Human intellectual capital continues to impress and delight our imagination. This is how intellectual property systems have been designed to stimulate and encourage the creations of the human mind. And with this encouragement, the technological field developed. However, the question is whether intellectual property rights law is prepared to keep up with the development of technological assets if certain assets are produced by non-human intelligence. The answer is found in the text below.
The AI world
AI is not just a technology, but a process through which new methods and tools to accelerate transformation are created. Thus, AI inspires the development and growth of business models. The AI world offers enormous potential for transformation, but this potential has reached the point where it is questioned by the human mind itself. Can we trust such technology to overcome the ethical alignments we adhere to daily? The answer depends only on the limits of this technology, its objective being to generate, and not to endanger the autonomy of individuals. According to an article published by Deloitte, companies that use AI for automation and optimization create new products much easier, faster and more efficiently, but also adopt new ways of working. However, how do we protect them?
AI minds vs. The human mind
To be able to explain all the knowledge when we mention AI, we need to bring up three keywords: context, augmentation and automation. The context provides basic information from various structured or unstructured sources, which captures signals that help predict patterns of behaviour. With the help of augmentation, these reactions given by the behaviour patterns will be extended so that in the end the automation can deepen and process all the tasks according to the human environment model. As complex as it may sound, so fascinating and profound is the understanding of the degree to which these robots will be part of our lives in the coming years.
Not coincidentally, given the controversial nature of this technology, different contexts have been created that have given rise to unprecedented situations. Thus, the IP policy viewed from the perspective of artificial intelligence is facing controversy, the need for IP incentives for AI innovation. The discussion of amending the existing legal frameworks started when an AI system was denied the right to patent because the inventors can only be individuals. Will IP laws be adjusted so that these controversies find their answer and justification?
For offices to award the title of “inventor” to an AI system, some criteria should be met, considered by most delicate IP specialists. Thus, if an AI system suggests some possibilities to solve tasks, and the developer must select an optimal option, then the AI system is not considered the inventor. If the AI system produces the entire solution without the intervention of the developer, then the AI system can be truly considered the inventor. The delimitation between the two situations is a difficult and sensitive one, that is why most offices resort to refusing to accept AI as an inventor.
We must recognize that AI will improve significantly in the coming years. Therefore, what we may not want to admit today is that it is an innovation created exclusively with the help of technology, which will be the reason we will later amend the IP legislation. AI constantly evolves, while the human mind continues to hit creative blockages. Perhaps we could look at this aspect from another perspective, the one from which by granting AI systems the title of inventors, we protect the “moral rights” of human inventors.