ForHumanity’s Stance on AI in Innovation and Creativity: Preserving the Human Element

The role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in innovation and creativity has become a topic of intense debate, particularly in the realm of patent law. ForHumanity, a non-profit organization dedicated to managing risk in AI, algorithmic, and autonomous systems, takes the firm stance was outlined in a recent document submitted to the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), emphasizes the importance of maintaining a human-centric approach in patent law and innovation processes.

Key Points of ForHumanity’s Position

1. AI as a Tool, Not a Creator: ForHumanity firmly rejects the notion of attributing personhood or independent creative abilities to AI. AI should be viewed as a sophisticated tool, programmed and guided by humans, rather than an autonomous inventor or creator.

2. Prior Art and AI-Generated Content: ForHumanity contends that AI-generated content should not automatically qualify as prior art. They emphasize the need for human involvement in the creation, curation, and publication of such content for it to be considered prior art.

3. The Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA): ForHumanity insists that the concept of PHOSITA should remain a human construct. While AI can enhance the knowledge and capabilities of the PHOSITA, it should not replace the human element central to the inventive process.

4. Patentability Determinations: The organization argues that patentability, particularly non-obviousness, should be determined based on human-centric definitions of prior art and PHOSITA. They stress that “understanding,” a crucial aspect of assessing non-obviousness, is a uniquely human capability that AI cannot replicate.

Existing Precedents and Rules

ForHumanity’s position aligns with and builds upon existing legal precedents and USPTO guidelines:

1. In re Hall (1986): This case established a broad definition of “publicly available information” for prior art, emphasizing human accessibility.

2. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1851): This landmark case introduced the concept of non-obviousness, which remains central to patent law and is inherently tied to human skill and creativity.

3. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc. (2007): This case provided factors for determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, all of which are human-centric.

4. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007): This ruling emphasized the importance of considering “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” reinforcing the human element in assessing non-obviousness.

5. USPTO Guidance (February 2024): Recent USPTO guidance stresses the importance of “common sense” and “common knowledge” in understanding prior art, qualities that ForHumanity argues are uniquely human.

Implications for Innovation and Creativity

ForHumanity’s stance has significant implications for how we approach innovation and creativity in the AI age:

1. Preserving Human Ingenuity: By maintaining a human-centric approach, we ensure that true innovation and creativity — which often involve intuition, lateral thinking, and deep understanding — are properly recognized and protected.

2. Ethical Considerations: This approach helps maintain ethical standards in AI development and application, ensuring that AI remains a tool to enhance human capabilities rather than replace human judgment.

3. Legal Clarity: A clear distinction between human-generated and AI-generated content provides a more stable legal framework for patent law and intellectual property rights.

4. Encouraging Responsible AI Use: This stance promotes the responsible use of AI in innovation, encouraging developers and inventors to use AI as a tool while maintaining human oversight and input.

Innovation and Creativity in the World with AI

ForHumanity’s position on AI in innovation and creativity emphasizes the irreplaceable value of human insight, creativity, and judgment. While acknowledging AI’s potential to enhance human capabilities, a balanced approach that leverages AI’s strengths without diminishing the crucial role of human ingenuity in the innovation process is paramount. This stance not only aligns with existing legal precedents but also provides a framework for addressing the challenges posed by AI in patent law and beyond. As we continue to navigate the complex intersection of AI and human creativity, ForHumanity’s human-centric approach offers a valuable perspective for policymakers, inventors, and legal professionals alike. True to its name, ForHumanity steadfastly represents and safeguards the interests and rights of humans in an increasingly AI-driven world.