ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2025
Why We Should Recognize AI as an Inventor.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is now possible for AI systems to generate novel inventions without meaningful human direction and control. Should such inventions be patented? The prevailing consensus, confirmed in recent test cases and official guidance, is that patent law only covers inventions by natural persons (i.e., humans). This, however, sometimes creates an odd situation in which AI-generated inventions cannot be patented, nor can the humans responsible for those systems gain patent rights indirectly through the operation of the law. In this article, we argue against this prevailing consensus. We present five reasons for thinking that AI-generated inventions should be patentable and that AI systems should be legally recognized as inventors. In making this argument, we do not claim that modern AI systems have acquired some significant legal or moral status that is equivalent to humans. Our argument is more practical in nature. We argue that failing to recognize AI inventorship will have negative repercussions for economic development and innovation, at a time when AI assistance is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.