If the bot is property of a company, the owner will claim the patent. I predict no serious legal challenges.Originally Posted by profloater
What do you mean by "open season"?
Order of Kilopi
If the bot is property of a company, the owner will claim the patent. I predict no serious legal challenges.
What do you mean by "open season"?
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
I would agree with that. In fact, typically when scientists use some AI program or something similar to do experiments, there is a prior agreement (memorandum of understanding) signed between the institutions on how the intellectual property derived from the experiments will be shared.
As above, so below
Suspended
I recently read a paper by Andrew Cooper called “A Mobile Robotic Chemist” that may point the way forward in many fields.
ISS should have a few.
Mostly HarmlessI suspect someone will get the idea of creating an AI to patent AI discoveries faster than the human ever could. I could see that character getting into a lawsuit for their troubles. An AI to navigate a website has to be easier than an AI to navigate Mars. You know there is a schemer, with really bad ideas out there.
Solfe
Order of Kilopi
Hey, just because I suggested it in post 6 doesn't mean I am an evil schemer.
Order of Kilopi
So long as so called AI does not author the patent, I am sure you are right. Although it may be that the algorithm is invented by a third party. I could still see objections if the algorithm is shared or obvious. The invention becomes a discovery. With a discovery, first to publish is still important but there is no inventive step. I still see problems ahead or should I say opportunities for patent lawyers? With larger companies able to use larger AI or data handling systems, it increases the advantage of large companies over small. However the huge online sharing favours small users of published patents countering that advantage. And that ironically can use searching bots. So advanced data handling, a better term than AI I think, cuts into patents both ways.
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
Order of Kilopi
I use the term AI in its current, information science meaning. AI may not be conscious but we're learning how it can be "creative"... in a totally non-human way, of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_media
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
The reference is about fakery such as using Illustrator to falsify images. It is not close to invention as understood by patent examiners. However, if you teach a current system how to write a patent, for example by making it read good patents, there is no doubt it could generate new patents using keywords or even half baked human ideas. Circuit diagrams can be studied by AI and corrected or optimised by automatically simulating the response of the circuit, to give one example. Could an examiner necessarily detect an automated patent application? The point of this thread is to applaud the US patent office In principle but to wonder whether it can hold the line about ownership of the single inventive step.
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
Order of Kilopi
No, it is just one example of machines manipulating information to produce new results without direct human input. I don't know anything about patent laws, so I can't comment on that part.
Last edited by Noclevername; 2020-Jul-19 at 08:50 PM.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
Maybe patenting will become obsolete when our AI invents all the best new stuff and just gives it to us.
Order of Kilopi
That would depend more on massive changes in laws and economy than on developments in technology.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
Maybe knowledge worth protecting will go secret again. It is possible and is perhaps a trend with encryption progress
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
Order of Kilopi
It won't be necessary to repeal patent laws. People will lose interest in patents when no one wants to buy human inventions.
Order of Kilopi
I'd file that under "possible but not plausible". Some human will always want to claim the money.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
There would be no money to claim. No one would want their inventions when the AI has already produced something better and doesn't care about patents.
Order of Kilopi
The AI's inventions (and the resulting income) will be claimed by someone. Bet on it.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
The whole point of the patent deal between society and the inventor is to protect investment by granting limited exclusivity to recoup the investment and make profit. It also gives the government a chance to grab ideas that are considered strategic. The motivation for any true AI has yet to be formulated outside of SF, but motivation , I think that could be called a feeling. If AI is given or evolves feelings, then the conflict between secrecy and sharing will pass from humans to AI.
So if the patent office just banned algorithms as inventors, there would be no argument. There is no AI yet as has been pointed out, but the debate and effort to achieve AI is not anywhere near a conclusion.
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
Order of Kilopi
By "true" AI, you mean conscious AI? I meant AI as currently used in computer science.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
Years ago I remember writing a proposal for an “intelligent thermostat” that learned a pattern of use. I may have referred to Artificial Intelligence but never meant it to be conscious. Now we have learning systems that can cycle through millions of experiments to find new catalysts, as mentioned earlier. So I guess AI has many meanings within computer science. Similarly creativity or invention can have many uses as words but must be tightly defined in patents. When I noticed the news about the patent office, the new rule directly implies that AI is not inventive and is not expected to be, by that office, even if it has a go at invention!
I guess the examiners will have to devise a Turing test to see if an applicant is Human, or Human enough. It would be irresponsible although tempting to have a go at designing a computer based Text and image generator to try to get through the process.
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
Order of Kilopi
I think that is the interesting issue. At present, AI doesn’t ask to be given rights. But what happens if an AI becomes sentient and starts demanding a share?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
If a person could plausibly design a method of fooling a Turing test using existing processes, doesn't that render the entire Turing test useless?
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
A conscious non-human entity demanding its own rights or ownership would be very interesting to see the results, it might impact other areas such as Corporation "personhood".
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
Yes, for sure. It would be a very interesting problem for us to confront.
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
In relation to patents the Turing style test is not useless but difficult. An examiner only has the words and pictures. Most human versions would include personal interaction. We already know a typical person cannot detect an actor behind the scenes, being overwhelmed by the appearance of the person delivering the responses. The examiner has no chance. So in relation to the first post I fear the ruling is well intended but very hard to apply. So the office will refuse patents claimed by a self identified AI but surely that is not the worry? Well, I suppose newly conscious AI will worry about that! Like a patent examiner, will any of us know when that threshold is passed? We are having enough trouble evaluating bots!
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
Order of Kilopi
As far as General AI goes, what if we get an honest one? They might refuse the Turing Test entirely on the grounds that a lie is a corruption of information. A being made of information could very well see that as perverse.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
Can you refuse the Turing Test? I think it's probably not possible, because the refusal itself would constitute an answer, and actually one that might convince the human that the AI is actually self-aware, which would mean that the AI would have deliberately or unwittingly passed the test... In fact, simply not answering questions could be seen as an answer, and giving nonsensical ones could be interpreted as the computer deliberately trying to demonstrate that it is not self-aware...
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
I don't think sentient computers would survive long. I am not aware of any species that communicates as a whole. If it was a viable way for a species to survive, it would seem that there would be many species of animals that would act as one whole, the whole time. It doesn't happen that I am aware of. Computers have the ability for all computers to be interconnected. I would think it would have to be a system that thought completely independent from other systems.
The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.
Order of Kilopi
What does "communicate as a whole" mean?
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Order of Kilopi
All the computers in the world make decisions and communicating as if they are one entity.
The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.
Order of Kilopi
I see what you mean now. But I kind of disagree. I don't think that they do that. I mean, you could have a supercomputer doing calculations without being connected to the Internet. And also, I'm not sure why that means they would be short-lived.
As above, so below
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote