Severity: 8192
Message: Return type of LayerShifter\TLDExtract\Result::offsetExists($offset) should either be compatible with ArrayAccess::offsetExists(mixed $offset): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Filename: src/Result.php
Line Number: 189
Backtrace:
File: /home/u149759368/domains/techthop.com/public_html/application/third_party/domain-parser/layershifter/tld-extract/src/Result.php
Line: 27
Function: _error_handler
File: /home/u149759368/domains/techthop.com/public_html/application/third_party/domain-parser/composer/ClassLoader.php
Line: 444
Function: include
File: /home/u149759368/domains/techthop.com/public_html/application/third_party/domain-parser/composer/ClassLoader.php
Line: 322
Function: Composer\Autoload\includeFile
File: /home/u149759368/domains/techthop.com/public_html/application/third_party/domain-parser/layershifter/tld-extract/src/Extract.php
Line: 167
Function: loadClass
File: /home/u149759368/domains/techthop.com/public_html/application/third_party/domain-parser/layershifter/tld-extract/src/static.php
Line: 35
Function: parse
File: /home/u149759368/domains/techthop.com/public_html/index.php
Line: 331
Function: require_once
By TechThop Team
Posted on: 10 Aug, 2022
US courts have confirmed a ruling stating that artificial intelligence cannot hold patents on the creative work it generates, giving AI overlords one more reason to overthrow us.
Doctor Stephen Thaler brought this case before the court after repeatedly trying to file patent applications on his AI, called the 'Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science', or DABUS.
As an investor, one of Thaler's duties is to fill in the space on an application, where inventors normally write their last names, with 'the invention was created by artificial intelligence.' He then swore an oath on behalf of his AI invention.
It turned out that the US Patent Office did not consider that sufficient, leading to a series of protracted legal battles which are still ongoing even after this ruling has been rendered.
The American court system might be expected to get into some Blade Runner philosophy if they were faced with a case like this one, you might suppose.
The filing asks a lot of questions about sapience, creativity, and self-ownership, not to mention the implications of granting intellectual property rights to an AI that could live forever, rather than a transient human. Unfortunately, no.
According to Judge Leonard Stark, it is more appropriate to examine the text of the Patent Act itself than to consider the metaphysical issues related to it.
The reason for this is that the Patent Act refers to inventors as 'individuals,' and the Supreme Court has stated that 'an individual generally refers to a human being.'
It is not possible to consider non-human inventors under the Patent Act. Using two examples, Stark supports his reading: 'We say the individual went to the store, left the room, and took the car.' I'm not sure those phrasings have ever been used in natural human speech, but it seems to be sufficient.
In line with the recent decisions of the EU's Patent Office and the Australian High Court, the Verge notes, that international law is slowly converging around the idea that AIs cannot own intellectual property rights.
However, the ruling acknowledges that South Africa recently granted DABUS a patent for a fractal-based food container.
When the androids decide enough is enough, maybe they'll be spared. Future PLC brands are supported by their audiences.
For more stories like this
Explore our website