The patentability of AI-based inventions

Posted on 9th May 2019 by tinesc

Former US President Abraham Lincoln once called the patent system one of the three greatest advances in human history and for more than 200 years patents have promoted innovation, protected human creativity and driven economic progress.

However, the current version of the US Patents Act was adopted in 1952. This was a time before the term Artificial Intelligence (AI) had been coined, and where the idea that machines would one day be able to create independently was unimaginable, except maybe to a few science fiction novelists.

The vast increase in computing power in the decades since, and the amount of data we produce, has enabled the development of many different applications using AI. Indeed the development has progressed to a stage where AI applications have now become creators themselves by learning from the data they are given, and coming up with novel solutions to problems facing humanity.

Naturally the humans behind these AI applications still want to profit from their work, and more than 340.000 patent applications mentioning AI has been made since 1952.

The US legislation, and that of most other countries¹,doesn’t recognise inventions made by a computer, stating instead that the inventor has to be an individual. This has created legal tension in the field, and a 2014 US Supreme Court ruling against the patentability of abstract ideas has affected the AI industry, as software or “computer-implemented inventions” often gets characterised as such.

Patent legislation is meant to promote creativity and progress, but in the case of AI it is now doing the exact opposite and stiffling it instead, according to researchers like Ryan Abbott, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Surrey. Abbott suggests that we need to change the law and allow creative computers to be considered inventors.

That leaves one big question: Are we as humans ready to assign intellectual property rights to a machine, share our currently exclusive “right” to creative thinking, and thus make AI-based inventions truly patentable? Or, are Sci-Fi doomsday scenarios of sentient machines taking over the world still too deeply entrenched in our consciousness?

⁽¹⁾ The Chinese legislation is the major exception, calling for a strengthened protection of intellectual property in the field of AI, as well as improving “patent protection and standardization of interactive support mechanism to promote the innovation of AI intellectual property rights.”

Seek the truth and report it!

Posted on 6th May 2019 by tinesc

In 2019, after 25 years of internet for us mere mortals, we have more or less unlimited access to a world of online information and news. Ironically, this seems to have made it harder than ever before to discern what is true and what isn’t.

Four years ago in the pre-Trump era, not many people gave a toss about so-called fake news. Personally, I only became absorbed in the ethics of traditional media after watching a UK tabloid literally hunt down and destroy a friend of mine.

But boy, things have certainly changed since then. The concept of fake news is now on everybody’s lips. Unfortunately this change hasn’t made people any better at distinguishing between fact and opinion. They say that the first step in solving any problem is recognising there is one, so why does it feel like we’ve taken two steps backwards instead?

No quality (control)

For more than a hundred years we have had journalists and editors to do quality control of stories that enter the public sphere. They have checked facts and figures and presented us with their findings. Whenever they failed to fact check their stories properly, someone else usually found out and loudly lambasted them for their mistakes. This has created an unconscious belief that anything published in papers, radio or TV must be true.

Now these ingrained beliefs have been shaken to the core. In a world that’s being taken over by social media, this element of journalistic quality control has suddenly been removed. Anybody can publish a story and once it’s out there being posted and re-posted around the world; suddenly nobody knows where it originated. If you repeat something enough times, people are bound to believe it. In other words – If it has gone viral, it must be true right?

We have indeed entered a post-truth era, so much so that if a polititician doesn’t like the facts he or she is presented with, they cry fake news and paint themselves as a victim of nefarious forces trying to stop their message, and voila – problem solved!

Traditional media is struggling. Not many want to pay for something the can get for free online. So they end up with two choices. One, they can follow the tabloids and online media into sensationalism and misleading headlines. Two, they can stay true to the code and “seek the truth and report it”. The latter option is a lot more troublesome, it requires research, hard work and time; and the benefits might not be immediate or financial. That is why so many, even those branding themselves as serious media, is treading a slippery slope and focusing on content that can bring in immediate advertising revenue.

Hat’s off

In other words, it is getting increasingly harder, even for well-educated and well-read people to figure out what is up and down, and knowing where to go for reliable information. When we are constantly bombarded with new information, there’s no time to critically assess and contemplate what we see and hear. More than ever we need media that we can trust to tell us the truth; not to spin it in a way which only serves to make money.

However, I’m determined to see light at the end of the tunnel, and I do think there’s hope yet. In my current job within financial services, I’ve met many passionate and hardworking money journalists, dedicated to helping people and enable them to make informed decisions by seeking the truth and reporting it. I tip my hat to you and wish you luck in your battle with trolls and click-bait purveyors.

The ethics of NGOs: What happens when it fails?

Posted on 16th September 2018 by tinesc

Big NGOs like Greenpeace can have enormous impact on people’s perception of environmental issues. What happens when they use this power to further their own agenda, rather than the public good?

Image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay.

Businesses all over the world are subjected to a multitude of legislation regulating their activities. Governments try to keep a lid on dubious claims about products and activities with litigation and/or fines.This happens to ensure that human health and the environment are not harmed during these efforts to make money. What happens however, when dubious activities are carried out by non-profit organisations?

Protectors of civil society

NGOs have been instrumental in building up civil society in many countries, protecting human rights and promoting progress. As a result, the regulations controlling these organisations are designed to facilitate and support, not to make judgement about their value or work. Under US law there is very little restriction on the freedom of expression and the US Government does not interfere with how NGOs accomplish their purposes. EU regulations also state that NGOs are self-governing bodies, not subject to direction by public authorities. These liberties comes with a price, though.

Greenpeace and GMO’s

Greenpeace is one of the largest environmental NGOs in the world. It has a code of ethics, which states that it is “committed to the highest possible standards of ethical, moral and legal business conduct”. They are also a founding member of the International NGO Accountability Charter.

One of Greenpeace’s most longstanding campaigns is to get genetically modified (GM) crops banned worldwide. The organisation claims that genetic engineering is a threat to the environment and human health. Additionally, its website states that GM crops should not be released into the environment since there’s no adequate scientific understanding of their potential impact.

Greenpeace has been very successful in this campaign. In 2015, the EU introduced legislation permitting individual member states and regions to ban cultivation of GM crops. More than half of the 28 members have opted to do so.

Ignoring the evidence

The problem is that Greenpeace is lying when they claim that the understanding of genetic engineering is extremely limited – and that we do not know the long term effects of releasing these organisms into the environment, and into the markets for human food and animal feeds.

In 2016, the US Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine published a study on the development, use and effects of genetically engineering organisms. The Academies reviewed scientific evidence accumulated over the last two decades and examined almost 900 publications on the subject. The conclusion is clear. They found “No substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between current commercially available genetically engineered crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the genetically engineered crops.”

The report stresses that GMOs are not products in themselves, but are outcomes of processes by which scientists are trying to achieve certain characteristics in new crop varieties, exactly like conventional plant breeders do. In other words, all plants and crops we eat have been genetically modified for thousands of years; ever since the first farmers began selecting and breeding the plants giving them the best yields and the desired taste.

Greenpeace is ignoring these facts, while very skilfully manipulating the media and playing on people’s fears of a new technology they don’t understand. In Europe and North America this might not be a problem, because we can afford to choose what we eat. In poorer parts of the world however, where they do not have this luxury, it could cost people their lives.

Golden Rice

More than 100 Nobel Prize winners have signed an open letter asking Greenpeace to stop its efforts to block GM crops. They single out Golden Rice, a crop previously labelled as “environmentally irresponsible and risky to human health” by Greenpeace. Golden Rice contains an artificially inserted gene which boosts the level of (vitamin A-rich) beta-carotene the plant produces. The World Health Organisation estimates that a quarter of a billion people in developing nations suffer from vitamin A deficiency. This deficiency causes two million preventable deaths a year and half a million cases of childhood blindness. It is a problem Golden Rice could help rectify.

Does harm and profit go hand in hand?

So, is it acceptable to wilfully ignore scientific evidence and promote your cause, even if it harms people’s lives, as long as you are a non-profit organisation? Is it OK to manipulate the truth, if as long as you don’t do it for profit? Or, should environmental NGOs be regulated, held accountable and put under the same expectations for ethical behaviour as for-profit organisations? I say yes, because the harm you can do doesn’t depend on how much profit you make.

This is an updated version of a post from 2016, written for BioWeb.ie

The ethics of NGOs and what happens when it fails

Posted on 23rd July 2016 by tinesc

Big NGOs like Greenpeace can have enormous impact on people’s perceptions of environmental issues. Their campaign against genetically modified foods is a good example. However, when they use that influence to further their own agenda, rather than the public good, it can have very serious consequences.

Credit: Olivier Hoslet/EPA/Newscom

Businesses all over the world are subjected to a multitude of legislation regulating their activities. This happens to ensure that human health and the environment are not harmed during their efforts to make money. Society tries to keep a lid on dubious claims about products and activities with the threat of litigation or fines. What happens however, when the dubious activities are carried out by non-profit organisations?

Protectors of civil society
NGOs have been instrumental in building up civil society in many countries, protecting rights and promoting progress. Accordingly, the regulations impacting these organisations are designed to facilitate and support, not to make judgement about their value or work. Under US law there is very little restriction on the freedom of expression and the US Government does not interfere with how NGOs accomplish their purposes. EU regulations state that NGOs are self-governing bodies, not subject to direction by public authorities.

So what happens when NGOs overstep ethical boundaries, and harm both human health and the environment, while carrying out their activities?

Greenpeace and GMOs
Greenpeace is one of the most influential environmental NGOs in the world. It has a code of ethics, which states that it is “committed to the highest possible standards of ethical, moral and legal business conduct”. The organisation is also a founding member of the International NGO Accountability Charter.

One of Greenpeace’s most prominent and longstanding campaigns is its efforts to get genetically modified (GM) crops banned worldwide. It claims that genetic engineering is a threat to the environment and human health. Additionally, its website states that GM crops should not be released into the environment since there’s not an adequate scientific understanding of their potential impact.

Greenpeace has been very successful in this campaign. In 2015 the EU introduced legislation with the aim of permitting individual member states and regions to ban cultivation of GM crops. More than half of the 28 members have opted to do so.

Ignoring the evidence
The problem is that Greenpeace is lying when it says the understanding of genetic engineering is extremely limited; and that we do not know the long term effects of releasing these organisms into the environment and into the market for food and animal feed.

The US Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine published a report earlier this year on the development, use and effects of genetically engineered organisms. They reviewed scientific evidence accumulated over the last two decades and examined almost 900 publications on the subject. The conclusion is clear: No substantiated evidence regarding the difference between GM crops and conventional crops.

The report stresses that the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not products in themselves, but are outcomes of processes by which scientists are trying to achieve certain characteristics in new crop varieties, exactly like conventional plant breeders do. In other words, all plants and crops we eat have been genetically modified for thousands of years; ever since the first farmers began selecting and breeding the plants giving them the best yields and the desired taste.

Golden Rice
Greenpeace is ignoring these facts while very skilfully manipulating the media and playing on people’s fears of a new technology they don’t understand. In Europe and North America this might not be a problem, because we can afford to choose what we eat. In poorer parts of the world however, where they do not have this luxury, it might cost people their health and even their lives.

More than 100 Nobel Prize winners have recently signed an open letter asking Greenpeace to stop their efforts to block GM crops. They single out Golden Rice, a crop previously labelled as “environmentally irresponsible and risky to human health” by Greenpeace. Golden Rice contains an artificially inserted gene which boosts the level of vitamin A rich beta-carotene. The World Health Organisation estimates that a quarter of a billion people in developing nations suffer from vitamin A deficiency. This causes two million preventable deaths a year and half a million cases of childhood blindness. This is a problem that Golden Rice could help rectify.

With good intentions?
Is it acceptable to willfully ignore scientific evidence and promote your cause, even if it harms people’s lives, as long as you are a non-profit organisation? Is it OK to manipulate the truth, as long as your intentions are good? Or, should NGOs be regulated, held accountable and put under the same expectations for ethical behaviour as for-profit organisations? I say yes, because the harm you can do doesn’t depend on how much profit you make.

The ethics of modern media

Posted on 21st June 2016 by tinesc

A classic dilemma in ethics is whether it is acceptable to sacrifice the few to save the many. In today’s media landscape, it is often more about serving the interests of the few while ignoring those of the many.

In 2016 we have more or less unlimited access to information and news. Ironically though, this makes it harder than ever before to discern what is true and what isn’t. We are overloaded with information and give up.

For more than a hundred years we have had journalists and editors to do quality control of stories that enter the public sphere. They have checked facts and figures for us and presented us with their findings. Whenever they failed to do so, someone else usually found out and loudly lambasted them for their mistakes. This has created an unconscious belief that anything published in papers, radio or TV must be authentic. Even for stories that are not fact but opinion based, the belief has come to be that there’s no smoke without a fire.

No quality(control)
These beliefs are now being tested. In a world that’s being taken over by social media, this element of quality control has suddenly been removed. Anybody can publish a story. Once it’s out there being posted and re-posted around the world; and suddenly nobody knows where it originated. If you repeat something enough times, people are bound to believe it. In other words – If it has gone viral, it must be true right?

Traditional media are struggling. Not many want to pay for something the can get for free online. So they end up with two choices. One, they can follow the tabloids and online media into sensationalism and misleading headlines. Two, they can stay true to the code and “seek the truth and report it”. The latter option is a lot more troublesome, it requires research, hard work and time; and the benefits might not be immediate or financial. That is why so many, even those branding themselves as serious media, is treading a slippery slope and focusing on content that can bring in immediate advertising revenue.

In other words, it is getting increasingly harder, even for well-educated and well-read people to figure out what is up and down. When we are constantly bombarded with new information, there’s no time to critically assess and contemplate what we see and hear. Anything can become true if it is repeated enough times.

More than ever we need media that we can trust to tell us the truth; not to spin it in a way which only serves to make money.

“The ultimate goal of the media would be it carrying out its function well. Media carrying out its function well is found in what it can achieve precisely through it having those traits which make it good”

A blog of albatrosses

Science, climate, environment & policy

Category Archives: Ethics