7 ms·

One thing I never understood.. is who actually checks for honesty in this space? For example we heard AI can't patent inventions, or copyright pictures/images.

One thing I never understood.. is who actually checks for honesty in this space? For example we heard AI can't patent inventions, or copyright pictures/images. But how do you prove that my picture, or invention even used AI? If I remove watermarks from AI pictures, either through code or photoshop; Or just credit myself for the invention (I made it up in my head), how is this enforced? I see the only way of this AI stuff backfiring is if you tell someone.. yeah I got this idea with AI, and with the introduction of local LLMs, who will be the wiser?

lallysingh 3y ago
If someone challenged your patent, they can try to prove that you used an AI.
- Delumine 3y ago
  But there are AIs made to self-correct that they aren't AI. Humanizing their work. Likewise If I use AI to give me a blueprint of an idea, but I use my brain and methodologies to "reverse-engineer" it, how is this even enforced. I doubt someone submitting to the USPTO is going to include "AS A LLM" somewhere in the submission lol.
  - nonameiguess 3y ago
    And people who poison their spouses generally try to make it look like an accident. No law is perfectly enforceable but that is a secondary question to what should be the law.
  - gowld 3y ago
    The requirement for a patent is that it is novel and non-obvious. If a "person having ordinary skill in the art" can create it, it's not novel. If anyone with a ChatGPT subscription can create it, it's "obvious". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_i...
- hk__2 3y ago
  > If someone challenged your patent, they can try to prove that you used an AI. That not enough, they also have to prove that the AI did most of the work. From the article: > On Tuesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) said that to obtain a patent, a real person must have made a “significant contribution” to the invention This seems logical; it would be foolish (and impossible!) to completely forbid people to use AI.
  - lallysingh 3y ago
    I think that 'proof' would be making a prompt showing the AI's output, with it having done most of the "innovation."
    - hk__2 3y ago
      One could argue that writing the right prompt is part of the innovation.
KoolKat23 3y ago
You misunderstand it, you can use AI or whatever as a tool but the patent must be applied for under your name with you as the creator.
- Delumine 3y ago
  I don't see a reason why anyone would want to patent their invention under an LLM though
  - whaleofatw2022 3y ago
    The thought that crosses my mind, is an AI company could try to put in TOS such a requirement, so that they could get royalties.
    - suby 3y ago
      This is a very good ruling then, from that perspective.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Someone tried to do it already. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/us-court-rules-once-again-that-ai-software-cant-hold-a-patent/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/us-co... I think Dr Thaler is trying to make a philosophical point. But I wonder if in the corporate space it would be desirable to have a patent that is just immediately assigned to the non-sentient AI? (In general I wonder this about AI’s, they seem to be a way to give the company itself, beyond the humans which compose it, the ability to make decisions and create things).
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      The rights of a patent can be assigned to anyone by the patent author. So an AI run businesses just needs to keep a human around for their invention patenting and rights assigning process. AI’s won’t have any trouble creating the supporting artifact trail. Soon the practice of AI/corporate entities moving assets through “shell” people to launder human personhood may be commonplace. Dystopia is just around the corner.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cal85 3y ago
Some rules are just very hard to enforce when a new technology comes along. And when that happens, breaking the rules becomes widespread (eg, downloading MP3s back in Napster days), and industries are eventually forced to find new business models (like most recorded music moving to cheap subscription services, and musicians focusing more on live shows to make money). I’m not saying this is good or bad, it’s just how it is. Sometimes a business model is only viable in a world before some specific technology comes along and disrupts it. EDIT: btw I'm just addressing the thing you asked about, but I don't think it's relevant to the article. The headline just says that an AI tool can't be a patent holder itself - which is obvious; AI tools are not legally people, so they can't register patents any more than they can hold shares in a company or vote in elections. Doesn't mean people can't patent inventions that they used AI tools to develop.
freejazz 3y ago
>One thing I never understood.. is who actually checks for honesty in this space? Parties with interests. If I'm litigating against a patent, I want that patent declared invalid. Anyone can initiate an IPR challenging the validity of patents as well.
ericmcer 3y ago
Agree, this feels like an example of the government adding hoops for people to jump through.
gnopgnip 3y ago
The same as everywhere else, the courts. You can claim you just made it all up in your head. The other party that will claim your invention or image is not protected and they are not infringing. A judge or jury decides. And before this the copyright or patent office will filter out a lot of obvious applications that don't qualify. So really unless you are pursuing others for infringement(and they are making a lot of money), no one cares if you are honest about using AI
syspec 3y ago
AI

lallysingh 3y ago

If someone challenged your patent, they can try to prove that you used an AI.

Delumine 3y ago
But there are AIs made to self-correct that they aren't AI. Humanizing their work. Likewise If I use AI to give me a blueprint of an idea, but I use my brain and methodologies to "reverse-engineer" it, how is this even enforced. I doubt someone submitting to the USPTO is going to include "AS A LLM" somewhere in the submission lol.
- nonameiguess 3y ago
  And people who poison their spouses generally try to make it look like an accident. No law is perfectly enforceable but that is a secondary question to what should be the law.
- gowld 3y ago
  The requirement for a patent is that it is novel and non-obvious. If a "person having ordinary skill in the art" can create it, it's not novel. If anyone with a ChatGPT subscription can create it, it's "obvious". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_i...
hk__2 3y ago
> If someone challenged your patent, they can try to prove that you used an AI. That not enough, they also have to prove that the AI did most of the work. From the article: > On Tuesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) said that to obtain a patent, a real person must have made a “significant contribution” to the invention This seems logical; it would be foolish (and impossible!) to completely forbid people to use AI.
- lallysingh 3y ago
  I think that 'proof' would be making a prompt showing the AI's output, with it having done most of the "innovation."
  - hk__2 3y ago
    One could argue that writing the right prompt is part of the innovation.

KoolKat23 3y ago

You misunderstand it, you can use AI or whatever as a tool but the patent must be applied for under your name with you as the creator.

Delumine 3y ago
I don't see a reason why anyone would want to patent their invention under an LLM though
- whaleofatw2022 3y ago
  The thought that crosses my mind, is an AI company could try to put in TOS such a requirement, so that they could get royalties.
  - suby 3y ago
    This is a very good ruling then, from that perspective.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Someone tried to do it already. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/us-court-rules-once-again-that-ai-software-cant-hold-a-patent/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/us-co... I think Dr Thaler is trying to make a philosophical point. But I wonder if in the corporate space it would be desirable to have a patent that is just immediately assigned to the non-sentient AI? (In general I wonder this about AI’s, they seem to be a way to give the company itself, beyond the humans which compose it, the ability to make decisions and create things).
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    The rights of a patent can be assigned to anyone by the patent author. So an AI run businesses just needs to keep a human around for their invention patenting and rights assigning process. AI’s won’t have any trouble creating the supporting artifact trail. Soon the practice of AI/corporate entities moving assets through “shell” people to launder human personhood may be commonplace. Dystopia is just around the corner.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cal85 3y ago

Some rules are just very hard to enforce when a new technology comes along. And when that happens, breaking the rules becomes widespread (eg, downloading MP3s back in Napster days), and industries are eventually forced to find new business models (like most recorded music moving to cheap subscription services, and musicians focusing more on live shows to make money). I’m not saying this is good or bad, it’s just how it is. Sometimes a business model is only viable in a world before some specific technology comes along and disrupts it. EDIT: btw I'm just addressing the thing you asked about, but I don't think it's relevant to the article. The headline just says that an AI tool can't be a patent holder itself - which is obvious; AI tools are not legally people, so they can't register patents any more than they can hold shares in a company or vote in elections. Doesn't mean people can't patent inventions that they used AI tools to develop.

freejazz 3y ago

>One thing I never understood.. is who actually checks for honesty in this space? Parties with interests. If I'm litigating against a patent, I want that patent declared invalid. Anyone can initiate an IPR challenging the validity of patents as well.

ericmcer 3y ago

Agree, this feels like an example of the government adding hoops for people to jump through.

gnopgnip 3y ago

The same as everywhere else, the courts. You can claim you just made it all up in your head. The other party that will claim your invention or image is not protected and they are not infringing. A judge or jury decides. And before this the copyright or patent office will filter out a lot of obvious applications that don't qualify. So really unless you are pursuing others for infringement(and they are making a lot of money), no one cares if you are honest about using AI

syspec 3y ago