Experts: AI should be recognized as inventors in patent law
- Reference: 1653736987
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/05/28/experts_ai_patent_law/
- Source link:
Alexandra George, and Toby Walsh, professors of law and AI, respectively, believe failing to recognize machines as inventors could have long-lasting impacts on economies and societies.
"If courts and governments decide that AI-made inventions cannot be patented, the implications could be huge," they wrote in a comment article [1]published in Nature. "Funders and businesses would be less incentivized to pursue useful research using AI inventors when a return on their investment could be limited. Society could miss out on the development of worthwhile and life-saving inventions."
[2]
Today's laws pretty much only recognize humans as inventors with IP rights protecting them from patent infringement. [3]Attempts to [4]overturn the human-centric laws have failed. Stephen Thaler, a developer who insists AI invented his company's products, has sued trademark offices in multiple countries, including the US and UK to no avail.
[5]
[6]
George and Walsh are siding with Thaler's position. "Creating bespoke law and an international treaty will not be easy, but not creating them will be worse. AI is changing the way that science is done and inventions are made. We need fit-for-purpose IP law to ensure it serves the public good," they wrote.
Dutch police generate deepfake of dead teenager in criminal case
A video clip with the face of a 13-year-old boy, who was shot dead outside a metro station in the Netherlands, swapped onto a body using AI technology was released by police.
Sedar Soares died in 2003. Officers have not managed to solve the case, and with Soares' family's permission, they have generated a deepfake of his image on a kid playing football in a field presumably to help jog anyone's memory. The cops have reportedly received dozens of potential leads since, [7]according to The Guardian.
It's the first time AI-generated images have been used to try and solve a criminal case, it seems. "We haven't yet checked if these leads are usable," said Lillian van Duijvenbode, a Rotterdam police spokesperson.
[8]
You can watch the video [9]here .
AI task force advises Congress to fund national computing infrastructure
America's National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR) urged Congress to launch a "shared research cyberinfrastructure" to better provide academics with hardware and data resources for developing machine-learning tech.
The playing field of AI research is unequal. State-of-the-art models are often packed with billions of parameters; developers need access to lots of computer chips to train them. It's why research at private companies seems to dominate, while academics at universities lag behind.
"We must ensure that everyone throughout the Nation has the ability to pursue cutting-edge AI research," the NAIRR wrote in a report. "This growing resource divide has the potential to adversely skew our AI research ecosystem, and, in the process, threaten our nation's ability to cultivate an AI research community and workforce that reflect America's rich diversity — and harness AI in a manner that serves all Americans."
If AI progress is driven by private companies, it could mean other types of research areas are left out and underdeveloped. "Growing and diversifying approaches to and applications of AI and opening up opportunities for progress across all scientific fields and disciplines, including in critical areas such as AI auditing, testing and evaluation, trustworthy AI, bias mitigation, and AI safety," the task force argued.
[10]
You can read the full report [11]here [PDF].
Meta offers musculoskeletal research tech
Researchers at Meta AI released Myosuite, a set of musculoskeletal models and tasks to simulate biomechanical movement of limbs for a whole range of applications.
"The more intelligent an organism is, the more complex the motor behavior it can exhibit," they [12]said in a blog post. "So an important question to consider, then, is — what enables such complex decision-making and the motor control to execute those decisions? To explore this question, we've developed MyoSuite."
Myosuite was built in collaboration with researchers at the University of Twente in the Netherlands, and aims to arm developers studying prosthetics and could help rehabilitate patients. There's another potential useful application for Meta, however: building more realistic avatars that can move more naturally in the metaverse.
The models only simulate the movements of arms and hands so far. Tasks include using machine learning to simulate the manipulation of die or rotation of two balls. The application of Myosuite in Meta's metaverse is a little ironic given that there's [13]no touching allowed there along with restrictions on hands to deter harassment. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01391-x
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YpJHJNWLT3OM7KM4-UZMqQAAAMk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/04/ai_patent_ruling/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/04/ai_patent_ruling/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YpJHJNWLT3OM7KM4-UZMqQAAAMk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YpJHJNWLT3OM7KM4-UZMqQAAAMk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/dutch-police-create-deepfake-video-of-murdered-boy-13-in-hope-of-new-leads
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YpJHJNWLT3OM7KM4-UZMqQAAAMk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-61567681
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YpJHJNWLT3OM7KM4-UZMqQAAAMk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.ai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NAIRR-TF-Interim-Report-2022.pdf
[12] https://tech.fb.com/artificial-intelligence/2022/05/myosuite/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/05/meta_grope_gap/
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
'Creative' Artificial Intelligence
Any invention by Artificial Intelligence should be patentable, but the patent should belong to the creators or programmers of the AI, not the AI itself. To own a patent is to have the rights of exploitation and licensing. An AI cannot read or sign a contract, nor can it 'enjoy' the royalties or licence fees.
Re: 'Creative' Artificial Intelligence
Tricky. The "intelligence" of an AI system comes more from the training data than the software implementation so maybe the collators of the training set have a stronger case. Then there is whoever laid out the specification for the training set and AI objectives, they have a strong case too. If sentient AI ever happens then perhaps an AI could hold a patent but until then it's a daft proposition.
A total minefield. Probably any patents would have to be split between the various responsible parties.
I wonder if...
...these professors have given any thought to the reason the Open Innovation Network exists?
Could it be because intellectual property law causes huge amounts of suppression of innovation?
Re: I wonder if...
Their job title is professor of law and AI. Without the laws they propose the job has no reason to exist.
AI
Until AI becomes self-aware then it is just a tool and can a tool hold a patent. No but the person who used the tool can.
It could come back to bite them...
...if it can be proved a substantial part of an invention involved AI, then a human inventor could be denied a patent.
Patent system protecting inventors or investors?
At least they do not try to argue that patents are there to protect a small inventor from big companies - that part of patents seems to be dead in the water alredy.
The only argument they make is that funders and businesses might loose out on their return on invest.
Once AI's are allowed to hold patents some companies will fully automatize applying for a patent for everything an AI spews out even if it doesn't look useful in any way - forcing the patent offices to use "AI" aut automatize the patent application proces as well to keep up with the flow.
When somebody has an actual idea worth patenting they will probably find something related in the automated output and claim its their patent ...
Stopping that by not recognizing AI's as patent holders doesn't sound too bad to me.
Re: Patent system protecting inventors or investors?
If anything they need fewer patents and more freedom to innovate, not more fenced off areas with signs saying 'do not touch - The patent holder'.
When you're falling behind, you cannot afford to drag a few millions corporate lawyers along with you.
The mathematical processing that AI caries out may be obscure but it is essentially some sort of mathematical processing. Mathematical facts can't be patented so why do they think the output of some AI can be?
No.
Very simply, an 'invention' by a non-sentient AI should be non-patentable.
And I don't mean non-patentable by the AI, I mean non-patentable at all. It should belong to the public domain, for the free use of anyone.
If an AI is not capable of understanding what a patent is and why it should want one, it should not be able to have one. To do otherwise is to completely negate any legitimate purpose for patent law existing in the first place.
Duh...
A patent can be granted for something which is non-obvious and of value.
If the something can be repeatedly invented by running a given program over and over again, then the combination of that program and its input data are mechanical, and its output must be deemed obvious.
Can you patent a program? Nope.
Can you patent data? Nope.
Nothing left to patent, then, is there?
So the professors, whom I will refer to as Sheila and Bruce to avoid confusion had their grad students write an utterly nonsensical paper and this is news? It sounds more like a prank inspired by too many Fosters.
If such a thing does come to pass, the next thing that will happen is a new clause in AI software providers licenses claiming a percentage of the patent profits.