Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Reframing the AI Debate To Improve How We Practice Law
For the last several years, I’ve become obsessed with a particular legal, technological, and philosophical question: Can a robot invent on its own?
I’ve long agonized over this issue, following with bated breath the ins and outs of the quixotic global mission by computer scientist Stephen Thaler to secure patent rights for DABUS, the unique machine he developed that, he asserts, has invented a beverage container and an emergency beacon.
My quest led me to Thaler’s office in St. Charles, Missouri, where I encountered DABUS in the “flesh,” probed his claims, and reached my own conclusions about whether a machine can qualify as an inventor.
But along the way, I learned much broader lessons about artificial intelligence (AI), how our discourse about machines has gone awry, and how consulting traditional models can provide clarity — especially to thorny legal issues at the intersection of technology and IP law.
The AI Debate: Four Schools of Thought
Cybersecurity Law & Strategy readers needn’t be reminded how the debate over AI in general, and its application to the practice of law in particular, has, in recent years, grown increasingly polarized.1. Positive Autonomists
On one hand, AI cheerleaders at OpenAI, Google, Meta, and elsewhere have waxed ecstatic about a robot-heavy future replete with supercharged drug discovery, fully self-driving private and public transportation, and the automation of both blue- and white-collar occupations, empowering humans to channel their productive energies into higher-value-added careers.
This school of thought, which I have labeled positive autonomists, believes fervently that large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude, already are or soon will be genuinely independent of its programmers, operating on its own and without human supervision. Thaler’s DABUS falls into this category, and for this reason, he has filed patent applications around the world in its name, arguing that its inventions were “autonomously generated by an artificial intelligence.”
Thaler has also proffered DABUS’s predecessor computer to the U.S. Copyright Office as an author of a colorful painting entitled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which he declared had been “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.”
Positive autonomists applaud the emergence of independent LLMs, not least because of their promise in generating new ideas. As Ryan Abbott, one of Thaler’s lawyers and a professor at the University of Surrey School of Law, argued in a 2016 law review article, “treating nonhumans as inventors would incentivize the creation of intellectual property by encouraging the development of creative computers.” See, “I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law,” Boston College Law Review, Vol. 57, Issue 4 (Sept. 28, 2016).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.