"WebBrain: Learning to Generate Factually Correct Articles for Queries by Grounding on Large Web Corpus" and "US court rules, once again, that AI software can’t be listed as an inventor on a patent" both touch on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and the generation of factual content. While the former focuses on generating factual articles for queries using web mining, the latter discusses the legal implications of AI as inventors in the patent system.

Glasp

Hatched by Glasp

Aug 25, 2023

4 min read

0

"WebBrain: Learning to Generate Factually Correct Articles for Queries by Grounding on Large Web Corpus" and "US court rules, once again, that AI software can’t be listed as an inventor on a patent" both touch on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and the generation of factual content. While the former focuses on generating factual articles for queries using web mining, the latter discusses the legal implications of AI as inventors in the patent system.

In the paper "WebBrain: Learning to Generate Factually Correct Articles for Queries by Grounding on Large Web Corpus," the authors introduce a new natural language processing (NLP) task. They aim to generate short factual articles with references by mining supporting evidence from the web. The creation of a large-scale dataset called WebBrain-Raw, which consists of English Wikipedia articles and their crawlable Wikipedia references, enables experiments in this domain. The authors also analyze the performance of state-of-the-art NLP techniques on WebBrain and propose a new framework called ReGen, which enhances factualness through improved evidence retrieval and task-specific pre-training for generation.

On the other hand, the news article "US court rules, once again, that AI software can't be listed as an inventor on a patent" highlights a recent legal ruling. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declared that AI software cannot be registered as an inventor on a US patent. This ruling comes as a response to a legal challenge by Dr. Stephen Thaler, who attempted to name an AI program named "DABUS" as the inventor in two patent applications. The court's rationale is based on the definition of "inventor" in the Patent Act, which explicitly states that the inventor must be an "individual." According to the Supreme Court's interpretation, an "individual" refers to a human being, excluding machines, animals, and software from being considered inventors. This decision aligns with the US Copyright Office's stance on AI, as they have previously stated that AI cannot own copyright.

The common thread between these two pieces of content is the role of AI in producing creative outputs and its legal recognition. While "WebBrain" focuses on using AI to generate factual articles, "US court rules" explores the limitations placed on AI in the patent system. Both articles highlight the distinction between AI and human creators, with the court ruling emphasizing the requirement for an inventor to be a "natural person." These discussions prompt further reflection on how society should define and recognize the contributions of AI.

In considering the implications of these topics, it becomes evident that there is a need for careful consideration of AI's role in creative endeavors. While AI can be a valuable tool in generating factual content, as demonstrated in "WebBrain," its status as an inventor or creator is still a contentious issue. The legal ruling discussed in "US court rules" raises questions about the extent to which AI can be attributed intellectual property rights.

Moving forward, it is essential to establish clear guidelines and frameworks that strike a balance between leveraging AI's capabilities and upholding the principles of intellectual property and invention. Here are three actionable pieces of advice to consider:

  • 1. Clarify legal definitions: Legislators and policymakers should work toward defining the parameters of AI involvement in creative processes. By establishing clear definitions of inventors, creators, and ownership, they can provide guidance for patent offices and copyright offices when dealing with AI-generated outputs.
  • 2. Foster interdisciplinary collaboration: The intersection of AI and law requires collaboration between experts in various fields. Legal professionals, AI researchers, ethicists, and policymakers should work together to navigate the complexities of AI's role in intellectual property. This collaboration can lead to comprehensive and informed decision-making.
  • 3. Explore alternative frameworks: As AI continues to advance, it may be necessary to develop new frameworks that accommodate AI's unique capabilities. This could involve creating separate categories for AI-generated inventions or exploring alternative forms of intellectual property protection specifically tailored to AI-generated works.

In conclusion, the articles "WebBrain: Learning to Generate Factually Correct Articles for Queries by Grounding on Large Web Corpus" and "US court rules, once again, that AI software can't be listed as an inventor on a patent" shed light on the evolving relationship between AI and creative output. While "WebBrain" showcases the potential of AI in generating factual articles, the legal ruling in "US court rules" highlights the limitations placed on AI's recognition as inventors. By addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by AI in creative endeavors, society can navigate this complex landscape and ensure fair and effective systems for intellectual property protection.

Hatch New Ideas with Glasp AI 🐣

Glasp AI allows you to hatch new ideas based on your curated content. Let's curate and create with Glasp AI :)