Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Chicago Kent Law Review
Publication Date
2025
Page Number
265
Keywords
intellectual property, artificial intelligence
Disciplines
Intellectual Property Law | Law
Abstract
The year is 2031. You just got up. Your smartwatch has registered the movement, and the coffee maker is on. After your shower, you pick up your phone or read the latest news on the New York Times app on your VR goggles or palm. Except for a few remaining columnists, the news is all written by AI machines. At work, you are responsible for a report on a new product for your company, and you use Al to design the product and prepare the pitch, including the visuals and text of your presentation to the C-suite. The Al system has already applied for an international design patent. It is Wednes- day, and everyone is in the office. On your way home in a self-driving Uber, you listen to music created and curated by Al based on your preferences. After dinner (delivered by an AI-powered drone), you sit down to watch the latest AI-created series on Netflix, now the second-largest company in the world, on a big screen (what people used to call a TV). After the movie, you chat with Al and read a book in bed. The book is a "Swedish-style" thriller written by Al. Maybe for you, this is Al bliss, a short version of utopia. To me, it smacks of arrested human development, "new ideas" just regurgitated amalgams of old ones, sterile "more of the same" culture. So, am I a human exceptionalist who favors discrimination against the machines? I reject both labels. The notion of human exceptionalism refers to the belief that humans are unique and superior to all other animals. It revolves around the notion of sentience, which machines do not possess, at least in my opinion.
Recommended Citation
Daniel J. Gervais,
Artificial Intellectual Property, 100 Chicago Kent Law Review. 265
(2025)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/1700