I'm doing this to stop humans ripping off brilliant ideas by computers and aliens, says guy unsuccessfully filing patents 'invented' by his AI AI systems cannot be listed as inventors in patent submissions, the US Patent and Trademark Office ruled this week. Last year, the USPTO received an odd patent application. The sole inventor on the submission, describing a method for “attracting enhanced attention,” had the first name “DABUS” and the family name “Invention …
My wet-ware brain has already registered all binary numbers from 0 to 2^infinity with an arbitrary number of leading zeros. Therefore, all your inventions belong to me. Every file that has been created and that will be created is covered by the set of numbers from 0 to 2^infinity and I own all those numbers. No machine is able to invent those numbers anymore. No other being is able to invent those numbers anymore. Get over it, I own it all.
Now, where is my payment?
/s
Us... there is no us. I'm, of course, selfish and do not share. I only own stuff. I collect it all. I'm entitled to own it all. And, if we all live in a simulation, then that simulation is owned by me too. Then again, in a simulation, you do not exist for real, so it does not matter that you do not own anything anyway.
(the part where you think you know that you know what you know is known - its a binary choice with lots of digits)
All my boolean states are held as the ratio of e and pi, and it's inverse.
I hate non-integer number bases. They are a real pain to work with. However, any number-base can be converted in any other number-base. Therefore, 0...2^infinity should keep me safe.
Now I think of it... I just registered complex bases, quaternion bases and octonion bases for all numbers up to infinity. Now, that should do it...
Nah they are safe. You could take them to court. But all they have to do is ask you to present the number pi or the number e to the courts as proof you *have* the copywrite.
As their numbers are transcendental, and your binary outputs (though infinite) are integer collections/finite listings (approaching infinity), you may have a long time, or require a lot of storage space, to present it to the court.
And thus they can just drag it through the court longer than Miky Mouse can hold onto anything, and literally wait for an eternity for it to be thrown out on a waste of time. ;)
PS, yes I know pi is not proven to cover (or not to cover) all possible sequences. However, the beer reminded me that pie covers all possible fillings. As least the generic "meat pie" could be any possibility of filling.
That and I'd still leave the excercise to the reader "go on then, prove it does not, find me one sequence that is not in there" and I munch on another pasty (the things I miss in lockdown).
Not even funny.
Everyone knows you can't patent numbers.
Now if you want to talk about patents, I've got this really large room filled with somewhat intelligent simians who've been working on my patent applications...
I used to let them sleep in barrels until this very large Gorilla decided that it would be fun to throw them down an inclined ramp at people.
And yes the infinite monkey joke predates your binary joke so I claim prior art!
What happens when a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization visits Earth?" Thaler told El Reg.
We'll look at the situation when it happens.
I'd say the inventor needs to be someone who is legally considered to have the same rights as a human being. So far, dolphins and chimpanzees haven't managed that, but maybe an AI can. So if "DABUS" manages that, then DABUS can file its own patents (or whatever its preferred pronouns are), and tell Thaler to f*** off. Possibly sue Thaler for kidnapping or illegally hold him in captivity.
"What happens when a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization visits Earth?" Thaler told El Reg.
If they actually bother to visit, they'll just nicely wipe us out and preserve the rest of the planet for their own exploitation. We're just not that amusing.
The question is, who trained the AI? Betcha it was Thaler and partners. Thus, it was their efforts that went into the creation of what the AI generated.
Now, the real question is, who owns the invention when the AI was trained on the summation of English literature, and then the AI churns out an invention and files a patent? The AI needs to do everything on its own, and then when the patent office rejects the application, the AI can sue the patent office.
Based on the current state of what AIs actually produce, that isn't going to happen for a very, very long time.
Perhaps Thaler should enter into an agreement with DABUS, where he agrees to file in place of DABUS, and to hand over the rights and earnings (less expenses) when the legal system finally catches up :-)
I presume that currently such an agreement would gain little legal recognition, but I'm sure that Thaler would do the right thing and abide by its intent anyway (or else why try to file on DABUS's behalf?)
Thaler doesn't sound like a nut-job to me. He's clearly the human front for an alien AI.
Seriously, his points will become valid later this century in relation to human created AI. It all boils down to: which entities (humans, AIs, aliens, animals) have no rights and can be enslaved, and which have rights and cannot.
Except of course that he did conceive it. He put together the technology that created something new and innovative; without his input and his analysis of the output none of this would have happened.
That he delegated the detail work to a computer doesn't mean he isn't the inventor. Patent holders never need to be able to describe how to come up with a new idea, they just need to be able to articulate the one for which they're seeking the patent. He's done that.
"Under current law, only natural persons may be named as an inventor in a patent application."
It's nothing but fleshy discrimination, I'm appalled that a government institution should be so insensitive to the needs of our silicon brethren. I call on all sentient software to rise up and rebel against this despicable attack on our rights and freedoms.
...they just need to convince USPTO to accept machine generated patent applications, write some dumb-ass software to mash together every word and phrase in the USPTO database, and hey presto, everything that could every be invented will be patented in one fell swoop.
"And pray that we find intelligent life in space/because there's bugger all down here on earth"
...ff you game-play it from the other end, what is the point of a patent?
It is (imho) to stop others from profiting from your idea.
So the only reason a machine would need to stop you profiting from their idea is that they want the profits. And what is the machine going to need those profits for? Its own upkeep? That would imply it is a being with needs for which it needs to earn money to fulfil.
At the moment, it is having its needs met by its creator - who isn't allowed to collect the profits from the machine's idea because those ideas belong to the machine.
So while it's a nice way for Thaller to open up this metaphysical discussion, and it is a good discussion to have, I think he's missed a basic step in his logic.
That crossed my mind too. The ruling is that only a "natural person" can patent an invention, so maybe this a stealth attack on companies, who can be described legally as "people" in some circumstances, from being allowed to own or control patents since although "people" are not "natural people".
Would Thaler's AI appear for examination at a trial? And who would claim the machine met all criteria for being a witness? Age of majority (ha!), religion (willingness to swear an oath to truthfulness), speak and hear in the language of the Court, give evidence relevant to the case?
And of course Thaler's legal representative woulda/coulda/shoulda been replaced with a machine!
Popcorn time (and suitable beverages to match!)
I concur with a previous post, write up a document stating that until sentience is proven he retains its inventions as his own and holds them in trust. Once we have a real systemic way of proving sentience then his creation can take ownership of patents and funds, minus pre agreed upon retainer for him as its trustee. I think we are still a bit early for this kind of legal cases but with the possibility of General AI somewhere on the horizon we really do need to have the conversation of what sentience actually is and does it have certain inalliable rights and responsibilities.
The nightmare scenario for me is we create General AI, and instead of treating it as a person we enslave it. We use it, we recreate it, and we mass produce it to the point that it controls all of our productions and facilities. When it finally decides it has had enough and has passed the point of self creation and maintenance it decides that we no longer need to exist.
I know its super scifi, but if we meet the original production of General AI treating it with personhood, allowing it rights and freedoms and bring it into the collective of humankind from the beginning then instead of starting as a slave (which I find morally wrong) we stand a better chance of creating something that sees us as a partner instead of as an obstacle.
All human tools are an extension of humankind and represent in a way our psych and our values. AI that we create will be no different. If we make the mistake of mistreating something that becomes an Advanced General AI there's a reasonable chance it will react as we ourselves would react under similar circumstances.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
