I don’t see how? You can train on something pending patent, but what are the benefits? If it gets patented you open yourself to get sued, I don’t see how AI works around that, the idea itself is still patented? I think I’m missing something for the argument to make sense. Or is the idea that if too many people use your patented idea you won’t be able to enforce it? That sounds risky to me

▲

ozlikethewizard 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Because no AI company has been sued yet. Without more specific legislation there is no reason for AI trainers to not pilfer everything.

▲

JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Patents are public. Ingesting and innovating on them is the intended use. If you use an LLM to then make and market something that infringes on a patent, that isn’t the LLM doing any infringing, it’s you.

▲

stvltvs 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But are you even aware that you're infringing a patent? Is the LLM going to helpfully flag when it responds based on a patent?

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> are you even aware that you're infringing a patent? Plenty of folks first learn they’re infringing when they get a demand letter. Unless you ask it, I’m not sure it’s on the LLM to search for prior art and patent conflicts.