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

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 9:39 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On 2026-09-09 07:09, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> [snip]
> > "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?
>

Ultimately individual cases will have to be decided by courts. But it seems
like so long as a person played some role in the conception of what was
patented, it remains patentable. Having AI write the patent application or
come up with the drawings is a non-issue. Those things are already
typically done by people other than the inventors (patent attorneys
typically).


>
> [snip]
> > 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.
>

I think this is the result of courts trying to pigeonhole new concepts into
the frameworks of old laws, drafted long before anyone had any idea
of things like minds possed by "non-natural persons". The laws will have to
change, as they did when automobiles entered the roads previously occupied
by people and horses.


>
> > 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.
>

Copyright law is interesting to consider too. AI undoubtedly has used vast
quantities of copyrighted material in its training. Publishers say this
violates fair use, but how is it any different from a person who reads a
bunch of books, and then uses that knowledge to formulate its own ideas and
writing? Ideas are slippery things.


>
> >
> >> 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.
>

There is a vast gulf between the 1st and the sequels I have seen. Tarantino
commented that his opinion that The Matrix was the best movie of all time
had to be revised after the sequels came out (they apparently ruined the
first movie for him). I'll check out the animatrix, thank you.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260910/438d27d9/attachment-0001.htm>