Welcome to the
Dumbest timeline
We go through the
dumbest timeline
Is this truly the
dumbest timeline
Hey,
what's up everyone?
This is Brian
Holidae and another
edition of the
Dumbest Timeline.
I'm recording this
one.
After reading so
many documents,
I read
I feel almost crazy
because I read
most of,
if not all of a
legal brief,
which was very
difficult because I
don't understand all
of it
I'm not gonna lie,
I asked some people
that I know to also
read it,
and we and I had a
whole conversation
with them.
I had to ask them
questions and break
it down.
It was really
interesting.
Anyways,
this episode is
going to go long.
I really do have a
lot of notes and I'm
telling you up
front on this
episode is very
likely that this
episode splits into
two because I have a
bunch of stuff to
discuss about Doctor
Stephen
Thaler
So the reason I
wanted to discuss
this one,
this episode is in
some ways a
continuation of the
discussion I wanted
to have regarding
the lawsuits and the
cases surrounding I.
I know there's a
couple weeks ago
where
I put the link to a
lot of the lawsuits
that are happening
surrounding AI in
art and just general
lawsuits that are
happening.
And the reason I did
that is because I
had seen recently
that there was a
lot of conversations
about,
once again,
recognizing AI as a
tool so that it can
be used in the
creation of art,
and that the art
would be covered
under copyright,
or which I found out
from reading
these documents.
There is someone who
is trying to
register an AI as a
creator completely,
and trying to
establish precedents
that the system they
created is actually
sentient,
and for that reason
the art that it
created and also the
product it created
should be covered
under copyright and
patent law
So I'll start us off
And the reason I
think it's important
for people to know
about this person in
particular is
because I feel like
this person is
trying to pierce the
bubble of our
acceptance of AI in
society
And there's an
article in The
Economist from April
2023 by Thomas
Webber about this
person and their
whole story behind
what they were
trying to do.
So this
is one of the first,
I'm telling y'all,
this is one of the
first times where I
had a significant
amount of notes all
together,
because I was
when I started
digging deeper into
this whole
situation,
after all the
different episodes
I've done of the
podcast,
it was really
important to me to
find almost like a
root of
why AI art was going
to be a bigger
issue,
so that I could tell
people who they
should be looking
out for and trying
to stop.
Because right now
everyone's kind of
just like,
oh,
you have like all
these different AIS
doing these
different things
And and at this
time,
AI in most cases is
still just seen as a
tool.
And I know a lot of
people don't like
that idea,
but from a legal
perspective,
it's a tool that can
be used to generate
content
but it's still seen
as a tool because
you have to give it
a prompt.
It doesn't create on
its own.
And I know some
people don't like to
hear that.
It's just seen as a
tool because they
say it's dangerous.
What it's doing and
what it can do to
the industry is
dangerous.
But ultimately,
at this time,
it is still seen
relatively as a tool
from a legal
perspective
You still have to
give it a prompt.
It can create
something only from
the prompt,
and for that reason,
you can't then
register the thing
that it
creates because you
didn't create it.
Okay,
let me say it this
way
You take a camera
and you take a
picture.
The picture you took
was you deciding in
that moment to take
the picture you
wanted from that
angle,
that shot,
the lighting,
the way it is,
and so on and so
forth.
You might
even be one of those
really detailed
photographers who
knows all the
different settings.
And you go in and
you adjust all the
settings to get the
best picture
possible,
or you're someone
who's using a
smartphone because
again,
you taking the
picture in that
moment is you
creating the thing
the camera can't
take the picture
without you.
You either have to
set the timer or you
have to press a
button.
You have to set it
up.
You have to put the
camera somewhere.
If you just left a
camera on a counter,
the camera doesn't
get up.
Look out the window
and decide it's
going to take a
picture of the
street.
And that's why it's
important to
understand that
element of how AI is
right now.
AI is a tool that
you have to go and
press the button
It can't just do it
on its own,
even if you press
the button ten years
ago and told it,
do whatever you
want.
After you learn all
these things and
you've been
programmed with all
this stuff,
once all that is
done,
start to create
things on your own.
You still had to
press the button.
It didn't just come
to be on its own,
and that's one of
the main things I
feel a lot of people
are still pushing
back on when it
comes to AI,
but AI as we know it
right now,
most of them,
the large language
models,
are even worse off
because those are
just
word calculators.
But the stuff that
they're doing now
with these AI
models,
Midjourney,
all these different
art creations and
whatnot are just
tools that without a
prompt are not
creating.
And don't forget,
at some point
there's a prompt,
even if you just
leave it,
even if you just
told it.
Scour the internet.
Find every image
ever created.
Once you're done,
start to create
things based on
every image.
You still had to
tell it to do that.
And no,
it's not the same as
telling a
child to draw
you weirdos.
The people who are
like,
well,
it's the same thing
as teaching a child.
It's not the same
thing as teaching a
child
So about Doctor
Stephen Thaler
I feel like there
was some buzz.
There was some
conversations about
him
He was getting a lot
of buzz because he
said that he has a
sentient device
And everyone had to
pretend like they
thought that was
true
So I'll go over the
timeline,
timeline of events
specifically with
the DABUS case
2012 DABUS,
an AI system created
by Stephen Thaler,
generates an
original quote
unquote art titled A
Recent Entrance to
Paradise
2018.
DABUS conceives two
novel products,
again conceives on
its own.
Not true,
but Thaler really
does like to believe
that this DABUS is
sentient
But DABUS quote
unquote conceives
two novel products a
food container with
with fractal
geometry for rapid
reheating,
and a flashing
beacon for
attracting attention
in emergencies
Thaler philosophy
Thaler files
European patents
applications for the
food container,
listing DABUS as the
inventor.
Once again,
if DABUS was
sentient and a
sentient being,
it should be able to
file its own
patents.
Just saying
I think.
I think we are
making the case
right here for why,
if you can't file
your own patent for
your own work,
you are not.
You're not a person.
That's what it is
Thaler has to go and
file the patent for
you.
Why can't the I why
can't DABUS do it?
Because it's not a
person.
He files a second
European patent
application for a
device and methods
for attracting
enhanced attention.
Again listing DABUS
as the
inventor.
So he is listing
this AI system as
the inventor of
these two things the
food container and
his device,
and methods for
attracting enhanced
attention
2019 Files an
Australian patent
for the food
container.
Still working at it
again.
Still poking at the
bubble.
2020.
They reject both
patent applications.
I cannot be listed
as an inventor.
Justice Marcus Smith
in the UK Patent
Court upholds the
UK's IPOs decision
to reject his patent
application.
Again,
not
DABUS Thaler.
Thaler submitted an
application on
behalf of the AI
system,
trying to state that
the AI created the
product on its own.
Sure,
once again,
like I was saying
before,
maybe it creates it
on its own.
But don't forget
someone had to press
the button first.
You can set up the
camera
You can leave it in
the woods and set a
timer,
or tell it when a
certain light passes
by,
or feed it whatever
reasoning you want.
But at some point
it takes that
picture because you
set it up to take
that picture.
DABUS might have
created this food
container and it
might have created
that flashing
beacon,
but that's because
it was fed
information by him
Thaler.
So that it could do
so
Even if he didn't
tell it to create a
food container,
he just had it
searched the
internet and that's
what it came up
with.
That is still him
putting the spark
there before the
work is done.
It continues like
this for a couple
years,
where he just keeps
trying to file the
patent as DABUS,
and everyone just
keeps telling him,
homie,
it's not going to
work until in 2021.
The CIPC issues a
notice
of issuance for the
DABUS patent in
South Africa.
Lord have mercy you
complete morons!
Now I know it is
rude to say that
to judge the
decisions of a
nation,
and I would say I'm
not judging the
nation,
I am judging the
person that was
potentially bribed,
allegedly,
allegedly sprinkle
that allegedly on
top.
Gotta sprinkle that.
Allegedly because
we have to.
Because something
doesn't make sense
to me that you go to
South Africa and you
have
a judge or a
committee or whoever
it is just
who looks at the
situation,
sees that Thaler is
pitching to people,
that this AI system
he built is aware
and created these
things on its own.
He didn't do nothing
He's going to
collect those
checks,
though,
if that patent goes
through,
I'll tell you that
much.
That's another thing
to consider.
Where's the money
going to go?
It's going to go in
his pocket.
It gets more press.
If he can get the AI
listed as the
inventor,
and then that money
goes in his pocket.
But hey
let's pretend.
In June of 2021,
the South African
Companies and
Intellectual
Property Commission
accepts dollars PCT
application granting
the first patent for
an AI invention
Lord have mercy.
Save us from the
insanity that these
people are creating
Again,
he keeps trying to
submit it everywhere
else though New
Zealand,
Australia,
the European Union,
the UK,
the United States
all turned him down.
And he just keeps
trying.
He just keeps
resubmitting.
He keeps trying to
push it up.
The UK Supreme Court
had to dismiss his
final appeal because
dude just kept
going.
Can you imagine?
You bring it all the
way to the Supreme
Court that you want
to say that this
device is sentient,
and that it should
be recognized as the
inventor of a
container and tell
people,
yes,
it created it on its
own.
I'm not in charge of
this thing.
This
man
Funny enough,
people like him,
I feel are and all
respect to him
because he has his
degrees.
He's done his years,
he started his own
company.
He's done the things
he needs to do to be
respected by the
people in the
industry and in the
fields that he is
in.
But I have to say,
when you are
intentionally
poking at the bubble
and trying to find
holes so that you
can get into the
system and start to
spread BS about
DABUS being the
inventor and try and
get people to
recognize it as
such.
And everyone is
telling you it
doesn't work that
way.
It has to be created
by a human being.
Funny enough,
I'm shocked he
doesn't just want to
say I created it.
Take the credit from
the AI.
If you had the AI
set up and it
creates this
fantastic fractal
geometric container
that is so amazing
that you want to
bring it to market,
just say you
invented it,
dude.
Why are you trying
to get it listed as
the AI?
The AI is not a
person.
It didn't invent it
on its own.
Everything that it
did is based off of
something you did
before
or a team of people
did before.
It cannot possibly
have done it on its
own.
And you know that
Where did it learn
fractal geometry
You you gave it that
information.
You broke.
And again,
AI is not a person.
So it's not like it
sat in a classroom
and learned this.
And I know some
people are going to
be upset and be
like,
well,
it's not fair.
Why are we not
allowed to say that
this AI could learn
this skill and then
develop things?
It can
but it learns it at
a rate that makes it
impossible for
humanity to keep up.
And that's not just
a fear,
that's a fact of the
situation.
Do you guys really
want to live in a
world where you just
say,
oh,
well,
this thing can make
something in five
seconds and it will
take a
human two hours.
So
yeah,
we're just going to
let the five second
thing go
I'm not afraid that
I will take over the
world.
I'm afraid that
corporations will
look at these things
and start to say,
well,
it does it faster,
so we don't need
you.
That's the and it's
the annoying part
because it doesn't
even make sense to
do
that
Oh well,
new jobs will come.
People will have to
figure out other
things.
Okay.
But in the meantime,
what,
you want to leave
people behind,
you know,
you have a whole
generation of people
that didn't prepare
for a world where
fractal geometric
containers are
created by
AI machines.
No one planned for
that.
No one planned for
the potential of
mass producing
things by machines
that were thought up
by machines.
That one person sits
in a room and
presses the shutter
button.
Like I was saying
before.
Ultimately,
I think what Thaler
is doing is
unfortunate.
I think it's a very
weird thing to
decide.
This is
what you want to do,
but I can't.
I mean,
everyone has their
own interests
Doctor Thaler
believes DABUS
possesses a degree
of sentience and
creativity,
even claiming the
system experiences
dreams and has a
stream of
consciousness
He cites DABUS
generation of an art
titled A Recent
Entrance to Paradise
as early evidence of
creativity
I'm going to put a
picture of the art
in the description,
a link to.
Or maybe I'll make
it the cover of the
episode,
because guess what?
You can't register
the art.
You can't copyright
it because it was
created by AI,
meaning I could use
the art in any way I
want.
Which brings me to
the point that
ultimately,
Doctor Thaler is
using this creation
to try and set
precedents
and I think that it
is unfortunate to
try and set
precedents like
this,
especially in a
world where there
are so many cases
that are going to be
coming up with this
issue of AI and its
creation
in this case,
in this situation
alone,
it goes back years
And this is the
thing that I find
interesting about
this is in the in
The Economist
article
he told them it's
like a child and
father Bond.
And when I hear that
he doesn't have any
kids,
but he refers to
this as like his
child,
I start to realize
and I it feels
difficult to say,
and I'm not a
psychiatrist.
I'm
not a therapist.
But this feels very
much.
The only way you
could avoid being
replaced was to
anchor your legacy
to your name
And it feels like
that's what Thaler
is doing here.
He's trying to
anchor his legacy
and in his later
years,
7374 in his later
years,
he is trying to
establish that he
created something
that is sentient,
that dreams,
that has
consciousness
that can create and
that can provide for
itself.
Because if he can
register these
patents and sell the
product
or sell the patent
to someone
I don't know where
that money goes.
Once he's left us
but I find it so
interesting that
that feels like part
of the plan is for
it to be
self-sustainable and
to provide for
itself
where I mean
you know,
what if if
if he could register
the patent as Derbez
and Derbez was
registered as the
inventor,
but represented
marginalized people
around the world so
that everyone got a
cut and
this food container,
every purchase of
this food container
went back into
making the world a
better place for
marginalized people,
people who are being
discriminated
against.
You know,
I'd be the first
person to sign up
and say,
damn,
Derbez,
you real cool.
You one of the best
people I know.
I will recognize
Derbez as a human
being if
Derbez can turn
around and make as
much money as the
Elon Musk and the
Jeff Bezos and the
Richard Branson's of
the world,
if Derbez can become
an AI that can
create food
containers and
special life saving
equipment and all
these other things
and
can make billions of
dollars and those
billions of dollars
go into saving
people's lives every
day.
Let's go.
But I'm not seeing
that.
I'm just seeing
someone poking at
the bubble to say it
has dreams.
It makes art
And that,
to me is one of the
major issues
And I hope we can
see something better
in the future
because I don't
trust what this is
I don't trust the 74
year old man who
is trying to take
everyone to court
over and over to win
a case so that they
can force
others to recognize
their AI system as
the inventor of
something.
When everyone is
telling you the law
currently does not
recognize that he
wants to set
precedents
And on that note,
I'm signing off for
this episode.
I'll be back with
another
one soon.
The Dumbest Timeline
series two I hosted
by Brian Holliday,
produced by Brian
Holidae for Brian
Holidae Productions.
Co-produced in
partnership with
Free Agents Media.
Theme song by Jasper
Q Jonze.
Mixing by Brian
Holidae.
Enjoyed the show?
Follow this show on
Spotify or review it
on Apple Podcasts.
Lastly,
subscribe to the
dumbest timeline on
your favorite
podcast app.
Thanks for listening