[09:32] schestowitz[09:32] schestowitzI suppose some people also expect blogs to consist of posts, all of which have a satisfying conclusion. Does this sentence count as one?
[09:32] schestowitz
[10:30] schestowitz[10:30] schestowitzAge verification is the process of predicting or confirming an individuals age on the internet. And more and more often, we hear from governments and the age verification industry that we need to use this tool to ensure childrens safety online.
[10:30] schestowitzFor example, in the EU, the draft Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Regulation proposes to mandate forms of age verification for private message services (e.g. WhatsApp, Signal) and app stores operating in the EU, and to strongly incentivise it for all other digital platforms and services, such as social media.
[10:30] schestowitz
[10:31] schestowitz[10:31] schestowitzThe Canadian government plans to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in search results and when used to prioritize the display of content on search engines and social media services. AI is widely used by both search and social media for a range of purpose that do not involve ChatGPT-style generative AI. For example, Google has identified multiple ways that it uses AI to generate search results, [10:31] schestowitz provide translation, and other features, while TikTok uses AI to identify the interests of its users through recommendation engines. The regulation plans are revealed in a letter from ISED Minister Franois-Philippe Champagne to the Industry committee studying Bill C-27, the privacy reform and AI regulation bill. The government is refusing to disclose the actual text of planned amendments to the bill.
[10:31] schestowitz
The case law would suggest a confidently agreement is also required. See T0002/09, 4.2:
According to the case law of the boards of appeal, information is "available to the public" if only a single member of the public is in a position to gain access to it and understand it, and if said member of the public is under no obligation to maintai [22:52] schestowitz n secrecy (see T 1081/01, point 5 of the Reasons, affirmed by T 1309/07, point 3.2.1 of the Reasons). Whether or not a member of the public has actually accessed the information is irrelevant (see T 84/83, point 2.4.2 of the Reasons).
This is uncharted territory and there are certainly arguments as to whether this old law holds up when applied to LLM servers.
The comparison with cloud storage is interesting, an [22:52] schestowitz d arguably this line of case law might be more relevant. T1153/06, headnote:
It can be safely concluded that a document stored on the World Wide Web was made available to the public:
If, before the filing or priority date of the patent or patent application, a document stored on the World Wide Web and accessible via a specific URL
(1) could be found with the help of a public web search engine by using one or mor [22:52] schestowitz e keywords all related to the essence of the content of that document and
(2) remained accessible at that URL for a period of time long enough for a member of the public, i.e. someone under no obligation to keep the content of the document secret, to have direct and unambiguous access to the document,
then the document was made available to the public in the sense of Article 54(2) EPC 1973.
If any of conditions (1) and (2 [22:52] schestowitz ) is not met, the above test does not permit to conclude whether or not the document in question was made available to the public.
(See point 6.7.3)
Is a cloud storage provider staff member bound by confidence? Google workspace t&cs say:
The recipient will only use the disclosing party's Confidential Information to exercise the recipients rights and fulfill its obligations under the Agreement, an [22:52] schestowitz d will use reasonable care to protect against the disclosure of the disclosing party's Confidential Information. The recipient may disclose Confidential Information only to its Affiliates, employees, agents, or professional advisors ("Delegates") who need to know it and who have agreed in writing (or in the case of professional advisors are otherwise bound) to keep it confidential. The recipient will ensure that its Delegates [22:52] schestowitz use the received Confidential Information only to exercise rights and fulfill obligations under this Agreement.
Not perfect, but perhaps good enough. ChatGPT has nothing even approaching this, plus they can update terms at any time.
I am sure someone more clever can argue a path that reconciles the law with LLMs, but until an authority does so, would you risk using an LLM to draft a patent?" [22:53] schestowitz "You aren't handing your data over to anybody. LLMs can be trained with old data and then subsequently ran on a private instance, of which only the end user has access to. Therefore you aren't disclosing anything to any other human being, its working more like a computer program." [22:53] schestowitz "True - cheaper, poor-quality and sometimes dishonest competitors are a challenge we face. It is probably difficult for clients to tell the difference between high-quality work and work that looks superficially like a reasonable patent draft but just hasn't had the thought put in. Actually I think many clients eventually figure it out but only when it is too late...
In principle the cheaper, poor-quality, AI-based competitors [22:53] schestowitz are no different from the cheaper, poor-quality, human competitors in that sense, but there are going to be more of them now, everyone is excited about AI and those who want to believe will believe.
The exchange with Dolcera is interesting... for my part I would have though the confidentiality issue, though serious, is one that is in principle solvable just as many are happy to store confidential documents on cloud-based se [22:53] schestowitz rvices. But Dolcera's combative approach and an apparent failure to understand the concern at all is not really going to do them any favours." [22:53] schestowitz "Very thought-provoking comment, especially considering trainee angle.
Patent attorneys have nothing to fear only if there is honesty from providers of such services, including their limitations which include destroying novelty of future patents. See here, the provider refuses to acknowledge there is a problem - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dolcera_draft-patents-using-dolcera-ip-chatgpt-aka-ugcPost-7108173290451464192-mZ_1 [22:53] schestowitz ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
If patent attorneys have to compete with cheaper services that could invalidate IP rights, thats a much harder battle to win in absence of the required honesty. Patent attorneys should be afraid of this." [22:53] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Dolcera Corporation on LinkedIn: Draft patents using Dolcera IP ChatGPT aka IP Author | 24 comments ● Oct 06 [23:03] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [23:05] *Moocher5254 has quit (Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.) [23:11] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes [23:15] *MinceR gives voice to jacobk