If an invention was trivial enough to be invented by AI then why should we allow that action to be patented? The expenditure of labor to research that invention was minimal and definitionally not novel.

▲

layer8 an hour ago | parent [-]

I wasn’t arguing for AI inventions to be patentable, I was arguing against the argument presented above, which to me doesn’t make sense as an argument.

I’m very much for not allowing trivial patents, but that’s independent from whether the invention was made by AI or by a human. The nature of the inventor should be immaterial for assessing the (non-)triviality of an invention.

	▲	munk-a 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I am in agreement that we should disallow trivial patents in general but I think there's an easy win here that patents directly attributed to AI can be clearly disregarded as trivial. It'd also be nice to see an overhaul of the patent system to better narrow the scope to investments with real innovative effort but I think that overhaul is relatively complex to implement.