Here the antenna design is generated by the computer rather than an individual.
“AI” is like blockchain, mostly useless technology that wastes huge amount of resources where there’s almost always better and way simpler solutions except in very marginal use cases.
Headline(t=a): “AI $name isn’t real AI, because it’s just a $latest_buzzword.”
Headline(t=b): “AI doesn’t exist and never will. Humans are the best!”
Headline(t=c): “AI $name beats humans at $task! The singularity is upon us!”
I don’t deny there are plenty of buzzwords around — nor do I deny that AI/ML is glorified statistics with hopeful startups who don’t realise that outsourcing the training to Mechanical Turk won’t provide enough training data — but there are a lot of things that were introduced as AI and which have proven useful, including many things that are now regarded as the better and simpler alternatives to AI/ML.
Let's put the definition aside for a moment. Lets say we have a black box that doctors can put images into, and it will tell if there are areas that look like it might be cancer. Is that AI? Is it an AI if you can teach it what cancer look like?
Given that automation hasn't took over all jobs, I suppose that the solution is "hire people to do it". Correct?
Problem is AI cannot be the inventor, as inventor has to be natural person. This is no different than corporation cannot be the inventor. [1]
[1] https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18455/can-a-corp...
I've had similar aspirations before but without a strong background in actually running a business and knowing how much work goes into the management, I've been unable to determine if the work effort to automate a large portion of it is worth the time.
Take a future where there are self-driving cars. You and a few friends/family want to invest in one that will be dedicated to ride for hire services. The AI could manage the entire business based on the votes of the owners, from contracting with attorneys for legal documents/representation, purchasing the vehicle, acquiring the insurance, authorizing vehicle servicing, contracting with a CPA to file taxes, filing the State Annual Report (or contracting to file the State Annual Report), etc...
Why pay wages/salary to an actual full-time manager when the typical management duties could be entirely performed by AI in many types automated/passive businesses?
I don't really see how an invention created by an AI that you developed is any different from an invention that you developed. There's no-one else with any claim to it. Inventions are achieved with the assistance of all sorts of tools - simulations, topographical optimisation, CAD software - but this doesn't mean they're suddenly not created by the person running the tool.
There's tons of human labor to validate the drugs, and it's extremely expensive - hence the patent guards the time and money involved, not the "idea."
Drug companies are also starting to use AI systems for retrosynthesis - the sequence of reactions to take you from common precursors to the desired compound. My understanding is that these systems have gotten very good, to the point where clicking "Run" is most of the effort.
Pharma companies use synthesis patents to further hamstring competitors by cutting off viable routes to potential competitor drugs in the same class, or keeping their products from being manufactured once patent expires.
If they're allowed to file synthesis patents based on simply running the AI retrosynthesis algorithm, it'll do really bad things to the industry.
ps. You may have problems when it happens because the court/judge may be AI as well at that time.
Good luck with deciphering the baffling gibberish in these patents when your trying to implement it as a recipe.
Obviously this only works by not immediately start dumping a tenfold of your normal number of filings.
I do advice every company with a significant patent portfolio to start training a GPT-2 on text and pictures.
:-)
(humor people, humor)
If we can't distinguish between machine and human-generated ideas how does it affect the patent system?
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/epo-refuses-ai-inventor...
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-first-ai-inventor-i...
One opinion is that if a new discovery is made via automation (e.g. cognitive automation) it lack an inventive step.
And if generating new patents is the current state of art, things that were patentable before should no longer be patentable.
