A patent ‘will be filed and granted by AI technology’ in 25 years, experts say
A patent will be filed and granted without human intervention within the next 25 years was the conclusion reached at the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys' ( CIPA) debate on the evolution of artificial intelligence (AI).
Chaired by Tom Clarke, science editor at Channel 4 News, speakers debated the issues surrounding the use of AI technology to grant patents, such as regulatory aspects and the possibilities of AI replacing existing legal services within the intellectual property profession.
The debate was organised by UK-based CIPA at the Science Museum in London yesterday, November 2.
Chrissie Lightfoot, author of “The Naked Lawyer”, said AI is already providing legal services and predicted that AI technology will replace junior lawyers in the near future and later senior lawyers. She cited law firm Dentons’s NextLaw Labs, a service launched in May, which uses AI technology to assist lawyers.
“Lawyers are questioning whether their junior lawyers will be replaced in the near future. And it is inevitable AI will go up the human vertical. Nobody is immune. Robots can write and play music—they are creative,” Lightfoot said.
But she advised law firms to “embrace the benefits” of AI and not get complacent or arrogant. “Common sense tells us to prepare for the inevitable”.
Callum Chace, the author of the AI-focussed novel “Pandora’s Brain”, agreed that it is inevitable that a patent will be granted by a machine in 25 years. He quoted the scientist Albert Einstein, who said that “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them”.
Chase said technology is growing at an exponential rate and that predicting how it will develop in the future is impossible.
“Facebook recognises faces better than we do. Amazon and Netflix tell us what to buy and what to watch. AI is still in its infancy. If a machine can do your job, it will do your job,” he said.
Ilya Kazi, a patent attorney at Mathys & Squire, expressed concerns about the regulatory issues around allowing machines to file and grant patents, which raises questions about public trust.
“Who is going to decide who is playing fair? Society has to be happy for a machine to grant a legal monopoly to an inventor,” he said.
Attendees were also showed a video from Google DeepMind, which showed a machine mastering a number of games and beating top scores set by humans.
But Kazi said a computer can master a game because it is a “closed system”. The feedback is “instantaneous” and a machine can learn the rules of the game quickly. But patents are “open ended” and it is not usually clear until litigation whether a patent covers an inventive step.
Nigel Hanley, a patent examiner at the UK Intellectual Property Office, was incredulous about the prospect of AI technology replacing the services of an examiner within 25 years.
“Patents are governed by statute and AI will have to mirror legislation.
“Patent language is creative and occasionally new. How do you take the experience of an examiner and replicate it?” he added.
