As generative artificial intelligence (A.I.), the driving force behind popular chatbot ChatGPT, continues to showcase its boundless abilities, the question on everyone’s minds is whether A.I. can truly invent. This seemingly philosophical debate has far-reaching implications for innovation, global competitiveness, and the legal status of A.I. as an inventor.
In recent times, legal experts, patent agencies, and policymakers have grappled with the notion of A.I. inventorship. While only a small but growing number argue in favor of A.I. being recognized as inventors, the majority remains entrenched in the belief that only humans can claim this distinction.
The debate goes beyond mere theoretical musings. Driven by rapidly advancing A.I., this issue raises questions about the future trajectory of innovation and how A.I.’s role may reshape patent protection and intellectual property laws. To address these pressing concerns, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office hosted A.I. Inventorship Listening Sessions, while the Senate held a hearing on A.I. and patents.
One prominent figure in this debate is Dr. Ryan Abbott, a professor at the University of Surrey School of Law and founder of the Artificial Inventor Project. The project has been advocating for the legal protection of A.I.-generated inventions, seeking patents in the United States and various other countries. Dr. Abbott argues that generative A.I. differs significantly from traditional tools used in inventions, as it creates unscripted results, akin to stepping into the shoes of a person.
The Artificial Inventor Project’s quest to secure patent protection for A.I.-generated inventions has encountered mixed results. While some countries, like South Africa, have granted patents for such innovations, others, including the United States, Australia, and Taiwan, have rejected them.
Championing A.I. inventorship involves breaking away from established norms, as patent arbiters maintain that an inventor must be human. However, a potential middle ground has been proposed, suggesting that A.I. systems could be credited as co-inventors alongside their human counterparts.
Senator Chris Coons, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on intellectual property, highlighted the need for a legislative framework that offers stronger patent protection for A.I. innovations. A bill introduced by Coons and Senator Thom Tillis aims to address the uncertainty arising from Supreme Court decisions and could pave the way for easier patent obtainment for A.I. and other rapidly evolving technologies.
Dr. Abbott showcased the potential of A.I. invention during the Senate hearing, presenting a drink container designed by an A.I. system without human intervention. The container, employing fractal geometry for improved heat transfer, served as a demonstration of A.I.’s creative capabilities.
However, debates on A.I. inventorship extend beyond the realm of patents. Stephen Thaler, an A.I. researcher, developed a system called DABUS, boasting machine “feelings” and the ability to recognize useful ideas. He contends that reluctance to recognize A.I. as inventors amounts to speciesism, a discriminatory notion against creation-capable machines.
While the debate on A.I. inventorship continues, it is clear that A.I. technology is evolving rapidly. The consensus among experts is that A.I. will only improve in generating creative solutions. Ultimately, addressing A.I. inventorship will shape the future of innovation, intellectual property laws, and how we define the line between human and machine creativity.
