'Technology Analysis' as a Method to Determine AI Inventorship
While still in its infancy, technical analysis is able to answer questions like "Can AI invent?" and provide some of the necessary underpinnings for technology as a field unto itself.
Recently, https://techtimetas.blogspot.com/ Dr. Stephen Thaler, a member of the scientific community, started asserting that his DABUS AI system was truly an invention. As of now, the claim has been rejected in the majority of jurisdictions. The country that accepted Thaler's patent application under "Formalities Examination" with DABUS listed as the named inventor stands out as an exception. The acceptance of the patent in South Africa and the development of the legal system allows for future claims and objections regarding AI inventorship.
I just wrote an article outlining some of the difficulties that the technological and philosophical communities may face as a result of AI invention. The essay emphasizes the need for additional technological proof before making such an invention-related claim. This technological proof must be founded on the developing idea of "technology analysis," or analysis with logical-mathematical underpinnings.
The difficulties with AI invention are important to the legal community in a number of ways. The first is the potential for legal disputes over whether AI systems can actually perform an act of creation to be sparked by arguments from the technological, philosophical, and scientific communities. This argument is based on technological evidence that the AI system is capable of such potential, not on whether the legal prerequisites for innovation are satisfied. Although it hasn't happened yet, this is still a possibility in at least one jurisdiction. Future legal interpretations are the second concern for the legal community; as this issue develops, it is important to be aware of it in advance to be ready for such a situation. Lastly, it's worthwhile. study for the purpose of studying. The rest of the article's foundation is a technological justification of the fundamental presumptions for AI invention.
Technology, not science, is the focus of this argument.
It takes technology, not science, to create an invention. This claim will either come off as obvious or be dismissed due to technology's reliance on science. There is no such thing as a technological principle like the "scientific method," for example. Technologists have not made any attempt up until recently to create a set of principles that distinguish technology from science. The technical field has historically evolved in accordance with its philosophical foundations, either with the presumption that it is an applied science and is not deserving of the same consideration as science. Additionally, the engineering community did not openly confront this concept; historians were left to refute it. assumption. Sadly, this has caused unwanted effects and misunderstandings in all other fields of knowledge.
Many people think that technology, technical advancement, and technological inventions should be studied separately. This area should not go under science, which is interested in natural laws, or economics, which is interested in resource utilization. Other fields and branches of knowledge, such as the law, should be informed about the nature of technology in this field. Additionally, it should lay the groundwork for responses to pertinent and applicable concerns, such as whether AIs are capable of original thought and creation.
Two initiatives to develop technological principles and alter the status quo have been made in recent years. The first is "The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves," by Brian Arthur. Despite being a very important book, it did not establish the logical and mathematical underpinnings necessary for quantitative analysis. The required concepts and theorems are given in the work "Foundations For The Formal Analysis of Technology" to enable the establishment of quantitative analysis. This quantification would enable measurement and reproducibility, which are essential for treating science and its tenets equally.
Technology analysis's View of Invention
It is helpful to discuss the definition of the invention before discussing how technology analysis refutes claims of originality. The definition of invention in "Machine learning AI systems and the virtue of creativity" is as follows:
"a change in the fundamental concept that alters a major substructure of adjacent components, hence changing the function of the component"
In contrast to Brian Arthur's definition, this one depends on a "substantial adjustment of nearby components" to explain the "change in base concept." The modification is based on two important technical analysis ideas. First is the idea of a component, which is described in technology analysis utilizing first-order logic and set theory. The second is the idea of a substructure, which is also referred to as a group (such as nearby subcomponents of an assembly) that adheres to a specific set of restrictions (i.e., the notion of a technological state machine derived from computational theory). These two concepts have definite definitions and make it possible to analyze ingenuity both theoretically and quantitatively. Even though more sophisticated mathematical measures (that can describe ideas like novelty and nonobviousness) can be derived from this definition relies on a "significant modification of surrounding components" as opposed to Brian Arthur's definition to explain the "change in basic notion." The change is based on two significant technological advancements:
Is AI Capable of Inventing?
 |
Three fields of research into technical analysis and machine learning form the basis of these challenges to AI ingenuity. The first is a query regarding the independence of machine learning when performing inventive work. An examination of machine learning theory comes in second. Finally, we examine the contrasts between a human inventor and an https://techtimetas.blogspot.com/ AI system.
Autonomy
To determine if an AI system actually performed an act of creation, the issue of autonomy must be resolved. Machine learning is the basis for the autonomy claimed by the current generation of AI systems. The act of innovation is hampered by this in and of itself. If the system depends on data, that data must originate from earlier inventions (through patent documents, magazines, etc.). If the information can be linked back to the data set, how innovative is this act then? By counting and measuring the components that contribute to the change in the underlying principle, this question can be resolved. Even if the answer to this question is "yes," it still begs the issue of whether the ML filtered this collection of data.
The construction of machine learning algorithms that can operate with more autonomy is not prohibited by current machine learning theory (for example, an ML algorithm that distributes data input to a second neural network that is "creating"). To ascertain if a system actually has such a sophisticated network architecture or if it is only a basic system that offers the appearance of autonomy, each system that asserts its autonomy must be subject to examination.
Theory of Machine Learning
The fact https://techtimetas.blogspot.com/ that the current machine learning theory is indifferent to the data it is learning from is one of its limitations. Therefore, the topic of automating technology analysis has not been covered by machine learning theory. According to the definition of innovation provided above, there must be a substructure of related elements. Each of these elements interacts with the others, generating a series of intricate limitations that must all be met for the innovation to function. How to create a numeric vector that encodes such information is the difficult part. Furthermore, it is unknown if it can handle patent text as input data, where a writer might act as their own lexicographer.
Machine learning cannot simply extract inventions from a precise random sampling of data points. This random selection does not analyze restrictions between components; it simply reflects a choice of components. Additionally, the dependency cannot be overlooked by merely isolating the components. Inventors may speak to the reality that a single change can have a significant impact on the artifact's entire structure. Last but not least, machine learning cannot just piece together the data it gets at random, since this would merely be the development of obvious results.
Differences between a Human Inventor and an AI System
There are https://womenvitamin007.blogspot.com/ additional things to think about even if it could be conceivable for an AI system to produce an invention paper. Humans mostly rely on previous information and self-analysis of their own behavior. The existing AI systems' incapacity to describe their own innovation process demonstrates this lack of prior knowledge and analysis limitations. This can be crucial in situations like when an IP lawyer and examiner arrange a conference call to discuss the device. In this case, the AI system would be unable to respond to queries given by the IP attorney or examiner.
The existing system's incapacity to do focused invention, like human inventors can, is another drawback. That is, the ability to analyze information after receiving input about a problem domain and then apply knowledge to a current issue. Last but not least, one attribute that innovators do have that AI systems lack is the capacity to experiment (mentally or physically) to come up with workable solutions.
Although technical analysis is still in its infancy, it can help provide some of the groundwork for technology as a distinct profession and offer an answer to queries like "Can AI invent?" Although the theory's lines of analysis do not completely rule out the possibility of AI systems being invented, they do present some significant difficulties for AI's technical https://womenvitamin007.blogspot.com/ creator.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
0 Comments