> The US-based developer claims the AI machine named DABUS autonomously created a food or drink container and a light beacon and that he is entitled to rights over its inventions.
So he used AI to generate a patent. If it's something worth filing a patent for, why not file the patent under his name? AI would just be a tool that helped write the patent. Why did he want the inventor to be the AI? Is it just a PR thing? Trying to establish precedents on who owns the output of AI?
He wants to establish the precedent of an AI as a legal entity with rights and privileges. He's also trying to copyright images created by DABUS, for similar reasons.
Why would you even want the ai to have the patent or whatever, except maybe novelty. Presumably the person using the ai wants the patent/ copyright, right?
8 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 12.5 ms ] threadSo he used AI to generate a patent. If it's something worth filing a patent for, why not file the patent under his name? AI would just be a tool that helped write the patent. Why did he want the inventor to be the AI? Is it just a PR thing? Trying to establish precedents on who owns the output of AI?