"There is an increasing influential and bludgeoning legal literature on how artificial intelligence (AI) systems should be treated in law. One question that has recently been in the headlines around the world, thanks to the Artificial Inventor Project, is whether or not an AI system can be regarded as an inventor. The Artificial Inventor Project is championed by Ryan Abbott, who has argued in “I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law” (2016) 57 Boston College L Rev 1079 that while an AI system is not yet a legal person, it should nevertheless be acknowledged as an inventor, with any patent it produces being allocated to its owner. The headlines are the result of the Project’s filing of parallel applications to patent offices in several jurisdictions over a number of inventions generated by an AI system named DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Boot-strapping of Unified Sentience), invented by Dr Stephen Thaler. In our recent paper, we critique Abbott’s proposal whilst contemplating AI’s status as property or person.
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/12/opinion-can-ai-system-be-inventor.html
Lähitulevaisuudessa kun lähestymme Singulariteettiä ja Superälyä tietokoneiden kyky tehdä luovaa työtä kasvaa. Tulevaisuudessa voi olla, että tietokoneet aivan yleisesti kehittävät itseään. Kenelle kuuluu oikeudet? Saako tietokone kehittää itseään ilman lisenssimaksuja? Vertautuuko tietokoneen itsensä kehittäminen ihmisen opiskeluun?
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti