Welcome to a new episode of Year 2049, your weekly guide to the events, discoveries, and innovations shaping the future of tech, climate, science, and more.
Subscribe to get a new story in your inbox every Friday 👇
Happy Friday!
AI will most definitely play a big role in our future, but regulation has failed to keep up with it.
On our trip to the future this week, we’ll face an interesting dilemma around AI-generated inventions and how/if they should be protected.
Make sure to read until the end to read about our first giveaway! 🎁
Hope you enjoy this one.
– Fawzi
This week’s comic
Follow Year 2049 on Instagram: @theyear2049
The backstory
DABUS: the world’s first non-human patent holder
A few months ago, South Africa became the first country in history to grant a patent to a non-human inventor: DABUS.
DABUS is an AI system created by Dr. Stephen Thaler, an AI scientist and the founder of Imagination Engines. DABUS is a unique type of AI that Dr. Thaler calls a “Creativity Machine”.
Unlike traditional AI systems that are trained to solve specific problems, a “Creativity Machine” aims to simulate human brainstorming and create new inventions. A fair and proper explanation of how DABUS works requires much more time, but you can listen to a simplified one here (minutes 6:09-7:30).
What did DABUS create?
DABUS created a unique design for interlocking food containers that are easy to transport.
Dr. Thaler and a team of lawyers from the Artificial Inventor Project filed patents in 17 jurisdictions and listed DABUS as the inventor and Dr. Thaler as the owner of the patent. All the patent applications were rejected, except South Africa’s.
We were alive when…
The first AI system was granted a patent. Here’s the page from South Africa’s patent journal from July 2021 recognizing DABUS as the first non-human inventor with a patent to its name:
DABUS: The invention was autonomously created by an artificial intelligence.
Why is this a big deal?
Usually, countries require the designated inventor on a patent to be an “individual” or a “natural person”. Even if a patent is owned by a company, its inventors are always individual humans (like its employees, for example).
Although this requirement was initially phrased to give credit to specific people who made the invention instead of their company, it implies that any non-human can’t be designated as an inventor. With that logic, an AI system can’t be the official “inventor” on a patent.
Some countries like Monaco and Cyprus don’t restrict inventorship to human beings. And South Africa was fine designating DABUS as the inventor on a patent filing. Others like the US, Australia, and European countries rejected patent applications where DABUS was listed as an inventor because it’s not a “natural person”.
The case for AI legal neutrality
AI legal neutrality = not differentiating between AI and human behaviour when enforcing the law
This is a complex topic and involves many different aspects of the legal system, so let’s focus on AI legal neutrality for patents.
Dr. Ryan Abbott, a Professor of Law at the University of Surrey, is one of the lawyers who helped Dr. Thaler file his patents. In his book “The Reasonable Robot”, he offers compelling arguments for allowing AI to be designated as an inventor:
Humans are taking credit for work that they didn’t do. Although AI doesn’t care if you took credit for its work (unlike today’s comic), not listing it as an inventor encourages dishonesty about the level of human involvement/creation in an invention.
Maintaining recognition for human inventions. If we blur the lines between inventions created by AI or humans, the individuals who are inventing without AI can’t be fairly recognized for their hard work and accomplishments.
It can be hard to assign dedicated inventors. In 2019, Siemens reported that it was unable to file patent applications for multiple AI-generated inventions because it couldn’t identify a natural person as an inventor.
Incentivizes AI development and innovation. If companies aren’t able to protect their AI-generated inventions, like Siemens, we risk missing out on important scientific advances or medical discoveries that AI helps accelerate.
I found an interesting talk that Dr. Abbott gave at EmTech MENA in 2019 if you’re looking for something interesting to watch while eating lunch.
Or if you prefer podcasts, here’s a recent interview he did:
Final thoughts
This story sparks an interesting dilemma for all of us.
Human ingenuity is one of our most unique and important characteristics. It’s what helped us progress as a species and evolve as a civilization. It feels unsettling to think of AI being an inventor because it makes us feel like we’re losing control.
But I don’t think it should be black or white as some extreme utopian/dystopian visions may suggest: AI will invent many things in the future, and humans will too. There’s a massive potential for AI to solve problems in industries like science, medicine, and agriculture much faster than we can. But humans know the right questions to ask, understand the most important problems we need to solve, and turn these ideas into reality. So maybe we should look at it as a collaboration between humans and AI, rather than humans vs AI (as we already discussed in Episode 3).
I don’t see a problem with listing AI as an inventor either. I don’t think this diminishes human inventions, but it actually maintains their integrity and prestige. Like Dr. Abbott argues, blurring the lines doesn’t give fair recognition to the humans who will continue to invent without AI as it becomes more powerful and efficient.
Maybe sharing inventorship with AI will help us create solutions that save lives, improve our health, and discover cures. If that’s the outcome, then does it really matter who is allowed to be called an “inventor”?
A question for you
Should AI be allowed to be designated as an inventor on a patent?
Leave a comment and let me know if anything is missing from my rationale (and forward this to your lawyer friends so they can let us know what they think too) 👇
🎁 GIVEAWAY 🎁
I’m giving away a copy of “The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law” by Dr. Ryan Abott.
If you’re already subscribed to the Year 2049 newsletter, you’re already in the draw!
If not, you can subscribe here 👇
The winner will be announced in the December 17th newsletter.
Help me spread the word
Doing the research, learning about new topics, drawing comics, and writing this newsletter has been an absolute joy for me every week.
This edition took 10 hours to make, so I would appreciate it if you took 1 minute to invite your family and friends to subscribe and join our special group of future-curious people.
or send them this link: https://year2049.substack.com/welcome
If you missed the previous episode
or check out all previous Year 2049 episodes.
How would you rate this week's edition?
Follow Year 2049 on Instagram: @theyear2049
As long as the patent owner is recognized as the one who collaborated, I’m fine with it! Plus I like the idea that those who invented without AI would get recognition because it is harder.