4 ms·

Art and text generated by AI are not eligible for copyright. I wonder if the same would apply to medicine.

BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
Copyright means nothing anymore.
claritise 3y ago
Not sure why this would matter, generally medication is incredibly expensive because of the research that needs to go into it not scaling well to the amount of people that might need it for rare disease. If drug discovery costs go down to almost nothing, and trialling is greatly assisted with AI driven protein folding, it would almost become trivial to cure most diseases.
b800h 3y ago
In some jurisdictions - I would argue that will blatantly be overturned, as it's a limit on economic activity, and we know what happens to those.
Gigachad 3y ago
Where are you seeing this? Everything I saw is that they are eligible for copyright, and the copyright is owned by the person who ran the tool and selected the output. The news was dumb media bait where people tried to claim the AI itself owned the copyright which makes no sense since AI is not a legal entity able to own things.
- evolve2k 3y ago
  Judge declared it about a month ago. Positon was the human edited parts were but machine generated parts were not. Sorry don’t have the reference at hand.
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    Seems almost impossible to enforce. Say I generate an image, then go in photoshop and play with the levels/colors. Every single pixel was modified by me. And the only way you could use it without infringing on my copyright is to work out what the original image was, which is impossible.
    - evolve2k 3y ago
      We’ll if I then copied your work, onus would be on you to explain what you did beyond just promoting the engine with ‘astronaut on horse’.
mbreese 3y ago
You wouldn’t copyright an RNA sequence like this. While it is novel, I’m not sure you’d be able to get a copyright on it, as it’s a set sequence. Instead, you’d patent it. And I’m not aware that that question has yet been asked. Especially when computationally driven drug design has a rich history, I’d expect for AI generated work to be patentable.

Not sure why this would matter, generally medication is incredibly expensive because of the research that needs to go into it not scaling well to the amount of people that might need it for rare disease. If drug discovery costs go down to almost nothing, and trialling is greatly assisted with AI driven protein folding, it would almost become trivial to cure most diseases.

b800h 3y ago

In some jurisdictions - I would argue that will blatantly be overturned, as it's a limit on economic activity, and we know what happens to those.

Gigachad 3y ago

Where are you seeing this? Everything I saw is that they are eligible for copyright, and the copyright is owned by the person who ran the tool and selected the output. The news was dumb media bait where people tried to claim the AI itself owned the copyright which makes no sense since AI is not a legal entity able to own things.

evolve2k 3y ago
Judge declared it about a month ago. Positon was the human edited parts were but machine generated parts were not. Sorry don’t have the reference at hand.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  Seems almost impossible to enforce. Say I generate an image, then go in photoshop and play with the levels/colors. Every single pixel was modified by me. And the only way you could use it without infringing on my copyright is to work out what the original image was, which is impossible.
  - evolve2k 3y ago
    We’ll if I then copied your work, onus would be on you to explain what you did beyond just promoting the engine with ‘astronaut on horse’.

mbreese 3y ago

You wouldn’t copyright an RNA sequence like this. While it is novel, I’m not sure you’d be able to get a copyright on it, as it’s a set sequence. Instead, you’d patent it. And I’m not aware that that question has yet been asked. Especially when computationally driven drug design has a rich history, I’d expect for AI generated work to be patentable.