That isn’t what the courts have decided. They just decided it has to be a human on the patent application name. You can use whatever tool you want to get there, but if you patent a thing, it has to be a human in the name.

▲

cmiles8 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think we’re saying the same thing. If you’re using AI as a tool to support human creative content that’s one thing. But what courts are pushing back on is trying to patent/protect content where the core creator was AI. That’s what most people mean when they say “AI slop.” There courts are consistently saying you can’t protect this.

▲

Robotbeat 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No. The court is saying you cannot assign IP rights to an AI, as this guy was trying to do. They are not saying it cannot be protected (as /r/antiai folk are always claiming). That’s another thing.

▲

cmiles8 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If you can’t protect it as copyright (which the US and others have separately said) then how are you “protecting” it? It’s not IP.

	▲	Robotbeat 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That isn’t precisely what was decided in those cases, either (even though this gets repeated constantly on the internet as if it was). Again, the fundamental point of this case (and some similar cases) is just that you cannot assign IP to an AI. It has to be assigned to a person.
	▲	dcrazy 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The ruling does not say whether or not the invention would be patentable had the appellant put his own name on the application.
	▲	_flux 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You can't assign the copyright to Emacs either, yet it can be used to produce software.