Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are in a phase of unprecedented rapid development following the landmark release of Chat-GPT, which brought the phenomenon to wide public attention. As the deployment of AI products rises geometrically, considerable attention is being given to the threats and opportunities that AI technologies offer, and to the need for regulatory and standards initiatives to ensure that use of the technology aligns with societal needs and generates broad benefits while mitigating risks and threats. This manuscript is the third of a series of White Papers informing the development of IEEE-SA's p3995 {\it `Standard for the Implementation of Safeguards, Controls, and Preventive Techniques for Artificial Intelligence Models'} \cite{P3395}, Chair Marina Cort\^{e}s. This part focuses on assessing calmly and objectively, as far as is possible, the current state of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology development and identifying predominant trends, prospects, and ensuing risks. It necessarily forms a snapshot of the current instant of a rapidly-evolving landscape, with new products and innovations emerging continuously. While our main focus is on software and hardware developments and their corporate context, we also briefly review progress on robotics within the AI context and describe some implications of the substantial and growing AI energy demand.

LONDON (Reuters) – An American computer scientist on Thursday urged the United Kingdom's Supreme Court to rule he is entitled to patents over inventions created by his artificial intelligence system, in a landmark case about whether AI can own patent rights. Stephen Thaler wants to be granted two patents in the UK over inventions he says were devised by his "creativity machine" called DABUS. His attempt to register the patents was refused on the grounds that the inventor must be a human or a company, rather than a machine. Thaler's lawyer Robert Jehan told the Supreme Court in London that Thaler is "entitled to the rights of the DABUS inventions" because there is no requirement under UK patent law that an invention "must have a human inventor to be patentable". He argued in court filings that the owner of an AI system is "entitled to inventions generated by the system and to the grant of patents for those inventions if patentable". But lawyers representing the UK's Intellectual Property Office, which initially refused Thaler's applications in 2019, argued the appeal should be dismissed.

Back in August 2019, the USPTO published a notice requesting public input on the interplay between patent law and artificial intelligence (AI). The PTO has now extended that deadline for comments until January 10, 2020. For example, should it be sufficient if a person (i) designed the AI algorithm or process that created the work; (ii) contributed to the design of the algorithm or process; (iii) chose data used by the algorithm for training or otherwise; (iv) caused the AI algorithm or process to be used to yield the work; or (v) engaged in some specific combination of the foregoing Start Printed Page 58142activities? Should authors be recognized for this type of use of their works? For example: Should a company who trains the artificial intelligence process that creates the work be able to be an owner?

Back in August 2019, the USPTO published a notice requesting public input on the interplay between patent law and artificial intelligence (AI). The PTO has now extended that deadline for comments until January 10, 2020. For example, should it be sufficient if a person (i) designed the AI algorithm or process that created the work; (ii) contributed to the design of the algorithm or process; (iii) chose data used by the algorithm for training or otherwise; (iv) caused the AI algorithm or process to be used to yield the work; or (v) engaged in some specific combination of the foregoing Start Printed Page 58142activities? Should authors be recognized for this type of use of their works? For example: Should a company who trains the artificial intelligence process that creates the work be able to be an owner?

Filing a patent is the clerical equivalent of pulling teeth -- at least in the U.S. It first requires inventors to determine the type of intellectual property (IP) protection they require (i.e., utility, design, or plant). Then they're on the hook to conduct a United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database search for similar inventions. If and only if the novelty of their idea passes muster are they allowed to proceed to the next step, which is preparing an application and fees. The system has motivated people like former aerospace engineer Dr. Stephen Thaler to turn to AI in pursuit of a better way. He, along with a team of legal experts and engineers, developed DABUS, a "creativity machine" that's able to generate ideas without human intervention.

The overall cost to obtain a utility patent for an invention is generally $8000 to $18000, depending upon the country where patent filing is desired. A utility patent application includes patent claims, drawings and description of the invention. The patent application cost in India covers the official filing fee and the patent attorney charges for drafting a patent application. The cost of patent application in India may also include charges for conducting a patent prior art search. The results of patent search are used to perform a patentability analysis.

The artificial intelligence patent landscape shows disruption across the entire technology ecosystem. At present, the USPTO is looking for data on computerized reasoning Artificial Intelligence (AI) Inventions. In spite of the fact that the concentration here is AI development, the important hidden string is corporate invention. For AI Inventions the person who conceives the training program of that AI is the inventor as well. Distinguishing the new unobvious arrangement would establish a discovery, since AI isn't aware, the individual who initially recognizes it makes the discovery.

To patent machine learning, you will need to correctly claim and describe your invention while making sure that you comply with current laws related to this type of intellectual property. Machine learning plays an important role in much of today's technology. For example, without machine learning, effective internet searches would not be possible. The problem with machine learning, however, is that it can be hard to file patents for inventions in this growing field. It is not always immediately clear what software inventions are eligible for patent protections.

Three years after Elon Musk announced in his famous "All Our Patent Are Belong To You" blog post that Tesla would be opening all of its patents to the public, he tweeted a recommendation of Max Tegmark's recent book Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence--which just happens to allude to a not-too-distant future world in which, based on current patent law, all inventions might be free and open to the public. In this story, superhuman general artificial intelligence is secretly created by humans, and its creation began the end of human invention. In Tegmark's world, the superhuman A.I. makes its first millions by targeting Amazon's Mechanical Turk (or MTurk) and developing category-specific A.I. modules that perform tasks requested in the MTurk marketplace. Quickly thereafter, the superhuman A.I. makes its first billions by creating sensationally successful animated movies and series without human guidance. Although the Federal Circuit recently concluded that "inventors must be natural persons and cannot be corporations or sovereigns," the court's conclusion appeared to be based on the premise that the "conception" element required under patent law is "a mental act" and that only natural persons can perform such an act.

Whether an A.I. ought to be granted patent rights is a timely question given the increasing proliferation of A.I. in the workplace. One might argue that Intellectual Property (IP) laws and IP Rights were designed to exclusively benefit human creators and inventors[7] and thus would exclude non-humans from holding IP rights. However, many IP laws were drafted well before the emergence of A.I. and in any case, do not explicitly require that a creator or inventor be'human.' The World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPOs) definition of Intellectual Property talks about creations of the mind[9] but does not specify whether it must be a human mind. Similarly, provisions in laws promoting innovation and IP rights, such as the so-called Intellectual Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution[10], also do not explicitly mention a'human' requirement.