AI & Robotics News and Discussions

[Cyber_Rebel]

[spryfusion]

[spryfusion]

[firestar464]

Scientists tackle AI bias with polite prodding

https://techxplore.com/news/2023-12-sci ... olite.html

[firestar464]

A means for searching for new solutions in mathematics and computer science using an LLM and an evaluator

https://techxplore.com/news/2023-12-sol ... e-llm.html

[Yuli Ban]

[Yuli Ban]

Almost 15 years ago....

[weatheriscool]

AI cannot be named as an ‘inventor,’ top UK court says in patent dispute

PUBLISHED WED, DEC 20 2023 8:46 AM EST
Jenni Reid

KEY POINTS

* The U.K.’s highest court upheld earlier legal decisions that a patent inventor must be a “natural person,” and therefore not an artificial intelligence-powered machine.
* It stems from a five-year contention by Stephen Thaler, who listed his own AI tool, “DABUS,” as the inventor of two products for which he filed a patent application.
* He had said his patent claim derived from his ownership of “DABUS.”

Artificial intelligence cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent application, the U.K.’s highest court ruled Wednesday, in a decision likely to have a significant impact as AI tools grow in use. ... The case originated with two patent applications filed by Stephen Thaler in 2018, one for a food packaging shape and one for a type of flashing light.

Rather than listing himself as the inventor, he named his AI machine, called “DABUS.” He then listed his personal right to the patents as being “ownership of the creativity machine ‘DABUS’.” ... The U.K. Intellectual Property Office initially responded that he had failed to comply with patent stipulations requiring a person to be listed as the inventor, and for a description of how his ownership rights derived from that person (in this case AI).

Thaler appealed the decision and maintained he had met all requirements under a 1977 piece of legislation, which was denied. ... He made further appeals in the U.K’s High Court and Court of Appeal, both of which dismissed his claim by denying that AI could be listed as an inventor.

The Supreme Court said in its judgment Wednesday that it was not ruling on the broad question of whether technical advances created by AI-powered tools and machines should be patentable, or whether the meaning of the term “inventor” should be expanded. ... However, it found that under existing patent law, the specified “inventor” must be a “natural person.” (1)

{snip}

(1) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... ummary.pdf

[Cyber_Rebel]

Worth noting this is the robotics company which partnered with OpenAI, as they outsourced their in-house robotics. Now, video cuts aside, if this truly is legitimate, and Neo is better presumably... this comes close to passing the Coffee Test does it not? Of course, we'd have to see said test in real time (no cuts) and a simple prompting ask, make me a cup of coffee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[raklian]

Isn't this a demo of teleoperation, though?