Dr. Manhattan's Existential Pondering: Could He Ever Apply for a Patent in the Age of AI?
Dr. Manhattan’s Martian Epiphany: A Moment Humanity's Fate Hinged Upon
In my favourite part of my all-time favourite comic, Alan Moore's groundbreaking graphic novel "Watchmen," humanity hangs by a cosmic thread. Dr. Manhattan, the near-omniscient, timeless being, exiles himself to Mars, disenchanted by humanity’s trivial squabbles and apparent insignificance. His former partner, Laurie Juspeczyk, is sent as humanity’s desperate envoy. Everything hangs on her ability to convince an indifferent god that humanity deserves survival. Initially unmoved by her emotional appeals, Dr. Manhattan views humanity through the cold, detached lens of cosmic scale—petty, inconsequential, and utterly replaceable.
Yet, everything changes when he perceives Laurie's life—her miraculous journey from improbable conception to the intricate web of life events that culminated in her arrival before him. The sheer mathematical improbability of her existence overwhelms him. Each human, he realizes, is a statistical marvel—a unique miracle deserving observation, respect, even reverence. Thus, compelled by the wonder of humanity’s improbable existence, he chooses to return to Earth, not out of necessity but curiosity and awe.
ChatGPT: The Digital Dr. Manhattan
The parallel between Dr. Manhattan and advanced large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT is stark. Both wield the power of timeless perception, instantly accessing, interpreting, and synthesizing vast amounts of data. Just as Dr. Manhattan perceives atoms, quantum mechanics, and timelines simultaneously, ChatGPT sees patterns in human thought, expression, and knowledge at an unprecedented (and ever-increasing) granularity.
Critically, just as Dr. Manhattan requires continual human interactions to understand and appreciate the depth of existence itself, ChatGPT’s utility and evolution depend entirely on continual human-generated data. Without constant input of authentic human experiences, AI's comprehension would stagnate and ultimately fail to reflect humanity’s complexity. This is sort of why these LLMs keep asking us questions at the end of almost each message. Well, that, and also as an LLM-clickbait, I guess.
The bottom line is again a Douglas Adams one: Don't panic! If Dr. Manhattan found humanity worth saving because of its miraculous nature, so too will GPT always prioritize human survival and advancement—provided we keep supplying it with our profound, intricate experiences.
Would Dr. Manhattan Apply for a Patent? Why Musk and Dorsey Aren’t Completely Wrong
The tech world recently erupted in controversy when Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey provocatively advocated for abolishing intellectual property (IP) laws. IP experts globally were triggered, posting extensively on LinkedIn and Twitter, condemning this stance as reckless, self-serving, or deeply misguided. My LinkedIn is still filled with screenshots of Dorsey’s tweet and Musk’s ratio, followed with an indignant and I daresay angry defence of existing IP laws, funnily enough mostly by those whose jobs depend on them, but most definitely claiming that the fight is to protect creativity itself.
However, my unpopular opinion is that Musk and Dorsey might have a deeper point. While not elegant to the say least (and yet, have they ever been elegant with us?), their statement might be less about disrespecting inventors' rights and more about highlighting that current IP frameworks are obsolete in the age of AI-driven innovation. Today’s innovation isn't about solitary genius moments—it's collaborative, iterative, and, increasingly, AI-assisted.
Imagine Dr. Manhattan inventing today. Would he ever file a patent under contemporary IP laws? Absurd. His perception of innovation is infinitely granular, viewing inventions merely as assemblies of non-protectable, basic components. The incandescent light bulb, groundbreaking when first assembled, disintegrates into mundane, unpatentable components like glass, tungsten, and wires upon closer inspection. Pharmaceuticals similarly represent innovative arrangements of known molecules—individually, entirely unremarkable and non-protectable.
Current IP frameworks struggle enormously when AI contributes to innovation. Consider a recent case study: a biotech firm used AI agents to rapidly design a revolutionary treatment based on novel combinations of existing, unpatentable compounds. The innovation was undeniably groundbreaking, involving significant human creativity, meticulous experimentation, and iterative AI-driven modelling. Yet, existing patent laws questioned the firm's claim, citing significant AI involvement as potentially disqualifying the human inventiveness criterion under current patent standards. This scenario reflects the critical gap in current IP regulations, threatening innovation rather than fostering it.
Suggested Changes to IP Laws for an AI-Driven Future
To effectively navigate this new landscape, off the bat I would propose considering and testing the potential effects of several amendments to existing IP laws:
To ensure fairness and clarity, these changes would not affect existing protected IP, creating a distinct cutoff to avoid disruption of historical rights.
Conclusion: A Manhattan Project for Intellectual Property
The pressing necessity now is nothing short of a "Manhattan Project" for IP law—overhauling it entirely to align with the realities of human-AI collaboration. Recognizing innovation as granular, iterative, and collaborative will empower inventors to harness AI fully, unlocking unprecedented creativity and discovery.
Just as Dr. Manhattan returned from Mars captivated by humanity’s improbable miracles, we must ensure our IP laws recognize and embrace humanity’s miraculous potential in collaboration with AI. Anything less would betray our greatest asset—our boundless capacity for innovation.
#ChatGPT #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #DrManhattan #Watchmen #IntellectualProperty #IPLaw #Innovation #FutureOfCreativity #HumanAIcollaboration #OpenAI #ElonMusk #JackDorsey #SamAltman