文章探讨了人工智能时代，尤其是大型语言模型 (LLM) 的发明专利问题。作者质疑了以往“先到先得”的专利模式是否仍然适用于当前的 AI 发展，并分析了可能导致这一模式失效的原因，包括开源、信息共享以及 AI 技术的复杂性等因素。

🤔 作者提出，传统的专利模式是基于“先到先得”的原则，即第一个申请专利的人拥有该发明的所有权。但在 AI 时代，尤其是大型语言模型 (LLM) 的发展过程中，这种模式似乎失效了。

🤔 作者认为，AI 技术的复杂性和开源环境可能导致专利模式失效。由于 AI 技术的快速发展和信息共享，多个研究团队可能同时独立地进行类似的研究，导致多个团队同时拥有类似的发明，难以界定谁才是真正的“发明者”。

🤔 此外，作者还指出，LLM 的开发过程通常涉及大量的数据和算法，这些数据和算法可能来自多个来源，很难界定谁拥有所有权。

🤔 作者认为，目前的法律体系可能无法完全适应 AI 时代的专利问题，需要新的法律框架来解决这些挑战。

🤔 作者最后提出了一些关于 AI 专利问题的思考，例如：是否需要新的专利模式来适应 AI 时代的特点？如何界定 AI 发明的“发明者”？如何保护 AI 发明者的权益？

Published on August 16, 2024 8:21 PM GMT

I may be completely confused about this, but my model of technological breakthroughs in history was basically this: A few guys independently connect the dots leading to a new invention, for example the telephone, approximately at the same time. One of them runs to the patent office a little faster than the others, and he gets the patent first. Now he gets to be forever known as the inventor of the telephone, and the rest of them are screwed; if they ever try to sell their own inventions, they will probably get sued to bankruptcy.

Now, we have a few different companies selling AIs (LLMs). What is different this time?

Is my model of the history wrong?Is the current legal situation with patents different?Are LLMs somehow fundamentally different from all other previous inventions?Is it the fact that anyone can immediately publish all tiny partial steps in online journals, that makes it virtually impossible for any individual or institution to legally acquire the credit for the entire invention?Or something else...?

Discuss