Can Creativity Be Programmed?
In a recent article in The Detroit News, the question of
whether AI should be issued patents is raised. AI has been credited with creating
some innovations, but it is currently not allowed to receive legal patents
recognizing them as inventors. The issue of whether the inventor is the AI or
the humans who made the AI comes into play when humans are far enough removed
from the AI’s inventive process that it starts to seem like a gray area. Should
the credit go to the robot or the human who developed its algorithms?
(Photo credit: http://www.ipcg.com/?file=How_Will_AI_Invent)
The US and Europe only give patents to humans for the time
being, but it doesn’t seem like it’s a closed issue yet since there will inevitably
be more inventions by AI in the future. Last year an AI called DABUS (Device
for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) invented a beverage container
and a device to attract attention used in search and rescue missions. The team
behind DABUS filed patent applications with the AI listed as the inventor and
were rejected by the European Patent Office.
Whether or not an AI can be called an inventor is a difficult
issue because it raises the question of what it means for a machine to think.
We talked in class about whether or not robots could hypothetically have feelings.
Robbie from I, Robot expresses his care for Gloria through playfulness and protectiveness,
but he has those behaviors because they were programmed into him. Robbie has
the appearance of having emotions, but his internal experience of those
emotions is vastly different from the human experience of emotions. If a robot
imitates the behavior of having feelings well enough to the point that it is
indistinguishable from it actually experiencing feelings, is that essentially the
same thing? It’s similar to the question of an AI inventing something. If an AI
mimics the creative process enough that it actually creates something original,
does it matter that the AI can’t “think” in the same way that a human inventor
can?
In addition to inventing, AI has also created art that has
sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Like inventing, it is unclear
whether this can really be considered as creativity in the traditional sense of
the word. What is clear is that as time goes on and AI advances, the rate of
creation by AI will continue to increase. Humans will have to make many decisions
about how AI fits into our existing social and legal systems. I have trouble
forming an opinion on this because although DABUS is responsible for its
inventions, it wouldn’t ever exist or be able to think without the scientists
who programmed it and DABUS itself has no real use for a patent. Despite that,
I find myself leaning more towards the side of giving AI patents because if they
make something novel that is useful to humans, they might as well be credited
with it. If the people who made the AI were not directly involved and the idea
originated from the AI, it deserves the acknowledgement.
Interesting points. I find myself leaning towards the side of giving the patents to the programmers who created the AI in the first place. Although the AI is inventing something on its' own and the idea is something original, it was the programmer who allowed it to create that original thinking. If someone programs a computer with machine learning, then the programmer is responsible for what the computer is learning, because that is what he/she is coding it to do.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with you that the AI should be able to have their own patents. However, they have no use for the patents. Thus, this leads me to believe that they should be given creator's credit for whatever invention they made with a recognition to whomever created the AI. If we assume that AI does not have the general intelligence, then there is no reason to give AI the patents because they're simply following an algorithm. If we assume that AI can gain general intelligence, then would AI have the same rights as humans? If so, then they would have a reason to have a patent other than just being given credit for inventing something.
ReplyDeleteI think AI should be treat like a tool in this case that shouldn't not be issued patents. They are just the tool to help the original inventor to find the final project. Even if the human that made the AI might not predict what it can create, many great inventions also comes from accidental opportunities. The interest should be given to the human, too. One problem of give the interest to the AI is AI could exist as long as computer and internet exist theoretically while human just benefit from their patents for their 80 years lives. Which means people have to pay for the patent forever, yet the AI have no where to use it. So probably the money just go to company or government. Personally I don't want my descendants to pay for that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that AI has no use for the patents, hence, should not be give one. Person that programs the AI is the one that should receive the patent since they are the master minds behind the creativity that the AI is showing. Without the human they AI would not been able to achieve the result of creating work that others think need a patent. I also agree with the comment by Xiaohai that AI exist for very long time but patents are intended at least to be temporary and not forever.
ReplyDeleteThis post brings up a lot of good points and things to think about. What was really interesting to me was the fact that the team behind DABUS were the ones to file the patent form with DABUS listed as the inventor. This is interesting to me as a patent accredits the inventor but is more of an award and a keepsake, special only to those who were involved with said invention. To give one to a machine is strange as it would never have the same sentimental value as it would to a human inventor.
ReplyDeleteBut with current AI lacking any consciousness, what would it mean for their innovations to have patents? They can't enjoy any rewards or suffer from others' uncontrolled use of their inventions. At best granting patents to robots would give a few chuckles, and at worst, could reduce the meaning of inventor rights by giving them to an unconscious ... being.
ReplyDeleteI agree! Being able to respond to the invention with emotion is something I think should be considered when giving patents. However, what if we get to a point where AI advances and simulates the feelings of reward or suffering as you say, would it still reduce the meaning of inventor rights?
Delete