5 ms·

I find it hard to believe an AI invented something without human steering. If there was any human steering, prompting, hints etc., then would I think (as a laym

I find it hard to believe an AI invented something without human steering. If there was any human steering, prompting, hints etc., then would I think (as a layman) that the person invented it with AI assistance.

smolder 3y ago
Maybe this is a good test for what isn't novel. If an LLM trained on our existing creative output can be prompted invent some patentable solution to a problem, then maybe that shouldn't be patentable. Tada, a much less stupid patent system.
- jimmaswell 3y ago
  You can prompt GPT to "invent" anything if you know the result you want - it's extremely suggestable. Nothing would be patentable.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - smolder 3y ago
    I don't think you understood me. If I ask GPT5 to "write a patent application for a method to optimize a program that does X, which is not currently patented", and it produces something that would be accepted as patentable, without that patentable idea being in its training data... that should not be patentable. If I ask GPT5 to "write a patent application for this specific method of optimizing a program that does X, described as follows: [...]" that's completely irrelevant because the LLM clearly isn't inventing anything, whether or not the idea is in the training data already. Being able to get an LLM to puke any idea back at you was not the point. If the idea is so obvious that an LLM can infer it from training data not including that specific idea, then it's not very novel. If by some good fortune LLMs start to spit out truly novel ideas, I will be blown away most of all, but those ideas probably shouldn't be patentable either, based on the principles behind the patent system. Granting temporary monopolies to people based on the output of true machine intelligence only on a 1st come 1st serve basis would hurt the whole world. Being first in line to ask isn't virtue.
    - smallnix 3y ago
      > Being first in line to ask isn't virtue. But it incentives to ask and also to share the good answers with everyone.
      - smolder 3y ago
        That's true, but the standard (here at least) 20 years seems a ridiculously strong incentive for just that.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    To further expand with examples, ChatGPT has confidently told me how to make a warp drive and how to start unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics. I like it, but (fortunately for my continued economic relevance), it's not quite there yet.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
So, if I tell Apple Computers at the end of last millennium 'you should make a music player' then I would have been the inventor of all the facets of the iPod? Sometimes, but rarely, recognising the problem _is_ the invention; but outside of that I'd say the person in this process hasn't invented something and whatever development the computer generated should thus be unpatentable. They'll at least get first-to-market benefits.

smolder 3y ago

Maybe this is a good test for what isn't novel. If an LLM trained on our existing creative output can be prompted invent some patentable solution to a problem, then maybe that shouldn't be patentable. Tada, a much less stupid patent system.

jimmaswell 3y ago
You can prompt GPT to "invent" anything if you know the result you want - it's extremely suggestable. Nothing would be patentable.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- smolder 3y ago
  I don't think you understood me. If I ask GPT5 to "write a patent application for a method to optimize a program that does X, which is not currently patented", and it produces something that would be accepted as patentable, without that patentable idea being in its training data... that should not be patentable. If I ask GPT5 to "write a patent application for this specific method of optimizing a program that does X, described as follows: [...]" that's completely irrelevant because the LLM clearly isn't inventing anything, whether or not the idea is in the training data already. Being able to get an LLM to puke any idea back at you was not the point. If the idea is so obvious that an LLM can infer it from training data not including that specific idea, then it's not very novel. If by some good fortune LLMs start to spit out truly novel ideas, I will be blown away most of all, but those ideas probably shouldn't be patentable either, based on the principles behind the patent system. Granting temporary monopolies to people based on the output of true machine intelligence only on a 1st come 1st serve basis would hurt the whole world. Being first in line to ask isn't virtue.
  - smallnix 3y ago
    > Being first in line to ask isn't virtue. But it incentives to ask and also to share the good answers with everyone.
    - smolder 3y ago
      That's true, but the standard (here at least) 20 years seems a ridiculously strong incentive for just that.
- ben_w 3y ago
  To further expand with examples, ChatGPT has confidently told me how to make a warp drive and how to start unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics. I like it, but (fortunately for my continued economic relevance), it's not quite there yet.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

So, if I tell Apple Computers at the end of last millennium 'you should make a music player' then I would have been the inventor of all the facets of the iPod? Sometimes, but rarely, recognising the problem _is_ the invention; but outside of that I'd say the person in this process hasn't invented something and whatever development the computer generated should thus be unpatentable. They'll at least get first-to-market benefits.