Made by man, monkey or machine?
In her Conclusion, Judge Leonie Brinkena of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the motion by Dr. Stephen Thaler of the Artificial Inventor Project that AI can be listed as an inventor on a U.S. patent application. You can read the whole judgement here.
The judge's decision came down to the simple fact that AI is not a person. This is in contrast to South Africa and Australia which granted patents for the inventions (for a new type of juice box and flashing light).
The media covered that with the following headlines:
Judge Says an AI Can’t Be an Inventor on a Patent Because It’s Not a Person (Gizmodo)
Only Humans, Not AI Machines, Can Get a U.S. Patent, Judge Rules (BNN Bloomberg)
US judge rejects bid for patent by AI 'inventor' (News Yahoo)
AI computers can’t patent their own inventions — yet — a US judge rules (The Verge)
There were many other reports, many of which focus on the dispute itself.
Perhaps the more important questions are why and how. How do you create AI inventor and why would you do that.
The how question is dealt with on Dr. Thaler's website: “Creative neural systems employ at least one neural net, chaotically stimulated to generate potential ideas, as one or more nets render an opinion about candidate concepts. Such opinions are used to nudge such ideation in the most fruitful directions through reinforcement learning.”
It reminded me of the Infinite monkey theorem (Monkeys hitting keys randomly on a typewriter for an infinite period of time will eventually recreate Shakespeare’s plays). The difference is that you start nudging the monkeys in a certain way.
On the question as to why AI could theoretically be considered an inventor, Dr. Thaler answered this in an interview with ABC News. "It’s been more of a philosophical battle, convincing humanity that my creative neural architectures are compelling models of cognition, creativity, sentience, and consciousness."
The challenge Dr. Thaler arguments’ poses is that he was the one who created the system. He was the one deciding which version of Hamlet was worthy of submitting to the patent office. At the end of it all, he's the one who wants to be recognized through his inventions.
What is the recurrent pattern here? We have a new design for a juice box based on fractals and that makes me happy... and that AI is not going to replace us anytime soon.