I would compare the AI in the "inventor" question to a set of dice. Suppose you have a set of dice that when rolled generates an idea for an invention. If an id

I would compare the AI in the "inventor" question to a set of dice. Suppose you have a set of dice that when rolled generates an idea for an invention. If an idea is rolled that is unique enough to secure a patent, who is the "inventor"? The person who rolled the dice? The person who manufactured the dice (and therefore the idea generation algorithm)? In any case, attributing the invention to the dice themselves is obviously silly. In cases like this I think it comes down to who is the first person to meaningfully act to bring the idea to fruition. Rolling the dice in isolation is meaningless. But deciding that a particular rolled idea is worth patenting (and therefore acting as a filter to disregard all the generated ideas that aren't worth pursuing) is a meaningful contribution. By sheer act of pursuing the patent, Dr. Thaler has made himself a fundamental part of the creative process. The AI here is no different than idea dice. Nor is it different from any program that jams two words together in hope of producing a "novel" idea. The only difference is that the AI, hopefully, produces less chaff to sift through. Still, the sifting is a creative process.