4 ms·

Right. Also what defines AI? If I ask DALL-E to draw me a fancy gearbox for an EV and it does and then I use that as inspiration to create a new type of gearbox

Right. Also what defines AI? If I ask DALL-E to draw me a fancy gearbox for an EV and it does and then I use that as inspiration to create a new type of gearbox, did I create it or did DALL-E? If I ask a similar tool to create a fancy shape for a fancy gear I want in a mechanism is my idea now tainted by AI? If my CAD software incorporates a CAD equivalent of copilot, can I no longer use that? Maybe it’s not the AI we should get rid of but patents?

imperio59 4y ago
The bigger question is did the thousands of drawings of gears used to train the model in the first place and their creators have any rights to their derivative works. Given the AI's output using the trained weights of its models were in part deduced using their works as training examples, one could argue that creators of the example pictures should have some portion of rights on any output from the AI Model... maybe...
- Cerium 4y ago
  You could use that argument to instead support that any idea created by the AI is not patentable, since it is derived mechanically from prior art.
  - shon 4y ago
    By that same logic though, isn’t society and technology moving a bit past the idea of prior art? Regardless of who or what generated the patent, because, Internet?
- pitaj 4y ago
  Doesn't that also apply to humans? We learn things and use them for future creative endeavors without even realizing.
  - ramoz 4y ago
    Yes, commentor above my create a fancy new car tire, but did they invent the tire?
  - Tagbert 4y ago
    Yes, that is why the myth of invention as a brilliant and isolated act of creation is harmful. We create new things by by recombining what we have experienced. Patents ignore the derivative nature of invention while weaponizing being first to file for an idea.
amelius 4y ago
The difference is that I can now claim that your invention is not novel, since I can create a similar result using the same tools.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  That's not how novelty works. You can "claim" anything you want, but unless it's in a filing to the PTAB or a court, it counts for nothing.
  - amelius 4y ago
    It is exactly how novelty works. It has to be non-obvious to a person skilled in the trade. And it is certainly obvious if it can be produced by a tool using a click of a button.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      Considering you apparently don't know the difference between novelty and obviousness, I think you should stop now. In particular, what "obviousness" actually means and how it's been interpreted in patent law for the past 150 years.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      > non-obvious to a person skilled in the trade As evaluated by a patent office with a profit motive to find it non-obvious. No, I'm not joking. USPTO is funded entirely from fees.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        You are right about that. In fact, they make a profit. Of course, once you've exhausted your two rounds of rejection with them, you have to pay again for another two, or appeal it, so they make money arguing with you, too. But yeah, probably more $$$ to issue you some worthless government paper.
    - nextaccountic 4y ago
verdverm 4y ago
What happens if the AI later becomes sentient and seeks remuneration?
daniel-cussen 4y ago
You created it because DALL-E is an automaton. If it has merit, the merit is derived from human work alone.

imperio59 4y ago

The bigger question is did the thousands of drawings of gears used to train the model in the first place and their creators have any rights to their derivative works. Given the AI's output using the trained weights of its models were in part deduced using their works as training examples, one could argue that creators of the example pictures should have some portion of rights on any output from the AI Model... maybe...

Cerium 4y ago
You could use that argument to instead support that any idea created by the AI is not patentable, since it is derived mechanically from prior art.
- shon 4y ago
  By that same logic though, isn’t society and technology moving a bit past the idea of prior art? Regardless of who or what generated the patent, because, Internet?
pitaj 4y ago
Doesn't that also apply to humans? We learn things and use them for future creative endeavors without even realizing.
- ramoz 4y ago
  Yes, commentor above my create a fancy new car tire, but did they invent the tire?
- Tagbert 4y ago
  Yes, that is why the myth of invention as a brilliant and isolated act of creation is harmful. We create new things by by recombining what we have experienced. Patents ignore the derivative nature of invention while weaponizing being first to file for an idea.

amelius 4y ago

The difference is that I can now claim that your invention is not novel, since I can create a similar result using the same tools.

AlbertCory 4y ago
That's not how novelty works. You can "claim" anything you want, but unless it's in a filing to the PTAB or a court, it counts for nothing.
- amelius 4y ago
  It is exactly how novelty works. It has to be non-obvious to a person skilled in the trade. And it is certainly obvious if it can be produced by a tool using a click of a button.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Considering you apparently don't know the difference between novelty and obviousness, I think you should stop now. In particular, what "obviousness" actually means and how it's been interpreted in patent law for the past 150 years.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    > non-obvious to a person skilled in the trade As evaluated by a patent office with a profit motive to find it non-obvious. No, I'm not joking. USPTO is funded entirely from fees.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      You are right about that. In fact, they make a profit. Of course, once you've exhausted your two rounds of rejection with them, you have to pay again for another two, or appeal it, so they make money arguing with you, too. But yeah, probably more $$$ to issue you some worthless government paper.
  - nextaccountic 4y ago

verdverm 4y ago

What happens if the AI later becomes sentient and seeks remuneration?

daniel-cussen 4y ago

You created it because DALL-E is an automaton. If it has merit, the merit is derived from human work alone.