ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS A TOOL, NOT AN INNOVATOR: TAN TEE JIM SC
Why Lee & Lee’s Head of IP wants to preserve creativity as the foundation of innovation in the age of AI.
The rapid adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has sparked a global debate about its role in driving innovation. While some believe that AI technology could potentially be seen as an innovator, Mr. Tan Tee Jim SC has a different perspective.
In his recent article, "AI as an Innovator?" for the Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Tee Jim asserts that AI, despite its complex abilities, should be regarded as a tool—no different from calculators or computers. While these technologies can assist in creating something new, they lack the core qualities that define an inventor, particularly human ingenuity and creativity.
Legal Framework and the Role of AI
His article comes at a time when jurisdictions are debating whether AI should be credited as an inventor. Although this has led to varying interpretations and decisions, Tee Jim supports a widely accepted principle that only real people can be named as inventors.
This stance keeps human creativity central in patent law. "AI can mimic certain human capabilities, such as learning from data sets or generating new outputs, but it is not actually thinking; it is not a sentient being," Tee Jim told SAL.
The landmark UK Supreme Court case of Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks reflects this perspective. The court decided that AI cannot be listed as an inventor under the UK Patents Act 1977. Courts in other jurisdictions have made similar rulings.
These decisions are rooted in the belief that the patent system aims to encourage human creativity and effort. Since AI cannot respond to such incentives, it cannot be considered an inventor. Tee Jim believes that the current patent system can manage the challenges posed by AI-created inventions.
He asserts that the system’s primary role—to reward human inventors for their ingenuity—remains vital and effective. He also cautions against changing the rules to recognise AI as an inventor, warning that such changes could undermine the core principles of patent law. “We must be cautious in maintaining the integrity of these principles," he said.
Tee Jim also highlights the ethical dilemmas that could arise from recognizing AI as an inventor. It might blur the lines of accountability for AI-created inventions, leading to challenging questions about responsibility that we may not yet be equipped to answer.
Implications for the Legal Profession
While Tee Jim acknowledges AI's potential to handle routine tasks like drafting rejection letters or refining language, he cautions that over-reliance on the technology could diminish the fresh ideas and creativity essential to the practice of law.
“I don’t want to rely on AI too much. I still prefer to have my own original thinking, my own creativity,” he said. This sentiment reflects a broader concern that AI could dilute the human touch in roles that require analytical thinking and personal judgment.
Despite his reservations, Tee Jim views AI as a powerful tool that, when used appropriately, can enhance productivity in many areas of the legal field. Nevertheless, he believes the human brain is crucial for generating new ideas, and any move to accept AI as an inventor could fundamentally alter the creative process and the future practice of law.
Read Tan Tee Jim SC’s article here. Join the discussion on AI’s impact on copyright and other areas of law at this year’s TechLaw.Fest. Complimentary trade passes are available here.
Have an article to contribute? Contact us at [email protected].
