How might incentives for innovative activities change with the advent of AI as an ‘invention of a method of inventing
The effects of the continuous progress that comes with artificial intelligence on the society and economy is tremendous. This progress comes with vertical and horizontal changes to all existing industries, expanding the present products and services lines and facilitating the emergence of new ones. It also enhances productivity, ensuring job loss and job creation. This innovation is now gradually becoming the source of invention and being refers to here as invention of the method of invention as postulated by Alfred North Whitehead. While there has been argument on the legality of AI having a patent right as seen in the case of DABUS AI, AI is now known to possess the capacity of invention, and there is ned for right policy that will ensure right incentive. If this dynamic is not recognising and continue with the existing approach of human been the source of invention it will not only limit the positive benefits of IMI but maintain the negative implications of retain such approach.
Firstly, artificial intelligence through the power of its deep learning capacity can be tag as general-purpose technology, taking it above the traditional automation possesses its has power that allows both vertical and horizontal changes in any industry. For instance, the invention of hybrid corn doesn’t not just improve the seedling, it brought about new products with broader application, as well as allow others to apply this same method in other seedling. Thereby having great impact on agricultural productivity (Agrawal, Gans, & Goldfarb, 2019) . This type of impact can be seen on the medical field. The development of AlphaFold that has brought about the understanding of structure of protein is a major breakthrough medical field and can help aid preparation against pandemic, as well as development of drugs to fight disease (Deepmind, 2022) . The benefits of these technologies can be beyond what is explained above, as some of the technologies have the capacity to invent another invention.
The present issue of not recognising these technologies as inventor can cause distortion of investment. This, according to (Agrawal, Gans, & Goldfarb, 2019) is linked to vertical and horizontal externalities. Investment is known to flows to the direction that policies encourages. As it is presently, investment in technology that can ensure the development of other technologies will be next to nothing as there won’t be any incentive for the produce of the invention. This is one of the unintended consequences as predicted by Ryan Abbort (Chen, 2020) . This can also be link to the termination of the Watson for Drug Discovery. Many drug researchers made use of the platform but there was next to nothing for IBM in term incentive for aiding the work of other sector.
Changing the present policies that stand against the recognition of these important IMI – Invention of Method of Inventing would allow the flow of investment in this direction, It would prevent the ending of programs like Watson for Drug Development, which not only reduce the time for discovery of new drugs but prune down the over $2billion that get injected into drug discovery. This in no small way safe lives that would have been loss while in search of cure for diseases. A good example of what can be achieve with this technology was the development of Covid-19 vaccine within short interval. This happened because these was incentive that prompted biopharmaceutical companies to apply the power of AI to the discovery.
In addition, allowing the patent of the technology will ensure right compensation for the inventions. It will also allow the emergence of products that would not have emerged if the inventor of the source invention is not appropriately renumerated or discouraged by policy. If the case of DABUS AI remains as it stands, it will discourage other inventors of inventions that can invent from going ahead with such invention. Thereby delaying the development of the society and deny the economy with the activities that would have result from such invention.
Furthermore, it will allow policy makers and other stakeholders to ensure that quality of products emerged. By setting up appropriate standard the result of the invention will not only meet up to the expected standard, the process of its creation will also be within public domain. Restriction will only bring about secretive use of these knowledge, and it will come with consequence loss of income and standard.
Works Cited
Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2019). The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chen, A. (2020, January 8). Can an AI be an inventor? Not yet. Retrieved from MIT Technolgy Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/08/102298/ai-inventor-patent-dabus-intellectual-property-uk-european-patent-office-law/
Deepmind. (2022, May 19). AlphaFold: a solution to a 50-year-old grand challenge in biology. Retrieved from Deepmind: https://www.deepmind.com/blog/alphafold-a-solution-to-a-50-year-old-grand-challenge-in-biology
Comments