Those decisions upheld the doctrine that copyright requires human authorship, which disbars DABUS — or any "new species" — as muchAnd besides, for obvious reasons, experts aren't convinced by Thaler's claims of the AI's consciousness.
"I don't even really know where to begin, other than to say, if there is a sentient AI on the planet currently, it's definitely not this," Matthew Sag, a professor of law and artificial intelligence at Emory University, toldNot that that kind of talk has ever deterred Thaler. He has a powerful legal alley: Ryan Abbott, a law professor at the University of Surrey who heads an effort of IP lawyers called the Artificial Inventor Project, founded in 2018.
Abbott's core belief is that, in order to incentivize people to use AI to benefit humanity, its creations, like a disease-staving vaccine, should still be patentable. Under current patent laws, that's not possible, he argues. "In the US, inventors are defined as individuals, and we argued there was no reason that was restricted to a natural person," Abbott toldBut Abbott is less concerned about an AI's autonomy and more worried about how the use of a generative AI affects authorship — or rather, that it shouldn't.
For his part, Sag called this reasoning a "total nonstarter," saying the "bottom line is that we don’t need AI inventors to patent the outcomes of emergent processes.", set to release in September, on whether a pair of patents attributed to DABUS are valid.
Technology Technology Latest News, Technology Technology Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: WIRED - 🏆 555. / 51 Read more »