4 ms·

Just file the patent as your own self?

by rational_indian 3y ago

olliej 3y ago
That would be perjury?
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  Would it?
  - DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
    Unless the AI's training data was 100% your own material, yes, obviously.
    - speedgoose 3y ago
      It’s not obvious to me.
    - ajhurliman 3y ago
      Can’t tell if this is satirical or not, but if it is: lol, good one
    - jimmaswell 3y ago
      What human brain contains 100% its own material?
    - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
      That's absolutely not true. You can file a patent based on idea that you had that came from discussions with other people. For example, somebody came up with a wheeled cart, somebody came up with an engine and you have an idea to just combine those two ideas by putting an engine on a car. It is patentable even if the material is not 100% your own. What is patentable is a novel idea. You need to bring something new to the table, and that AI definitely can do. The fact the knowledge it uses comes from training material has nothing to do with it. Almost everything factual you know comes from other people anyway.
      - olliej 3y ago
        When you file a patent based on a "novel" application or combination of existing ideas, or ideas from other sources, those ideas are not something you can patent. e.g in "somebody came up with a wheeled cart, somebody came up with an engine" your patent would not cover either sub idea (contextually, the thing the "AI" came up with), so all something needs to do is say given the non-patentable idea you got from a machine your patent covers an obvious application then your patent is invalid. A whole bunch of laws passed over the last decade to try to limit the validity of "X but on a Y" (where Y is in the theme of computer, internet, etc) style BS patents.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      That's really not obvious; nobody trains humans on 100% their own material, but we let humans patent things.
    - olliej 3y ago
      No, the point of the ruling is that given an arbitrary amount of data, if a machine can generate the "invention" (in the patent sense) then you cannot patent it. Claiming that you invented the thing because you setup the AI would render the ruling meaningless. The whole point is the machine is mechanically converting a pile of data into a "invention", and it does not matter where the data comes from. When the machine does that, you personally did not, and when you claim in a patent application that you invented a thing, you're saying that you did the thinking or reasoning or whatever. Otherwise your teachers could wait for you to come up with an patentable idea and patent it claiming that it was their invention. Either the AI is conscious and alive, etc, etc in which case you're the teacher in the argument (and can't claim to be an inventor but rather a slave owner) or it's a mechanical device operating over data and producing a functionally deterministic result (the randomness in "AI" is artificially added solely to produce the appearance of non-deterministic output) in which case there's no invention: anyone could put the same data in and get the same thing out so on.
  - olliej 3y ago
    The patent office says "if an AI comes up with it's not patentable" so you turn around and sign a piece of paper that says you came up with it. How is that not perjury? I'm not making a statement on "should a machine generated idea" be patentable (my sense is no, but pharmaceutical corporations have plenty of patents on things that they found bacteria produced, so ???). My statement is: when you file a patent, you sign a sworn statement (federal in the US, presumably similar conceptually in other jurisdictions) that all your statements are true and accurate. If a machine came up with the patent, and you know that is not patentable under law, so you claim that _you_ came up with it, then that is an objectively false statement. You then signed and submitted to your relevant government body as a sworn statement. Again this is an objectively false statement, that you provide sworn testimony is true. That's definitionally perjury. Other people have made comments about combining ideas from others, but when you do that you have to state that those ideas come from another source that is not covered by the patent, unless those other entities are co-authors of the patent. e.g. if an "AI" comes up with an idea, and you combine it in a "novel" way with something else, the "AI" generated part is still not patentable, and cannot be covered by the patent.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - preommr 3y ago
      From the article: > But he added: "The judgment does not preclude a person using an AI to devise an invention – in such a scenario, it would be possible to apply for a patent provided that person is identified as the inventor." ------ > The patent office says "if an AI comes up with it's not patentable" Where are you getting this from?
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Did you just cut & paste the AI's output into the patent application? Or were you a competent expert in the area - who read through what it said, maybe did some real-world experimenting, made various changes to improve the idea, etc, etc.?
saiya-jin 3y ago
Yeah a trivial bypass, anybody in say eastern Europe or Russia would immediately think about this path, that's one of million ways communism destroyed morality of whole region for generations to come. Change things a bit without affecting meaning and voila. I see some dark path in patent world, corporations are amoral by principle so they will try to milk this even if just to defend themselves from everybody else doing it.

Just file the patent as your own self?

olliej 3y ago

That would be perjury?

CaptainFever 3y ago
Would it?
- DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
  Unless the AI's training data was 100% your own material, yes, obviously.
  - speedgoose 3y ago
    It’s not obvious to me.
  - ajhurliman 3y ago
    Can’t tell if this is satirical or not, but if it is: lol, good one
  - jimmaswell 3y ago
    What human brain contains 100% its own material?
  - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
    That's absolutely not true. You can file a patent based on idea that you had that came from discussions with other people. For example, somebody came up with a wheeled cart, somebody came up with an engine and you have an idea to just combine those two ideas by putting an engine on a car. It is patentable even if the material is not 100% your own. What is patentable is a novel idea. You need to bring something new to the table, and that AI definitely can do. The fact the knowledge it uses comes from training material has nothing to do with it. Almost everything factual you know comes from other people anyway.
    - olliej 3y ago
      When you file a patent based on a "novel" application or combination of existing ideas, or ideas from other sources, those ideas are not something you can patent. e.g in "somebody came up with a wheeled cart, somebody came up with an engine" your patent would not cover either sub idea (contextually, the thing the "AI" came up with), so all something needs to do is say given the non-patentable idea you got from a machine your patent covers an obvious application then your patent is invalid. A whole bunch of laws passed over the last decade to try to limit the validity of "X but on a Y" (where Y is in the theme of computer, internet, etc) style BS patents.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    That's really not obvious; nobody trains humans on 100% their own material, but we let humans patent things.
  - olliej 3y ago
    No, the point of the ruling is that given an arbitrary amount of data, if a machine can generate the "invention" (in the patent sense) then you cannot patent it. Claiming that you invented the thing because you setup the AI would render the ruling meaningless. The whole point is the machine is mechanically converting a pile of data into a "invention", and it does not matter where the data comes from. When the machine does that, you personally did not, and when you claim in a patent application that you invented a thing, you're saying that you did the thinking or reasoning or whatever. Otherwise your teachers could wait for you to come up with an patentable idea and patent it claiming that it was their invention. Either the AI is conscious and alive, etc, etc in which case you're the teacher in the argument (and can't claim to be an inventor but rather a slave owner) or it's a mechanical device operating over data and producing a functionally deterministic result (the randomness in "AI" is artificially added solely to produce the appearance of non-deterministic output) in which case there's no invention: anyone could put the same data in and get the same thing out so on.
- olliej 3y ago
  The patent office says "if an AI comes up with it's not patentable" so you turn around and sign a piece of paper that says you came up with it. How is that not perjury? I'm not making a statement on "should a machine generated idea" be patentable (my sense is no, but pharmaceutical corporations have plenty of patents on things that they found bacteria produced, so ???). My statement is: when you file a patent, you sign a sworn statement (federal in the US, presumably similar conceptually in other jurisdictions) that all your statements are true and accurate. If a machine came up with the patent, and you know that is not patentable under law, so you claim that _you_ came up with it, then that is an objectively false statement. You then signed and submitted to your relevant government body as a sworn statement. Again this is an objectively false statement, that you provide sworn testimony is true. That's definitionally perjury. Other people have made comments about combining ideas from others, but when you do that you have to state that those ideas come from another source that is not covered by the patent, unless those other entities are co-authors of the patent. e.g. if an "AI" comes up with an idea, and you combine it in a "novel" way with something else, the "AI" generated part is still not patentable, and cannot be covered by the patent.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - preommr 3y ago
    From the article: > But he added: "The judgment does not preclude a person using an AI to devise an invention – in such a scenario, it would be possible to apply for a patent provided that person is identified as the inventor." ------ > The patent office says "if an AI comes up with it's not patentable" Where are you getting this from?
bell-cot 3y ago
Did you just cut & paste the AI's output into the patent application? Or were you a competent expert in the area - who read through what it said, maybe did some real-world experimenting, made various changes to improve the idea, etc, etc.?

saiya-jin 3y ago

Yeah a trivial bypass, anybody in say eastern Europe or Russia would immediately think about this path, that's one of million ways communism destroyed morality of whole region for generations to come. Change things a bit without affecting meaning and voila. I see some dark path in patent world, corporations are amoral by principle so they will try to milk this even if just to defend themselves from everybody else doing it.