This appears to be confusing patent inventors with patent owners. It’s the latter who benefit and presumably are accountable for the use of the patent and potential plagiarism.
replyIsn't patenting an action to protect a benefit (whichever patent or benefit would be)?
replyYes? But it’s not the AI that would receive the benefits, and where does accountability of patent inventors come in?
replyIf an invention was trivial enough to be invented by AI then why should we allow that action to be patented? The expenditure of labor to research that invention was minimal and definitionally not novel.
replyI wasn’t arguing for AI inventions to be patentable, I was arguing against the argument presented above, which to me doesn’t make sense as an argument.
replyI’m very much for not allowing trivial patents, but that’s independent from whether the invention was made by AI or by a human. The nature of the inventor should be immaterial for assessing the (non-)triviality of an invention.
I am in agreement that we should disallow trivial patents in general but I think there's an easy win here that patents directly attributed to AI can be clearly disregarded as trivial. It'd also be nice to see an overhaul of the patent system to better narrow the scope to investments with real innovative effort but I think that overhaul is relatively complex to implement.
reply>No AI has accountability so also should not own any benefits
replyThat doesn't follow at all. A baby doesn't have accountability, but has benefits.
I'm all for accountability being required for important descion making. I too wouldn't let babies make similar descisions.
This non sequitur just makes it sound like you're throwing around talking points and getting them mixed up.
What benefits does a baby hold? Can a baby freely open a bank account, start a company, get married?
replyA baby has the benefit of being attended their basic needs. Just like Ai is also being fed power.