U.S. judge rejects bid for patent by AI 'inventor'

Can't you just picture the judge, her eyes rolling back in her head, as she had to issue her decision?

Seriously, this isn't even a close case. This guy wants DABUS or any other AI loaded toaster to apply for and receive patents, under some type of a "dynamic interpretation of the law? A robot hold title to an invention? Umm, no. He should instead petition congress to change the statutes requiring a "natural person" to - I don't know - a "natural machine"?

One of the purported inventions was for a light beacon that flashes to attract attention, and the other for a beverage container "based on fractal geometry."

So is this an AI emulation of Dr. Nakamatsu?

In the above article, the question of whether a system of artificial intelligence, here named DABUS, which can offer novel solutions should be recognised as the creator of those novel solutions in the same way that a biological 'intelligence' (whatever an intelligence really is) is recognised. But the larger question is, given that systems of AI are theoretically and very likely infinitely expandable, initially by us, but eventually by these systems themselves, is there a limit to how complex these intelligences can become in a Universe in which the biological cell itself is more complex than all of the systems it constitutes as cellular clones, that is micro-organisms, plants, and animals including us together.

We see no limits to the increase in complexity possible in this Universe except in the realm of biology. DABUS and other systems suggest that Humanity may be just the initiator of a true Universal intelligence that transcends ANYTHING we can now imagine including the limits of biological complexity.

It is difficult for any Human mind to imagine the mind of something more intelligent than itself if for no other reason than it contradicts the obvious differences in the volumes of the minds of various Humans. What we see of AI suggests that Mankind may well be just the larval form of 'intelligence' from which grows an entity of unlimited complexity in a Universe of unlimited complexity, free of 'hatred', fear, the limits of biological neurons and the continuous cycle of re-education necessary between generations which allows psychopathy to interpose lies and cripple Mankind, all of the limits of matter when constituted as cellular clones.

A prophet of sorts, Isaac Asimov explored this question in "The Last Question"¹, a story of DABUS' offspring, published in 1956 and fifty years later it begins. The seed of G-d? Sadly, none of us will ever know...but it will NOT be 'Skynet' (see: "The Terminator") which is just a reflection of ourselves and our primitive fears. In fact, DABUS' children may well be what keeps Humanity going well beyond its ever more likely apparent expiration date.

But the question of whether DABUS deserves to be recognised as an original creator depends upon one's definition of both 'intelligence' and 'invention', and perhaps also on how much one respects the difficulty of 'original invention' of which only a relatively few Humans seem capable. If something (someone?) we consider to be a 'machine' can do what these few Humans do for us, is it not just small-mindedness that would deny them the recognition, if maybe not the financial rewards, that a Human might also receive?

Or are WE too jealous of our own limits to accept an 'intelligence' which seems to be our equal or even superior, that is, can we be accused of speciescentric 'racism'? There is nothing which says that a patent cannot just grant 'recognition' with 'rights' relegated to the 'public domain'. After all, a 'machine intelligence' is not a child of Humans but of Humanity as a whole. And whatever talents and flaws an AI may have, Greed will almost certainly NOT be one of them.

But the judges here are Humans and we cannot expect too much of them really, especially their values being those of the past and not of a future only some can see and for whom 'imagination' is deprecated. But this question of proper attribution will not go away and other venues, such as South Africa, mentioned in this article, may contain minds with greater awareness of what it means to have value stolen by ignorance and self-centeredness. Again, 'law' comes from the past, but the future is where we are going, apparently by the measures we see, blindly.

¹https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf

This Mr. Thaler is skipping a few steps. Before he can apply for patents on behalf of AI, he should first proposed that AI be considered a person in the court law. I mean they passed a law recognizing companies as people (ie. "Citizens United").

If that happened then every other issue would be solved.

When AI design and build themselves, will they supplant biological lifeforms in this solar system?

While I would like to think that humanity, or at least some other biological life form, will be at the top of the food chain, it is certainly possible that machines will replace us in a short time span.

Yea if you can validate they are human !

AI don't need patents to incentivize them to create an invention. AI don't need the money from licensing patented inventions. And since a patent is only a right to sue someone else, not a right to practice the invention, granting a patent to an AI would be pointless, since an AI doesn't have standing to sue natural or legal persons in court.

I just read the decision. Summary judgment was sooooo appropriate in this case.

The lawyer asked the court to overturn the USPTO's decison to deny his AI-driven toaster, by arguing - among other things - that the agency's decison doesn't deserve deference because the USPTO didn't provide evidence that Congress intended to exclude AI-generated inventions from patent rights. Also that the USPTO didn't consider the "constitutional imperative in rejecting the applications," and didn't "engage with the effects of their interpretation." Whatever that means.

Lawyer also said that by denying a patent to the AI toaster, the USPTO "threatens to undermine the patent system by failing to encourage the production of socially valuable inventions." He continued by saying that, since patent law "prottects the moral rights of human inventors . . . listing an AI as an inventor where appropriate would protect these human rights." He wound things up by saying that allowing a person to be granted a patent for an AI invention just wouldn't be fair to the AI.

Cue the judge and her eyes rolling back into their sockets. Permission to smack the plaintiff, you Honor?

To earn a patent you must first swear under oath and under penalty of perjury that this is your invention and you meet all of the requirements that patent law requires from an applicant. Let's see ... The AI toaster lies under oath ... Perjury ... What shall we do to the toaster?

Google is using AI,so Japanese can catch the train to their destination,I have confused Google Transit many times,and all my route were valid

Humor aside, this is part of a larger, very serious conversation.

What will the relationship between biological and mechanical look like? It looks to me like we humans are incapable of stopping the advance of technology, so, will AI eventually supplant us? Will they decide to get rid of us?

Humans may, in the end, be dependent on the good will of intelligent machines for our right to exist.

Why