4 ms·

Yeah the rest of the world declined this because the AI (1) isn’t a legal person (2) wouldn’t be able to confer ownership and (3) identify when the patent wa

Yeah the rest of the world declined this because the AI (1) isn’t a legal person (2) wouldn’t be able to confer ownership and (3) identify when the patent was being infringed. This is silly. Great theater, but nothing else. That being said AI patents are an issue, but I don’t think they’re quite there yet.

cmpb 5y ago
We're a long way off from Star Trek's Data / "Measure of a Man" scenario, when the AI can fight for itself.
pfundstein 5y ago
I would suggest instead of viewing AI as the creator, it should be viewed as a tool, and the person/team who built the AI as the true creators.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Isn't that effectively what this outcome does? The AI is listed as the creator, but the patent is held by the person that crated the AI. IANAL, but doesn't that mean the Dr Thaler has the legal rights to the patent? South Africa has become the first country to award a patent that names an artificial intelligence as its inventor and the AI’s owner as the patent's owner. Edit - I not claiming this is the correct result. Just looking for clarification on what this means, legally speaking.
  - pfundstein 5y ago
    No, what I'm saying is that the AI is a tool which its creators use to create the invention, nothing more. It doesn't get listed on the patent in the same way other tools don't.
st_goliath 5y ago
Yeah, I think the key aspect of the story isn't that they somehow convinced the patent office, but more likely that the patent office in South Africa was the first one they tried that didn't bother to check if the people listed as inventors actually exist. (Given that we don't have their side of the story and they are only listed as not having rejected it)
himinlomax 5y ago
> That being said AI patents are an issue, but I don’t think they’re quite there yet. The 1981 ZX81 Chess program that ran in 1kiB of RAM would have astonished a 19th century observer and would have qualified as "artificial intelligence" from their point of view. What's currently called "AI" is not that much different from that program. Claiming it has somehow any kind of personhood is just nonsensical, and probably a publicity stunt. Why not list SPICE or your favorite finite elements solver in your patent application as a contributor?
- nIHOPp6MQw0f5ut 5y ago
  Over time we realize things we thought required intelligence turn out to not.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    The contention here is not about intelligence, but personhood.
- Closi 5y ago
  > What's currently called "AI" is not that much different from that program. It's pretty significantly different to that program, both in terms of scope, complexity and output. I'm going to assume by "person" we mean some kind of intelligence which appears to be self-aware, or that can interact with humans to make it difficult to distinguish between human and machine (what's a human in terms of thinking, if a machine can output the same thoughts?) We aren't anywhere near there yet, but if you contrast the 1981 chess program's ability to be considered a "person" vs GPT-3's ability to be considered a "person", the second is substantially closer to that end position.
  - Peritract 5y ago
    It's significantly different in degree, but not in kind. Modern ML is vastly more complex, capable, and widely-applicable than the first chess programs, but it's not intelligent, and doesn't have any greater ability to be 'considered a person'. An aeroplane is a much more complex, capable, and widely-applicable vehicle than a bicycle, but it's no more human or more generally intelligent.

cmpb 5y ago

We're a long way off from Star Trek's Data / "Measure of a Man" scenario, when the AI can fight for itself.

pfundstein 5y ago

I would suggest instead of viewing AI as the creator, it should be viewed as a tool, and the person/team who built the AI as the true creators.

alistairSH 5y ago
Isn't that effectively what this outcome does? The AI is listed as the creator, but the patent is held by the person that crated the AI. IANAL, but doesn't that mean the Dr Thaler has the legal rights to the patent? South Africa has become the first country to award a patent that names an artificial intelligence as its inventor and the AI’s owner as the patent's owner. Edit - I not claiming this is the correct result. Just looking for clarification on what this means, legally speaking.
- pfundstein 5y ago
  No, what I'm saying is that the AI is a tool which its creators use to create the invention, nothing more. It doesn't get listed on the patent in the same way other tools don't.

st_goliath 5y ago

Yeah, I think the key aspect of the story isn't that they somehow convinced the patent office, but more likely that the patent office in South Africa was the first one they tried that didn't bother to check if the people listed as inventors actually exist. (Given that we don't have their side of the story and they are only listed as not having rejected it)

himinlomax 5y ago

> That being said AI patents are an issue, but I don’t think they’re quite there yet. The 1981 ZX81 Chess program that ran in 1kiB of RAM would have astonished a 19th century observer and would have qualified as "artificial intelligence" from their point of view. What's currently called "AI" is not that much different from that program. Claiming it has somehow any kind of personhood is just nonsensical, and probably a publicity stunt. Why not list SPICE or your favorite finite elements solver in your patent application as a contributor?

nIHOPp6MQw0f5ut 5y ago
Over time we realize things we thought required intelligence turn out to not.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  The contention here is not about intelligence, but personhood.
Closi 5y ago
> What's currently called "AI" is not that much different from that program. It's pretty significantly different to that program, both in terms of scope, complexity and output. I'm going to assume by "person" we mean some kind of intelligence which appears to be self-aware, or that can interact with humans to make it difficult to distinguish between human and machine (what's a human in terms of thinking, if a machine can output the same thoughts?) We aren't anywhere near there yet, but if you contrast the 1981 chess program's ability to be considered a "person" vs GPT-3's ability to be considered a "person", the second is substantially closer to that end position.
- Peritract 5y ago
  It's significantly different in degree, but not in kind. Modern ML is vastly more complex, capable, and widely-applicable than the first chess programs, but it's not intelligent, and doesn't have any greater ability to be 'considered a person'. An aeroplane is a much more complex, capable, and widely-applicable vehicle than a bicycle, but it's no more human or more generally intelligent.