not true) cares is absolutely besides the point that what I provide is indeed accurate and true.
As for “Your comment is EXACTLY how I would expect from an ivory tower intellectual, and it is very off-putting.”
How very odd, as I am most definitely not an ivory tower intellectual, and – again — your feelings simply are not at point. You being “off-put” is a YOU problem. YOU need to admit that YOU have that problem.
As for “As such, if your intent is to persuade me that my position is wrong and your position is correct, you are going about it in entirely the wrong way.”
LOL – You strongly desiring to STAY wrong does NOT make what I say, or how I say it to be wrong.
Reality just does not work that way. You are more than welcome to choose to ever remain wrong.
I can choose to make note of your choices as I do.
I do not – and will not – take any responsibility for your choice to be and stay wrong.
That’s ALL on you.
As for “LOL. You really are grasping at straws. Your hypothesis is buttressed by an unsupported fact (i.e., claims to which NO single human inventor could be complete inventor).”
No, you are wrong in all your assertions. AND you still miss the point.
As for “There is no way out of that logic. You are stuck.”
Not at all – you are refusing to apply even your own “test” to all the material (to which ALL of the human persons would – in fact – leave something missing).
You my friend are the one that is stuck – and this is even under your own rubric.
As for “And BTW, a monkey (Naruto) pressing a button on a camera is not akin to inventing. I think most courts could easily make that distinction.”
Nice strawman – how much effort did you have to put into that to make it as I said something I never said? Naruto IS a photographer. The US will NOT allow Naruto to have a copyright in its work. Once you grasp that, then analogize to an inventor (non-human) and the US NOT allowing that non-human inventor to have a patent in its work.
As for “BTW, this is where your two definitions of inventor come into play. Your first definition of inventor is “one who invents – with no limitation on who/what can be the ‘one’”. Your second definition of inventor is “one who can legally be named as an inventor on a US patent.” These are not coextensive definitions (i.e., two different definitions).”
This error is yours, as the first definition of “one who invents” – as used by me – IS the same as the second. It is only you that somehow wants them to be different (most likely, this is due to your eyes-tight clenching).
As for “And to repeat myself, a simian taking a photograph (i.e., pushing a button) is not the same as inventing no matter how much you want to make it the same.”
You repeating this error does not make it any less an error. It only makes you look silly and my points even stronger
As for “Then make that distinction more clearly.”
LOL – YOU claim I am the one with p00r reading, and then you want me to compensate for YOUR p00r reading.
You be funny.
As for “Seriously, you write as if people are mind-readers and understand all the hidden meanings you place into certain statements. You are fond of creating self-referential phrases that no one (outside of yourself) understanding the meaning of.”
And again, you are wrong. I do not write as if people are mind-readers, and I most definitely do NOT place hidden meanings into my statements (you are confusing me with Greg). While I certainly am fond of creating phrase (as was Shakepeare, and Yogi Berra by the way), those phrases have been consistently and repeatedly used in the patent blogosphere.
As for “missing,” you have no room to talk as you insist on keeping your eyes clenched tight. Open them up and YOU won’t be missing the information provided.
As or “Regardless, I addressed your point.”
LOL – no, no you did not. THAT is missing.
As for “LOL. Don’t like the tables turned on you. My comment is exactly what you do ALL THE TIME.”
How odd of you – and such a deep persecution complex to assert that I feel that I do not like something and that something being the table being turned.
You added a new wrinkle, and I was merely curious to explore your new wrinkle, asking in a genuine and snark free manner. YOU deciding to have a conniption (or continue in your conniption and accuse me of what you are doing is rather bad form). If you don’t want to add more to your new wrinkle, that is entirely up to you. I am still genuinely curious and would rather not guess (given your own oddities when it comes to political viewpoints).
As for “Sorry, I’ve been Rickrolled by you before. Your link will go to another set of your comments that are just as unhelpful in understanding your position as your comments above.”
Only if you persist in your own ways and mistaken views. But you be you, clenching tight your eyes and demanding that others be better in making you see.
As for “And BTW, cut and paste is a wonderful feature – you should try it. If you want to repeat what you wrote before, it’ll take you about 30 seconds to reproduce EXACTLY what you want me to read in this current thread.”
And even less for you to click the link and see it directly. YOU should try that.
As for “I’m not going to spend 5 minutes wasting my time trying to figure out…”
And therein is your problem.
Again.
You want to blame someone else for your lack of understanding.
I can only lead you to the well.
I cannot make you drink.
Just a side note that’s been on my mind since reading this post: Dennis, did you use ChatGPT or a similar tool to help you write this post? It has a different tone to it, like a more formal and less interesting version of you.
A little inside baseball. When I worked for DOE, there was some research into AI done. The big problem was with it is the commands you gave the AI. For example, you ask your AI rumba vacuum to clean the room and keep the room clean resulting in your cat being terminated with extreme prejudice. The AI produced outcomes that were correct solutions but with extreme, often undesired results. Society needs to move more slowly in adopting AI not because of the AI but because to the people using the AI. The only solution I see is a administrative agency similar in mandate to the FDA providing approval of AI or AGI prior to introduction into the free market. Lets keep our kitties safe from the terminator shall we so we can keep watching our cat videos. link to youtu.be
^^^ Quite aside from AI, a great example of the Ends do not justify the Means
As to AI itself, Jr, your view shows the direct influence of early AI ‘thinking,’ in that an unintended result was a wayward consequence of “use of a tool.”
While that aspect may well still exist, that is separate (and thus any presence of overlap is not controlling) from what AI has become: more than mere use of a tool.
The inability of MANY to not understand this difference will become ever more jarring to those that do understand this difference, even as the number of that MANY will ever diminish.
NW: “ in 36xx AUs, adding in AI in the claims is one way to get out of the 101 deathtrap.”
If true, how hilarious is this? Notice the conspicuous absence of hysterical screaming about the “star chamber” responsible for this (predictable and predicted) trend-mongering by the born-yesterday balloon heads at the PTO.
I would add that it may well used to be true.
I also do work in this area, and this has NOT been true for at least three years now.
“ this has NOT been true for at least three years now.”
LOL – how comforting! Congrats to all those who relied on this time-disgraced ploy to obtain their invalid patent with the Giant Red Flag right there in the claims.
?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Colossus: The Forbin Project — no more need be said
Thanks for the movie pick. I missed that Sci Fi movie growing up, but my meathead, football jock father monopolized the TV.
“What are your thoughts on where we are headed?”
“I don’t hate it. I just don’t like it at all and it’s terrible.” – Michael Scott
With very low confidence I do not think that AI will be as revolutionary or as dangerous as many suggest. True AGI (artificial general intelligence) appears no closer than 20 years ago. And many of the more recent “advances” are really just applications of scale which cannot continue indefinitely.
I think AI will improve worker efficiency, but not exponentially, and it will not be a real substitute for workers anytime in our lifetimes. The lesson we should take from the self driving car hype of the 2010s is that the first 60-95% of a human task may be easy to automate, but that reaching 100% is incredibly difficult. We’ll still need doctors, technical writers, and marketers, and they’ll each get more done using AI as an aid.
As someone who as studied AI for decades, I think this is pretty close to what will happen over the next 10 years.
Second time in less than a week that I’ve agreed with you.
Must be something seriously wrong with the cosmos.
Or maybe you hit your head and finally got some sense.
My CCP comment-farm handlers told me to tone it down a bit.
Thought experiment, re: ChatGPT and web search –
Let’s say you want a dog. You prefer short-hair dogs that don’t shed or provoke allergies. But you live in a cold-climate city, and you’re concerned that short-haired dogs won’t do well.
Currently, you visit a search engine and submit a query:
> short haired dogs that do well in cold weather
…and you receive a hundred search results:
* 100 best breeds of short-haired dogs
* Best dogs for colder climates
* Most popular breeds of dogs among celebrities
* Pictures of short-haired dogs
* Sweaters for dogs to wear in cold weather
* How to keep dogs warm in the winter
* My short-haired Boxer loves the snow
If you spend an hour visiting a few dozen websites, you *might* derive an answer. Or you might get distracted by cute-but-irrelevant search results (“50 cute videos of dogs in the snow!”) Or you might quit out of boredom or frustration with the inefficiency, lack of clarity, and conflicting information.
With ChatGPT, you ask:
> What short-haired breeds of dogs do best in cold weather?
…and ChatGPT immediately responds:
> When it comes to dogs that do well in cold weather, it’s important to note that a dog’s coat is just one factor to consider. Other factors such as size, activity level, and health are also important.
> That being said, here are some short-haired dog breeds that tend to do well in colder climates:
> Chihuahua: This small breed has a short coat, but they tend to do well in colder weather as long as they are kept warm with clothing and bedding.
> Dachshund: Despite having a short coat, dachshunds are bred to burrow and have a high metabolism, which helps them generate body heat. They also tend to enjoy being snuggled up under blankets.
> Beagle: Beagles have a short, dense coat that keeps them warm in colder temperatures. They are also an active breed, which helps them generate body heat through exercise.
(and more!)
ChatGPT didn’t make you visit any other websites. ChatGPT didn’t force you to deal with ads, paywalls, accounts and subscriptions, uninformative filler content, cookie consent boxes, “subscribe to us and catch us on social media” invitations, “can we use your location?” prompts, etc. ChatGPT didn’t require you to synthesize an answer from a jumble of marginally-overlapping content. Nope – ChatGPT just provided the information that you requested, concisely and well-organized, with supportive explanations. ChatGPT also allows you to change or clarify your question and can refine its answer accordingly.
GPT-grade conversational interfaces are fundamentally changing how we interact with devices. It’s an exciting time to be a technologist.
Actually, I searched “short haired dogs that do well in cold weather”, clicked the top result, and searched in-page for hair, and within 3 seconds had: “Border terriers are fantastic short-haired cold weather dogs.” You’re profoundly exaggerating the difficulty associated with existing systems.
Also, assuming that was really the output of a chatGPT query; chatGPT recommending a Chihuahua is a great example of the limitations of these stochastic parrots. That is a horrible suggestion even if it is a coherent, on-topic sentence.
Finallt, keep in mind that you’re comparing a mature technology that internal and external parties have worked for years to monetize to a beta. I would be shocked if a production SearchGPT 10 years from now didn’t ply you with advertisements for dog clothing in response to your query.
I basically agree with Ben’s answer.
Plus, the problem is that you are projecting an expertise on ChatGPT that simply isn’t there. The problem is that ChatGPT doesn’t have some of the other processes to check its work that we do and can’t evaluate and synthesize answers.
The deep evaluation of its own answer simply is beyond ChatGPT’s abilities.
On the other hand, a program like ChatGPT would be great at eliminating poor search results that have a lot of ads or that are of obvious poor quality.
Just ran into one of these:
link to quantamagazine.org
Tegmark’s call may be too late.
If you did not see 60 Minutes this past Sunday, you should find the episode and watch it. You will be amazed at how advanced it has become,…self learning!
Yes, my Grandmother was very impressed! She misses Andy Rooney, though.
Well D I didn’t know you were so heavily involved in the AI.
“innovative technologies poised to disrupt bloated organizations. ”
Yeah about that, someone just got done writing a piece about how that likely will not happen. Specifically HR and bureaucracies will just eat all the supposed gainz you think you’ll get by “disrupting bloat”. Bottom line is, AI like chatGPT is the bureaucrat’s dream, not their nightmare.
link to finance.yahoo.com
“It empowers anarchists, terrorists, and reckless operaters to inflict significant harm. ”
Fun fantasy, but anarchists have barely done any “harm” (mean ol uncle Ted not counting as “anarchist”), and I have yet to find any terrorists that are significantly using AI just yet. Maybe possibly in the future, but I doubt it.
Above, Prof. Crouch reflects on how rapidly this technology field is progressing of late. Below, NW laments how poorly patent law functions for this technology field. Maybe one or the other of these two is simply wrong in his perceptions, but I do not think so.
If both are correct, however, then that implies that patent protection is not really all that necessary (or even useful) for encouraging innovation in this tech field. I really do not like Alice, but if patents are not useful for encouraging AI innovation, then Congress really should codify Alice with regard to AI (and any other sort of technology where the rate of progress has accelerated post Alice). There is no reason for American society to bear the costs of patents where we can get the innovation without them.
It seems to me that the same argument could’ve been made about software innovations in the recent past.
Since no such carveout was ever (legislatively) implemented, perhaps one should conclude that the point of the patent system isn’t exclusively to advance technology.
But what other interests could possibly be advanced by a system overseen by an appellate court full of patent attorneys interpreting a law written by a patent attorney that is implemented by an agency run by patent attorneys. Hmm.
Since no such carveout was ever (legislatively) implemented, perhaps one should conclude that the point of the patent system isn’t exclusively to advance technology.
The business world is indifferent as to whether a rule is legislative or judicial in origin. The point about which business cares is whether the rule is enforced or not. If it is, then it ends up having the same business effect regardless of the legislative or judicial origin.
Once one recognizes that reality, however, then one sees that your conclusion (“the point of the patent system isn’t exclusively to advance technology”) does not actually follow from your premise (“no such carveout was ever (legislatively) implemented”).
Why bury a tweet on universal translators….
Bizarro.
I think NW would disagree that your conclusion in #6 follows from the premises.
Said with levity and no animosity: I’m happy for you that you found the bowl of porridge that had just the right
temperaturemistrust of the patent system.“There is no reason for American society to bear the costs of patents where we can get the innovation without them.”
Just throw those sabots into the machinery….
And another buried political view….
If both are correct, however, then that implies that patent protection is not really all that necessary (or even useful) for encouraging innovation in this tech field.
FWIW, AI is one of the few technologies I work with that get little pushback in terms of 101.
AI may have just come to the forefront of many people’s consciousness over the past year or so, but patent applications involving AI have been filed for a long time now.
I suspect that most of the big purveyors of AI already have substantial patent portfolios on AI.
Greg, WT, anon, Ben,
I agree with WT. I get few 101 for AI applications. In fact, in 36xx AUs, adding in AI in the claims is one way to get out of the 101 deathtrap.
What I said was that Alice is broad enough that any AI application could be rejected under Alice at the PTO and the DC. And the response was a good one that we haven’t really seen many AI applications being asserted so we aren’t sure what the CAFC is going to do to AI claims.
My experience is that patents do advance technology in software and in AI.
Greg just wants no patents for anything but pharmaceuticals. It is the position of his industry.
Maybe instead of your lame innuendo, you could try to say something specific and interesting about these “impacts”. Maybe include some predictions about the timing of the “impacts” so we can return to the comment and see how accurate you were.
Oops. Meant to be a reply to Comnent 1.
Asked and answered – maybe YOU should try to add something of cognitive value and join the discussion.
As it is, all we get is you being you.
I think we are in the early days of a phase change akin to the Industrial Revolution, where AI is essentially like the combination of the steam engine and electromagnetism in providing the foundation for massive change to come.
The change will not only be visible on our physical landscape, but most directly on our social arrangements. For centuries, medium-powered brainwork has been rewarded with more pay and prestige than physical work; that’s all changing fast already.
If you can climb a ladder, fix an engine, weld a pipe, etc. as of now, you can get a job just about anywhere and have a decent life. But if all you can do is read well and talk a good game? Your options shrink by the day- and year- because if you are over the age of 45, it’s nearly hopeless.
At the high end, skills in making and managing AI tools and advanced STEM will still be very valuable, and in the short (ish) term- since everything is irony- people will top skills in the humanities will have opportunities to work at making AI more human, helping to work thru various the subtleties, paradoxes and connotations that arises due to the emergent nature of human affairs.
No doubt luxury goods and services of the future will revel in imperfections- real or otherwise- better to provide the illusion of human touch.
That which can ever be known is more sharply limited by emergence than most people realize, but the possibility for entirely replicating and extending the performances of the human mind have never been more ripe.
Interesting. With the possible flattening of the value of teachers / professors, et al lead to high-skill welders, plumbers, and other skilled physical tradesmen flipping the income switch?
Indeed, some electrical linesmen willing to work overtime already earn more than $200,000/yr.
AI May Change Everything, But Probably Not Too Quickly
“If you can climb a ladder, fix an engine, weld a pipe, etc. as of now, you can get a job just about anywhere and have a decent life. But if all you can do is read well and talk a good game? Your options shrink by the day- and year- because if you are over the age of 45, it’s nearly hopeless.”
I will believe this when I start to hear of the professional class encouraging their children to go into the skilled trades.
Have you posted your senior thesis anywhere, Dennis? I’d be interested in finding out more about that topic.
I studied AI at a graduate level but never finished my thesis.
For me, as I have been saying for years, under Alice, AI programs that do a better job than CAFC judges, would not be eligible for patentability.
It is just ridiculous. It is obvious that this is judicial activism.
In my experience, most AI related applications are doing much better than general software related applications at overcoming 101.
The AI related applications tend to have meaningful disclosures regarding the techniques used to achieve the desired results.
Though this may fade if applicants begin to believe patent attorneys that tell them they don’t need to disclose how they achieve their results.
[M]ost AI related applications are doing much better than general software related applications at overcoming 101.
Seems a bit premature to reach this conclusion. Call me when we start to see AI patents successfully asserted (or at least see them survive 12(b)(6) challenges).
+1
Plus, it is all discretionary. The USPTO could reject them all under 101 and they would not survive an appeal.
While I appreciate your point, you have to overcome 101 at the PTO to ever even get to a 12b6 challenge. If AI applications get to that point more often, they are doing “better”.
And Greg is back with the hidden hyperlinks to odd Leftist messages.
(that “I” of his “AI” that follows the quoted sentence)
Gee, a twit apparently upset with Shapiro about the grooming of children in Disney films…
(and yes, the context of Disney DOES make this into a grooming matter).
WHY hide this?
Why even include this?
Why does it bother you so much anon?
Who cares if Greg wants to include links attached to letters of his posts? Ignore them if it bothers you.
Sage advice, but anyone who needs to be told this is vanishingly unlikely to benefit from it.
Cushing Dolan had no idea my Ip was stolen. They put that money in to the Co. Making me part of it.
I want to know why and to whom is he signaling.
You of course are always free to not care.
You are not free to not have anyone else care.
Greg and I are performing an experiment (ongoing for at least five years) with the assistance of an incredibly powerful computer. That’s all you need to know.
lol – except Greg likes you as much as he likes me, maybe even a smidge less.
The answer is 42, but we are still waiting to find out the question. 🙂
^^^ another nice ‘oopsie’ from Greg, his having stated previously that he does not read any posts from Malcolm, aka The Prophet.
One such thought: link to patentlyo.com
But my first thought is the wee bit “I told you so” to all of the “AI is just a tool” folk who simply did not want to face reality and start having the hard (and inevitable) discussions on the various impacts to law (not limited to inventorship).
you’re missing the point by a wide margin bro. “AI” could end humanity or at least make things very bad. Nobody really cares about whether it qualifies as an inventor on a US patent.
Not missing any such point – this is after all, a patent blog.
“I told you so” to all of the “AI is just a tool” folk.
Told you so? What did you tell us? AI is still but a tool.
start having the hard (and inevitable) discussions on the various impacts to law (not limited to inventorship
When the law gets changed regarding inventorship, then we can have that conversation.
When the law gets changed regarding patentability, then we can have that conversation.
Since the chances of either happening are between zero and next to zero, I see little need in wasting my time having conversations regarding those topics until those chances appreciably raise.
What you see as “inevitable” I see as unlikely.
For the good of the world, Wt, I hope you’re right.
I sure hope you’re right.
People are going to use AI regardless of whether AI qualifies as an “inventor” on a US patent. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool.
The real issue has nothing to do with law or patents – will AI be used to make life bad for humans? (e.g., by fraud, enabling hacking, etc).
“will AI be used to make life bad for humans? (e.g., by fraud, enabling hacking, etc).”
It won’t be by fraud or haxoring etc. It will be, just like in the original Dune foreward, by super-giganto-googleplex empowering the elites who will have/own/control the programming of AIs to enslave (or modern day “enslave”) the everyplebe even harder. Which they will. Likely through bureaucracy in one/many of its thousands of forms. And then they’ll use leftoid feelings based propaganda/story telling to make it look “virtuous” (“we’re doing it to save black people from Cletus!” “we’re doing it to stop the handmaid’s tale!”). Watch and learn over the next 20 or 30 years.
There will be no need for the USPTO, or the Patent Courts. Anything a person invents will be altered by using AI by reverse engineering. You will reap what you gave sewn, that’s if the Courts want to step down for AI which I am sure will be denied.
You missed on another two topics — already at hand:
joint inventorship, and
the effect on that other non-human legal fiction of the Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Much like your (attempted) dis of the Kavanaugh Scissors on a recent thread, your wanting to close your eyes as to the reality of issues just won’t make them go away.
joint inventorship, and
Joint inventorship requires at least two inventors and since we already know that an AI is not an inventor, then I don’t see the issue.
the effect on that other non-human legal fiction of the Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Not only is AI not an inventor, AI is not a “Person” (POSITA), and I’m 99.9999% confident that no court would rule that a POSITA would include an AI. Unless you haven’t been paying attention, no court is going to go down that path. And, if by some small chance that it did happen, such a ruling would get smacked down by the Supreme Court immediately.
AI is not going to get imbued with any aspect of personhood via patent law — whether as an inventor or as a POSITA. You can take that to the bank.
Much like your (attempted) dis of the Kavanaugh Scissors on a recent thread, your wanting to close your eyes as to the reality of issues just won’t make them go away.
I deal in reality. You deal in fantasy. When Kavanaugh’s Scissors get employed regarding 101, I’ll give you credit. However, Congress is more likely to pass patent reform on 101 than that will happen (and I have zero expectation that Congress with do anything meaningful regarding 101 in my practicing lifetime).
“ since we already know that an AI is not an inventor, then I don’t see the issue.”
LOL – you do not see what you have clenched tight your eyes to.
NO ONE has held that AI is not an inventor (in the legal sense of the word).
What has been held is that THAT inventor may not obtain a patent.
Your comment is like saying, “Naruto cannot be a photographer.”
You also miss – and miss badly as to PHOSITA.
That “person” is not a person either. That “person” has no sense of true personhood, nor requires one to serve its purpose as an indicator of State of the Art. I have never asserted that AI would be imbued with any aspect of personhood via patent law – so your strawman can be put back away.
Two swings – two misses.
And a swing and a miss for strike three vis a vis Kavanaugh Scissors.
Go back and read that last exchange – it might help you ‘see’ the ball next time (that is, if you WANT to open your eyes).
NO ONE has held that AI is not an inventor (in the legal sense of the word).
What has been held is that THAT inventor may not obtain a patent.
What a wonderful little game you are playing. There is only a single definition of the world “inventor” at play here — yet you are attempting to employ two different definitions.
I suggest you read the opening sentence of Thaler v. Vidal: This case presents the question of who, or what, can be an inventor. And this is from page 5 of the Slip Opinion:
The sole issue on appeal is whether an AI software system can be an “inventor” under the Patent Act.
On the same page, this is what the Federal Circuit stated:
Here, there is no ambiguity: the Patent Act requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings.
In other words, AI cannot be an inventor. Moreover, since AI cannot be an inventor, AI cannot be a joint inventor. Try as you might to kick up dust, the end result is going to be nothing but blisters on your feet.
That “person” is not a person either.
A person isn’t a person? That is going to be a wonderfully-persuasive argument to make. link to patentlyo.com
That “person” has no sense of true personhood, nor requires one to serve its purpose as an indicator of State of the Art
Wrongo buddy. That person is imbued with “ordinary skill in the art,” which is a quality indicative of a person.
I have never asserted that AI would be imbued with any aspect of personhood via patent law – so your strawman can be put back away.
Your reading comprehension needs work. I didn’t say you made that argument. What I am arguing is that no court is going to hold that AI is comparable to a person (e.g., a POSITA). While, a POSITA gets imbued with certain god-like abilities (e.g., knowledge of all prior art and human languages), no court is going to cross the line by asserting that an AI can be like a human. Hence, AI isn’t going to quality as a person having ordinary skill in the art. If you don’t understand the meta reasons for this, I suggest you follow politics more closely.
Go back and read that last exchange – it might help you ‘see’ the ball next time (that is, if you WANT to open your eyes).
You don’t do explanations. You just do naked assertions. Since I already know what you have asserted, there is nothing for me to go back and reconsider.