[ExI] Early Data Indicates an A.I.-Generated Drug Could Slow Aging

[Stuart LaForge]

On 2026-09-09 07:09, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026, 11:57 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
>> If that is so then patent law and copyright are diverging.
> 
> It appears the US patent office recently issued guidance on this
> question:
> 
> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/13/2024-02623/inventorship-guidance-for-ai-assisted-inventions
> 
> It says:
> 
> "The guidance provides clarity for USPTO stakeholders and personnel,
> including the Central Reexamination Unit and the Patent Trial and
> Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), on how the USPTO will analyze
> inventorship issues as AI systems, including generative AI, play a
> greater role in the innovation process. This guidance explains that
> while AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable, the
> inventorship analysis should focus on human contributions, as patents
> function to incentivize and reward human ingenuity. Patent protection
> may be sought for inventions for which a natural person provided a
> significant contribution to the invention, and the guidance provides
> procedures for determining the same. "
> 
> "35 U.S.C. 100(g) defines the terms “joint inventor” and
> “coinventor” as “any 1 of the individuals who invented or
> discovered the subject matter of a joint invention.” Based on the
> holding in Thaler that an “individual” must mean a natural person,
> it is clear that a “joint inventor” or “coinventor” must also
> be a natural person. In February of 2023, the USPTO published the
> R-07.2022 revision of the MPEP, which included revisions to section
> 2109. This section reiterates the USPTO's position, and the position
> expressed by the Federal Court in  Thaler, that an inventor must be a
> natural person, and by extension, any joint inventor must be a natural
> person."
> 
> "While AI systems and other non-natural persons [13] cannot be
> listed as inventors on patent applications or patents, the use of an
> AI system by a natural person(s) does not preclude a natural person(s)
> from qualifying as an inventor (or joint inventors) if the natural
> person(s) significantly contributed to the claimed invention, as
> explained in section IV of this notice."

Contributed on what level? Like if AI helped you come up with the idea 
in the first place, or if you used it to make USPTO-compliant drawings 
of a concept that was your novel idea? Are they going to scan your 
application for SynthID or other AI watermark?

> 
> "Additionally, there are no other sections of the Patent Act that
> support a position that inventions that are created by natural
> person(s) using specific tools, including AI systems, result in
> improper inventorship or are otherwise unpatentable. The statutes only
> require the naming of the natural persons who invented or discovered
> the claimed invention, irrespective of the contributions provided by
> an AI system or any other advanced system."
> 
> "The Supreme Court has indicated that the meaning of “invention”
> in the Patent Act refers to the inventor's conception.[19]
> Similarly, the Federal Circuit has made clear that conception is the
> touchstone of inventorship.[20]
> Conception is often referred to as a mental act or the mental part of
> invention.[21]
> Specifically, “[i]t is `the formation in the mind of the inventor,
> of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative
> invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.' ” [22]
> 
> Because conception is an act performed in the mind, it has to date
> been understood as only performed by natural persons. The courts have
> been unwilling to extend conception to non-natural persons.[23]
> Hence, when a natural person invents using an AI system, the
> conception analysis should focus on the natural person(s)."

So this sounds like mind is assumed to be a property of natural persons, 
which would seem to put AI in a similar category to corporations and 
other artificial persons when it came to patents.

> "When evaluating the contributions made by natural persons in the
> invention creation process, it is important to keep in mind they may
> apply for a patent jointly, “even though (1) they did not physically
> work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type
> or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to
> the subject matter of every claim of the patent.” [31]
> Instead, each inventor must contribute in some significant manner to
> the invention. In making this determination, the courts have looked to
> several factors, such that each inventor must: “(1) contribute in
> some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of
> the invention,[32]
> (2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not
> insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against
> the dimension of the full invention, and (3) do more than merely
> explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current
> state of the art” (Pannu factors).[33]
> Courts have found that a failure to meet any one of these factors
> precludes that person from being named an inventor.[34]"

[snip]

> So it seems that whether or not something is patentable comes down to
> how kne uses it. If you simply promoted the AI: "come up with a
> commercially viable patent idea for me." Those results would not be
> patentable.
> However, if you looked at the idea and then contributed to improving
> them in some important way, then it could be.
> 
> Alternatively, if instead you presented the AI with the seed of an
> idea (in terms of a solution) already in hand, and asked if the AI saw
> a way of turning it into a solution for certain problems, or to flesh
> out the details of an implementation, that result would be patentable.
> 
>> There was a
>> recent case regarding a graphic novel titled "Zarya of the Dawn"
>> that
>> only got limited copyright protection from the USPTO because the
>> author
>> Kris Kashtanova used Midjourney for the artwork.
> 
> That is a little surprising, especially as Adobe blurs the line
> between Photoshop and generative AI by building generative AI into
> their own Photoshop tool. Even taking photos with a phone sometimes
> use AI based algorithms to generate missing details and enhance
> perceived resolution.
> I think the copyright changes is showing that already the line between
> tool and entity/person is blurring.

Alas the recent watermarking laws that were passed in California and the 
EU resulting in rapid compliance through the use of statistical 
watermarks such as Google's SynthID has rendered much AI output 
economically inert. I had a debate with Gemini about it recently. 
Essentially AI gets to sign all of its art, but doing so renders the 
art, music, or writing public domain.

> 
>> The layout and text
>> were copyrightable, but the images were not. Also, I think that many
>> if
>> not most people choose not to distinguish between good AI-assisted
>> art
>> and AI slop, which is the difference between useful information and
>> spam. There is a weird irrational element to the politics
>> surrounding
>> generative AI. The irrationality is a little reminiscent of "The
>> Animatrix" prequel to "The Matrix" movie where the all human nations
>> 
>> boycotted importing products from the machine nation because it was
>> of
>> higher quality than the human products.
> 
> I'll have to check out the animatrix.

IMO it was the 2nd best Matrix movie . . .  better than any of the 
sequenls.

Stuart LaForge