NOBEL VS AI

In my previous blogs, I discussed the cusp where AI can, or, ought to have been considered as an Inventor, if not an Applicant, or atleast a Joint Applicant or one of the inventor signing the declaration of inventorship.

Further, I discussed and tried to distinguish w.r.t. computer generated literary works, that in those circumstances, the author ought to have been included under the copyright act universally, restricted to literary and dramatic works only, and NOT the artistic works. I gave the reason, example and analogy of Computer vs. Typewriter whilst including under definition of Section 2(d)(vi) of the copyrights act; the definition which is globally accepted and is as per the BERNE CONVENTION too.

Now, my question is, would NOBEL be ever bestowed to the literature or dramatic works generated via AI? Certainly not. Indeed! And as in the last two decades, the way to invent or innovate things have dramatically changed; as earlier, there were theories, results and calculations been made without the help of AIs; but in the recent years, the said jobs have been delegated to the AIs, and thus, under the EU AI Act where I tried to dissect the definition of Provider, Deployer and Operator in the quest to converge why AI should be included under the said definitions of a Natural Person; relating further it to AI Systems, when it comes to sub-systems been independently created by any main AI System; then my dilemma is how we will come to know which or what part, that’s been discovered or invented by the Natural Person aka Human, who has just been bestowed NOBEL or any other award? As just alike in terms of Patents, the Claims are restricted, considered under the definition of Article 6 of the PCT; shouldn’t then this part also be considered before bestowing awards?

Even the NOBEL admitted in one its tweets that there are AI tools that’s been used for specific discoveries and inventions by the laureates. Correct? Then the issue is, would the academia or members of any leaned society would ever be able to distinguish, segregate, dissect, compartmentalize, what part of the discovery or invention has been accomplished with the help of AI, and what part of the discovery and invention has been accomplished by the Natural Person? As it is necessary to do that.

That’s why I’ve been contending in my blogs, that in the jurisprudence itself, we need to define the definition of the Natural Person first w.r.t. to AI, and then bring it into the law, and then decide or debate whether the citizenship to ROBOT Sophia, or, is DABUS an applicant or the inventor or maybe the joint applicant; together all is justified or not, and then be injected in the TRIPS, PCT, BERNE.

Think About It, whether I’m wrong or right, as and when and if the AI systems are doing the job of Provider, Deployer and Operator; then we’ve untouched several parts of the jurisprudence itself.

© Pranav Chaturvedi