Paco Hope #BLM on Nostr: So, as I understand it, #LLM output from the vast majority of #GenAI we have today is ...
So, as I understand it, #LLM output from the vast majority of #GenAI we have today is not copyrightable. (I'm not a lawyer. It's probably more complicated than that) So what does that mean with respect to patents?
If some major medical company uses #ChatGPT to create a cure for cancer, can they patent the cure? If a second company gets enough information to point their own LLM in the right direction and develops the same cure without any reference to the first company's solution, do they also get to sell it?
In America, healthcare companies expect to get rich curing your illnesses. They're not going to develop and market life-saving technologies if they can't make massive profits doing it.
So could the intellectual property paradox of AI mean that they WON'T use AI to find groundbreaking cures? Probably not. It's easier to lie about how they got the inspiration. They will claim that their researcher had a brilliant idea, and since the idea came from a human mind it is patentable and profitable.
It would be fascinating to try to invalidate a #patent by proving that the idea was generated by AI, and thus could not be owned by the patent holder. I have no idea how any of this law works. I'm just couch-potato speculating. Maybe it doesn't work this way at all.
If some major medical company uses #ChatGPT to create a cure for cancer, can they patent the cure? If a second company gets enough information to point their own LLM in the right direction and develops the same cure without any reference to the first company's solution, do they also get to sell it?
In America, healthcare companies expect to get rich curing your illnesses. They're not going to develop and market life-saving technologies if they can't make massive profits doing it.
So could the intellectual property paradox of AI mean that they WON'T use AI to find groundbreaking cures? Probably not. It's easier to lie about how they got the inspiration. They will claim that their researcher had a brilliant idea, and since the idea came from a human mind it is patentable and profitable.
It would be fascinating to try to invalidate a #patent by proving that the idea was generated by AI, and thus could not be owned by the patent holder. I have no idea how any of this law works. I'm just couch-potato speculating. Maybe it doesn't work this way at all.