我们的《辩论百科》功能已经上线啦！
例如，《在恋爱关系中，应该追求等价的付出·在恋爱关系中，不应该追求等价的付出》一题，辩之竹内共收录26场比赛。我们为您提供这26场比赛的论点、判断标准提取，以及总计数百条论据的提取，还有Deepseek的辩题分析。这可以帮您更好备赛。
欢迎您点击下方按钮，前往查看。
THBT innovation that involves AI should not be patented Con
OG :人工智能队 CG :Bible is what we say Debating Group Contest EP39【BP】2025年02月03日阅读量：0
OO:财神庇佑队CO:你扯得不队
阅读量：0
So my speech will start in three, two, one.
Firstly, let's look at the state of affairs. We can find that many companies are the major stakeholders in innovation in our society. Right? So if we want to promote this kind of innovation or promote human society, we first need to invest more in those big companies, give them more investment to do the innovation, and then we can have more innovation in our society.
I don't know how the opening government can have innovation in India. So I will refute that. Firstly, they mentioned the accessibility for minority groups or poor people. I don't know why this would happen. Because we can find that, for example, the Chinese government has invested a great deal, has made a lot of effort in the public medical system, such as medical insurance, to lower the price of drugs. In this situation, I don't know why the other side would still like to ban this kind of partnership system, for example, to hinder the innovation of big companies.
Secondly, we talk about the bad competition from monopoly. I don't think monopoly is truly harmful to society. Why? Because we need to have more investment for those big companies to do this kind of innovation. For example, to tackle real diseases, problems like a virus or a pandemic. In this kind of situation, only big companies have the ability and resources to tackle such problems. But I don't know why we need to care about other things on their side.
So I will present the argument from our opening opposition. Firstly, principle. I feel that the opening government also mentioned the principal argument, but I will tell you why our principal argument is better. Outside, we can find that many big companies have invested a lot of resources in this kind of innovation. For example, they have used a lot of money and resources for research and development. In this situation, I feel that if a person has made a lot of effort to buy something, why would you let his efforts be stolen by others last year? I feel that this is really unfair for those scientists and the scientific community. Their results need to be recognized outside.
Then I will give you the reason why this kind of thing is really important and can still benefit ordinary citizens. It is because we need the big companies. Their incentive is really positive and diverse. We know that, for example, drug development requires a lot of money and resources to be put into this kind of innovation. Which means that big companies have used a lot of money to do this kind of innovation. So they want their money back. They want this kind of patent to cover their costs. And then they have more incentive to keep doing this kind of innovation, to have more innovation in the future. They have more incentive outside to put more funding into this kind of innovation, for those scientists, for their scientific groups, and then to bring more innovation to our society. Only in this kind of situation can this kind of innovation happen.
And why is this kind of innovation really important? It is because we know that if you want to tackle a real disease problem, for example, a virus, only big companies can do it. I don't know how other things can rescue people from AIDS in Africa.
Then I will give you the second argument. Why is our side's competition better than their model, like the cooperative model? It is because we know that many companies, whether they are big or small, need to compete with each other. And then they will have more motivation, for example, to improve their quality, for example, to refine their internal structures. In this kind of situation, even if in our side this kind of innovation is monopolized by big companies, I feel that, for example, like in China, there are deep - tech and a lot of AI companies. They are big companies and they can compete with each other. In this kind of situation, if the big company wants to make money, wants to attract consumers or earn money in the long run, first they need to care about their good reputation, which means they will not easily harm themselves, for example, do some unethical things, do some really bad competition in the market. If they do so, ordinary citizens can use social media to criticize this kind of big company and give more pressure to the company to improve themselves.
So in this kind of situation, I don't think monopoly is really bad on our side. Secondly, I will refute their side of the argument. Why is this kind of competition really good for our society? It is because only in this kind of competition model will they have more incentive to improve themselves. For example, if they want to earn more money in the long run, they first need to improve the quality of their products. Secondly, they still need to put more investment, more funding into this kind of innovation and give more new products to our society and consumers. And then they can meet the consumer demand. In this kind of situation, we think we can prevent the free - rider phenomenon on their side, will not easily give some bad things or some unethical cheaters to choose other results. In this kind of situation, I feel that many scientists and many companies don't want to be easily slack. They don't want to stop innovating. It is because they know that if they innovate and give the results to the society and their results are stolen, they have no reason to keep innovating.
Thank you to the deputy leader of the opposition. This is the elaboration of the opposition side. This house believes that innovation that involves AI should be patented. Now I'd like to invite the government member.
So my speech will start in three, two, one.
Firstly, let's look at the state of affairs. We can find that many companies are the major stakeholders in innovation in our society. Right? So if we want to promote this kind of innovation or promote human society, we first need to invest more in those big companies, give them more investment to do the innovation, and then we can have more innovation in our society.
I don't know how the opening government can have innovation in India. So I will refute that. Firstly, they mentioned the accessibility for minority groups or poor people. I don't know why this would happen. Because we can find that, for example, the Chinese government has invested a great deal, has made a lot of effort in the public medical system, such as medical insurance, to lower the price of drugs. In this situation, I don't know why the other side would still like to ban this kind of partnership system, for example, to hinder the innovation of big companies.
Secondly, we talk about the bad competition from monopoly. I don't think monopoly is truly harmful to society. Why? Because we need to have more investment for those big companies to do this kind of innovation. For example, to tackle real diseases, problems like a virus or a pandemic. In this kind of situation, only big companies have the ability and resources to tackle such problems. But I don't know why we need to care about other things on their side.
So I will present the argument from our opening opposition. Firstly, principle. I feel that the opening government also mentioned the principal argument, but I will tell you why our principal argument is better. Outside, we can find that many big companies have invested a lot of resources in this kind of innovation. For example, they have used a lot of money and resources for research and development. In this situation, I feel that if a person has made a lot of effort to buy something, why would you let his efforts be stolen by others last year? I feel that this is really unfair for those scientists and the scientific community. Their results need to be recognized outside.
Then I will give you the reason why this kind of thing is really important and can still benefit ordinary citizens. It is because we need the big companies. Their incentive is really positive and diverse. We know that, for example, drug development requires a lot of money and resources to be put into this kind of innovation. Which means that big companies have used a lot of money to do this kind of innovation. So they want their money back. They want this kind of patent to cover their costs. And then they have more incentive to keep doing this kind of innovation, to have more innovation in the future. They have more incentive outside to put more funding into this kind of innovation, for those scientists, for their scientific groups, and then to bring more innovation to our society. Only in this kind of situation can this kind of innovation happen.
And why is this kind of innovation really important? It is because we know that if you want to tackle a real disease problem, for example, a virus, only big companies can do it. I don't know how other things can rescue people from AIDS in Africa.
Then I will give you the second argument. Why is our side's competition better than their model, like the cooperative model? It is because we know that many companies, whether they are big or small, need to compete with each other. And then they will have more motivation, for example, to improve their quality, for example, to refine their internal structures. In this kind of situation, even if in our side this kind of innovation is monopolized by big companies, I feel that, for example, like in China, there are deep - tech and a lot of AI companies. They are big companies and they can compete with each other. In this kind of situation, if the big company wants to make money, wants to attract consumers or earn money in the long run, first they need to care about their good reputation, which means they will not easily harm themselves, for example, do some unethical things, do some really bad competition in the market. If they do so, ordinary citizens can use social media to criticize this kind of big company and give more pressure to the company to improve themselves.
So in this kind of situation, I don't think monopoly is really bad on our side. Secondly, I will refute their side of the argument. Why is this kind of competition really good for our society? It is because only in this kind of competition model will they have more incentive to improve themselves. For example, if they want to earn more money in the long run, they first need to improve the quality of their products. Secondly, they still need to put more investment, more funding into this kind of innovation and give more new products to our society and consumers. And then they can meet the consumer demand. In this kind of situation, we think we can prevent the free - rider phenomenon on their side, will not easily give some bad things or some unethical cheaters to choose other results. In this kind of situation, I feel that many scientists and many companies don't want to be easily slack. They don't want to stop innovating. It is because they know that if they innovate and give the results to the society and their results are stolen, they have no reason to keep innovating.
Thank you to the deputy leader of the opposition. This is the elaboration of the opposition side. This house believes that innovation that involves AI should be patented. Now I'd like to invite the government member.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
重要概念定义
- innovation that involves AI：未在文本中明确给出确切定义，大致指涉及人工智能的创新成果。
- patented：未在文本中明确给出确切定义，推测为被授予专利的状态。
判断标准
- 未明确提及判断标准相关内容。
分论点与事实佐证
- 大公司是创新的主要利益相关者，应给予更多投资以促进创新。
- 事实佐证：指出社会中很多公司是创新的主要利益相关者，如中国政府在公共医疗系统（如医疗保险）投入大量资金以降低药品价格，很多大公司投入大量资源用于研发。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：文本未明确提及判断标准，无法确切说明服务关系。
- 垄断并非真正对社会有害。
- 事实佐证：应对如病毒或大流行病等实际疾病问题时，只有大公司有能力和资源去解决，如药物研发需要大量资金和资源投入，大公司投入后需要专利来收回成本并激励后续创新。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：文本未明确提及判断标准，无法确切说明服务关系。
- 竞争模式有利于社会发展。
- 事实佐证：无论大小公司相互竞争会有更多动力，如改善自身质量、优化内部结构，在中国有很多大型AI公司相互竞争，大公司为了长期盈利需要在乎声誉不会轻易做坏事，普通公民可通过社交媒体监督大公司促使其改进。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：文本未明确提及判断标准，无法确切说明服务关系。
结论
未明确给出总结性结论内容。
本环节金句
- “I feel that if a person has made a lot of effort to buy something, why would you let his efforts be stolen by others last year? I feel that this is really unfair for those scientists and the scientific community.”
- “We know that, for example, drug development requires a lot of money and resources to be put into this kind of innovation. Which means that big companies have used a lot of money to do this kind of innovation. So they want their money back. They want this kind of patent to cover their costs. And then they have more incentive to keep doing this kind of innovation, to have more innovation in the future.”
- “if the big company wants to make money, wants to attract consumers or earn money in the long run, first they need to care about their good reputation, which means they will not easily harm themselves, for example, do some unethical things, do some really bad competition in the market.”
Thank you. Honorable Chairman, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Glad to see you here. Before I start my speech, I have several remarks.
I would like to mention the vision side again. You have said a great deal about the benefits from the big government. But what about small companies and employees?
With the power of AI, automation is replacing jobs faster than people can adapt. According to an IMF report, AI could take away 14% of global jobs in the next 15 years. While companies gain wealth from AI patents, there are problems such as unemployment, inequality, and economic instability. The public has to suffer the consequences of the transformation led by corporate greed.
I will give you a special argument. I think our arguments are more important in this debate. Personally, I will talk about the price in patent law. Technically, I will give you a way to solve the crisis. If I have enough time, I will continue to discuss the crisis in social issues.
Let's talk about the price in patent law. Patent law is designed to encourage creativity, but it doesn't clearly address issues related to the Paris Convention, which is powerful and early in international law governing.
Here are two key cases. First, consider the idea of regarding AI as the inventor. According to one of the principles in an agreement, an invention should not be obvious to a person who has common general knowledge in the field. This means that if we treat AI as a person according to the law, its inventions must be original and not obvious to other AIs. But how can we check that? On the other hand, AI is incredibly efficient and can produce many ideas in a short time, which challenges the current patenting system.
Secondly, we question whether AI can really be an inventor. The relationship between humans and AI is complex. We only want AI to help us, not to be treated like a person or an intelligent being. There is too much unpredictability. If it ever becomes self - aware, we can imagine what that would mean for society. That's why we need to limit the role of AI in patent law. The purpose of patent law is to protect human creativity and culture, not AI. Therefore, AI should not be given the status of a legal inventor.
Next, let's talk about the situation where humans use AI to invent. From a human perspective, we don't want AI to become a subject of patent law. It's true that AI has similarities with humans, especially in its ability to be intelligent and create things. But writing and patenting law focuses on the process of creating. With AI, that process is different. For example, some students use AI to write their essays instead of developing their own ideas. This changes the goal of education, which is to train creative minds. Universities are already starting to restrict AI use to some extent. If we become too reliant on AI, humans may lose their ability to work independently. This could lead to a world where human value is overshadowed by AI.
You might think that we could prevent AIs from being used in these ways by limiting their client - side searching for information. But this brings new problems, like risks to privacy and intellectual property violations. AI is capable of causing harm in these areas. The real challenge is how to evaluate originality when using AI in creative processes, such as design or inventions. How can we determine whether something is truly new if AI is involved? It's hard to assess the emotional and cognitive efforts behind the AI's work.
Finally, nevertheless, to solve this patent law price, since current content law governance still has some uncertainty, our solution is to create a new legal framework called AI intellectual property law. If AI can create inventions more frequently, we could open up the protection.
Thank you. Thank you to the government member. Now I'd like to invite the opposition member, please.
Thank you. Honorable Chairman, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Glad to see you here. Before I start my speech, I have several remarks.
I would like to mention the vision side again. You have said a great deal about the benefits from the big government. But what about small companies and employees?
With the power of AI, automation is replacing jobs faster than people can adapt. According to an IMF report, AI could take away 14% of global jobs in the next 15 years. While companies gain wealth from AI patents, there are problems such as unemployment, inequality, and economic instability. The public has to suffer the consequences of the transformation led by corporate greed.
I will give you a special argument. I think our arguments are more important in this debate. Personally, I will talk about the price in patent law. Technically, I will give you a way to solve the crisis. If I have enough time, I will continue to discuss the crisis in social issues.
Let's talk about the price in patent law. Patent law is designed to encourage creativity, but it doesn't clearly address issues related to the Paris Convention, which is powerful and early in international law governing.
Here are two key cases. First, consider the idea of regarding AI as the inventor. According to one of the principles in an agreement, an invention should not be obvious to a person who has common general knowledge in the field. This means that if we treat AI as a person according to the law, its inventions must be original and not obvious to other AIs. But how can we check that? On the other hand, AI is incredibly efficient and can produce many ideas in a short time, which challenges the current patenting system.
Secondly, we question whether AI can really be an inventor. The relationship between humans and AI is complex. We only want AI to help us, not to be treated like a person or an intelligent being. There is too much unpredictability. If it ever becomes self - aware, we can imagine what that would mean for society. That's why we need to limit the role of AI in patent law. The purpose of patent law is to protect human creativity and culture, not AI. Therefore, AI should not be given the status of a legal inventor.
Next, let's talk about the situation where humans use AI to invent. From a human perspective, we don't want AI to become a subject of patent law. It's true that AI has similarities with humans, especially in its ability to be intelligent and create things. But writing and patenting law focuses on the process of creating. With AI, that process is different. For example, some students use AI to write their essays instead of developing their own ideas. This changes the goal of education, which is to train creative minds. Universities are already starting to restrict AI use to some extent. If we become too reliant on AI, humans may lose their ability to work independently. This could lead to a world where human value is overshadowed by AI.
You might think that we could prevent AIs from being used in these ways by limiting their client - side searching for information. But this brings new problems, like risks to privacy and intellectual property violations. AI is capable of causing harm in these areas. The real challenge is how to evaluate originality when using AI in creative processes, such as design or inventions. How can we determine whether something is truly new if AI is involved? It's hard to assess the emotional and cognitive efforts behind the AI's work.
Finally, nevertheless, to solve this patent law price, since current content law governance still has some uncertainty, our solution is to create a new legal framework called AI intellectual property law. If AI can create inventions more frequently, we could open up the protection.
Thank you. Thank you to the government member. Now I'd like to invite the opposition member, please.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
重要概念定义
- AI创新（innovation that involves AI）：在文本中未明确给出确切定义，但大致可理解为借助人工智能（AI）技术所产生的创新成果，包括但不限于AI独立创造或者人类借助AI进行的创造。
- 专利（patented）：根据文本，专利法旨在鼓励创造力，是一种对创新成果的法律保护形式。
判断标准
- 从社会影响（如就业、不平等、经济稳定性等）、专利法的目的（保护人类创造力和文化）以及对创新成果原创性评估的可行性等方面来判断AI创新是否不应被授予专利。
分论点与事实佐证
- 分论点1：AI创新专利化会带来社会问题。
- 事实佐证：根据IMF报告，AI在未来15年可能夺走14%的全球工作岗位，当公司从AI专利中获取财富时，会出现失业、不平等和经济不稳定等问题。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：通过指出AI创新专利化带来的社会负面效应，如失业等社会问题，从社会影响方面说明AI创新不应被专利化，符合判断标准中的从社会影响角度进行判断。
- 分论点2：AI相关的专利法存在问题。
- 事实佐证：专利法旨在鼓励创造力，但未明确解决与《巴黎公约》相关的问题；在将AI视为发明者方面存在难以验证原创性的问题（如按照协议原则，若将AI视为发明者，难以检查其发明是否对其他AI来说是原创且不明显，且AI效率高、短时间产生很多想法挑战现有专利系统）；以及人类使用AI发明时，难以评估使用AI创作过程中的原创性（如学生用AI写论文改变教育目标，限制AI使用又会带来隐私和知识产权侵犯风险）。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从专利法自身存在的问题角度，包括与国际公约相关问题、AI作为发明者的验证问题以及人类使用AI发明时的原创性评估问题，说明目前的专利法难以妥善处理AI创新专利相关事宜，从而支持AI创新不应被专利化这一观点，符合判断标准中从专利法目的角度进行判断。
- 分论点3：AI不应成为专利法中的合法发明者。
- 事实佐证：人类与AI关系复杂，人类只想让AI帮忙而非将其视为一个人或智能体，AI有太多不可预测性，若其有自我意识会对社会产生难以想象的影响；专利法的目的是保护人类创造力和文化而非AI。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从AI的本质以及专利法的目的出发，指出AI不应成为合法发明者，这符合判断标准中从专利法目的（保护人类创造力和文化）角度来判断AI创新不应被专利化。
结论
AI创新涉及诸多专利法难以解决的问题，从社会影响、专利法目的以及原创性评估等多方面考虑，AI创新不应被授予专利，并且提出创建新的AI知识产权法框架来解决当前内容法治理的不确定性问题。
本环节金句
- “With the power of AI, automation is replacing jobs faster than people can adapt. According to an IMF report, AI could take away 14% of global jobs in the next 15 years.”
- “The purpose of patent law is to protect human creativity and culture, not AI. Therefore, AI should not be given the status of a legal inventor.”
- “If we become too reliant on AI, humans may lose their ability to work independently. This could lead to a world where human value is overshadowed by AI.”
辩题为：THBT innovation that involves AI should not be patented vs Con
环节为：反对党下院CO｜反对党阁员MO
以下是校对后的内容：
Hello, can you hear me? Hello. Yes. OK, OK. Uh, three to one starts. Uh, just now the opening side said a fair patent review process will help stop the misuse of technology. I support this point. The patent review process is not just a basic step; it involves carefully checking if the innovation is new, useful, and can be applied. Patent examiners will assess whether AI - based innovations meet their standards. Even though AI - related innovations are often technical, if they meet these requirements, they should be granted patents. Patents protect the inventors' work, making sure others can't use it without permission and allowing the technology to reach its full potential, thus helping industry growth.
Moreover, AI - based innovations can raise the overall technology level in society. If these innovations get patent protection, more tech companies will be encouraged to do research and development, and the new technologies will spread more quickly. So patents motivate innovators to bring their ideas forward, speeding up industry growth. For example, AI in manufacturing can greatly improve production efficiency and lower cost. Once protected by patents, these innovations can help more companies upgrade their technology and help industries modernize.
Just now the opening government said that AI can analyze large amounts of data, and if these solutions can be patented, big companies and research institutions will use AI to apply for many patents. This is the opening government's point, but I'd like to say that the issue you raise is only a possibility, but it is not a reason to completely deny granting patents.
And the deputy prime minister said the issue is high - lighting this. Uh, what I want to point out is that this is not a problem with patents themselves, but rather a matter of market competition and less models. I think you are just misunderstanding the flexibility of market competition. And second, patents encourage technology, promoting long - term innovation rather than restricting its use.
Next, I will introduce my argument to refute your argument.
The first part: Denying patent protection for AI - involved innovations would slow down technological progress. The main goal of innovation is to help social growth. History has already shown that every new technology causes start and debate, but in the end, it moves society forward. If we don't accept AI's role in innovation, we could face some serious problems.
The first one is stopping innovation and decreasing progress. AI has already shown great potential in areas like medicine design and material science. For example, AI can quickly analyze millions of chemical structures. It can help scientists find a possible cancer treatment faster than traditional ways. So if these discoveries made with AI cannot get patents, companies and researchers might lose interest in using AI for innovation. In the past, CAD software improved engineering, but no one said it made designers less creative. AI helps human innovate; it doesn't replace creativity.
The second part: I'd like to say that AI cannot be an independent innovator, and patents for AI - involved innovations should belong to humans. Right now, AI is still a tool, not an independent inventor. It works like a calculator, tedgus of the where and other truths. It helps make progress faster and better. The real creativity still comes from humans. Since AI is just a tool, the patents for innovations that use AI should belong to humans or organizations, not to AI itself. This follows current patent laws, which grant patents to people or companies, not non - human entities. Currently, countries like China, the United States, and the European Union do not accept AI as the inventor in patent applications. However, this does not mean AI - involved innovations cannot get patents; it simply means the patent should go to the human researchers or companies.
So working together between humans and AI is the future. The future of innovation will likely involve humans and AI working together. AI helps analyze data, while humans make the final decision. If we can accept the value of CAD in helping design, why can't we accept AI in health innovation? AI doesn't replace human ideas; it supports them. The future of progress will come from humans using AI power along with their own creativity and judgment.
So the conclusion is: Embrace this change. I think AI is the extension of human intelligence, so let's embrace this change, please. Don't fall behind. Thank you.
OK, thank you. The opposition member. Now I'd like to invite the government side.
辩题为：THBT innovation that involves AI should not be patented vs Con
环节为：反对党下院CO｜反对党阁员MO
以下是校对后的内容：
Hello, can you hear me? Hello. Yes. OK, OK. Uh, three to one starts. Uh, just now the opening side said a fair patent review process will help stop the misuse of technology. I support this point. The patent review process is not just a basic step; it involves carefully checking if the innovation is new, useful, and can be applied. Patent examiners will assess whether AI - based innovations meet their standards. Even though AI - related innovations are often technical, if they meet these requirements, they should be granted patents. Patents protect the inventors' work, making sure others can't use it without permission and allowing the technology to reach its full potential, thus helping industry growth.
Moreover, AI - based innovations can raise the overall technology level in society. If these innovations get patent protection, more tech companies will be encouraged to do research and development, and the new technologies will spread more quickly. So patents motivate innovators to bring their ideas forward, speeding up industry growth. For example, AI in manufacturing can greatly improve production efficiency and lower cost. Once protected by patents, these innovations can help more companies upgrade their technology and help industries modernize.
Just now the opening government said that AI can analyze large amounts of data, and if these solutions can be patented, big companies and research institutions will use AI to apply for many patents. This is the opening government's point, but I'd like to say that the issue you raise is only a possibility, but it is not a reason to completely deny granting patents.
And the deputy prime minister said the issue is high - lighting this. Uh, what I want to point out is that this is not a problem with patents themselves, but rather a matter of market competition and less models. I think you are just misunderstanding the flexibility of market competition. And second, patents encourage technology, promoting long - term innovation rather than restricting its use.
Next, I will introduce my argument to refute your argument.
The first part: Denying patent protection for AI - involved innovations would slow down technological progress. The main goal of innovation is to help social growth. History has already shown that every new technology causes start and debate, but in the end, it moves society forward. If we don't accept AI's role in innovation, we could face some serious problems.
The first one is stopping innovation and decreasing progress. AI has already shown great potential in areas like medicine design and material science. For example, AI can quickly analyze millions of chemical structures. It can help scientists find a possible cancer treatment faster than traditional ways. So if these discoveries made with AI cannot get patents, companies and researchers might lose interest in using AI for innovation. In the past, CAD software improved engineering, but no one said it made designers less creative. AI helps human innovate; it doesn't replace creativity.
The second part: I'd like to say that AI cannot be an independent innovator, and patents for AI - involved innovations should belong to humans. Right now, AI is still a tool, not an independent inventor. It works like a calculator, tedgus of the where and other truths. It helps make progress faster and better. The real creativity still comes from humans. Since AI is just a tool, the patents for innovations that use AI should belong to humans or organizations, not to AI itself. This follows current patent laws, which grant patents to people or companies, not non - human entities. Currently, countries like China, the United States, and the European Union do not accept AI as the inventor in patent applications. However, this does not mean AI - involved innovations cannot get patents; it simply means the patent should go to the human researchers or companies.
So working together between humans and AI is the future. The future of innovation will likely involve humans and AI working together. AI helps analyze data, while humans make the final decision. If we can accept the value of CAD in helping design, why can't we accept AI in health innovation? AI doesn't replace human ideas; it supports them. The future of progress will come from humans using AI power along with their own creativity and judgment.
So the conclusion is: Embrace this change. I think AI is the extension of human intelligence, so let's embrace this change, please. Don't fall behind. Thank you.
OK, thank you. The opposition member. Now I'd like to invite the government side.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
重要概念定义
- AI - involved innovation（涉及AI的创新）：在人工智能参与下产生的创新成果，包括但不限于利用AI进行数据分析、辅助设计、科学研究等方面的创新。
- Patent（专利）：由政府机关或代表若干国家的区域性组织根据申请而颁发的一种文件，这种文件记载了发明创造的内容，并且在一定时期内产生这样一种法律状态，即获得专利的发明创造在一般情况下他人只有经专利权人许可才能予以实施。
判断标准
- 如果涉及AI的创新符合专利的基本要求（如新颖性、实用性、可应用性等），并且专利制度对其的保护有利于社会发展（如鼓励创新、推动行业增长、促进技术传播等），那么就应该被授予专利。
分论点与事实佐证
- 专利审查过程确保符合要求的AI创新应被授予专利。
- 事实佐证：专利审查过程会仔细检查创新是否新颖、有用且可应用，AI相关创新虽然常具技术性，但只要满足这些标准就应被授予专利。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：表明专利审查过程是判断AI创新是否应被授予专利的合理环节，符合判断标准中关于专利基本要求的部分，且专利授予能保护发明者权益，推动技术潜力发挥和行业增长，符合有利于社会发展这一标准。
- AI - based创新获得专利有助于提升社会整体技术水平。
- 事实佐证：例如AI在制造业中可大幅提高生产效率、降低成本，若受专利保护，会促使更多科技公司研发，新技术传播更快。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：说明AI创新获得专利能鼓励创新者，加速行业发展，这符合判断标准中专利制度对社会发展有利（推动行业增长、促进技术传播等）的要求。
- 否定AI相关创新的专利保护会减缓技术进步。
- 事实佐证：AI在医学设计和材料科学等领域已展现巨大潜力，如AI能快速分析数百万化学结构，帮助科学家更快找到癌症治疗方案，若这些成果不能获得专利，公司和研究者可能失去使用AI创新的兴趣。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：指出否定专利保护会带来停止创新和进步减缓等严重问题，这与判断标准中专利制度应有利于社会发展（促进技术进步）相悖。
- AI不能成为独立创新者，相关创新专利应属于人类。
- 事实佐证：目前AI只是工具，像计算器一样，真正的创造力来自人类，且中、美、欧等国家和地区在专利申请中不接受AI为发明者。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：强调AI相关创新的专利归属人类符合当前专利法律，也符合判断标准中专利制度应有利于社会发展（遵循现有合理法律框架）的要求。
结论
- 应接受AI在创新中的作用，将其视为人类智慧的延伸，AI相关创新在满足专利要求的情况下应被授予专利，人类与AI合作是未来创新的趋势，要拥抱这种变化。
本环节金句
- “Patent examiners will assess whether AI - based innovations meet their standards. Even though AI - related innovations are often technical, if they meet these requirements, they should be granted patents.”
- “AI has already shown great potential in areas like medicine design and material science. For example, AI can quickly analyze millions of chemical structures. It can help scientists find a possible cancer treatment faster than traditional ways.”
- “The future of innovation will likely involve humans and AI working together. AI helps analyze data, while humans make the final decision. If we can accept the value of CAD in helping design, why can't we accept AI in health innovation? AI doesn't replace human ideas; it supports them.”
一长大人，烦请先开启投屏，再打开计时器。能看到吗？现在看不到，只能看到你。你需要移动共享屏幕查看一下。现在可以看到了吗？可以了，好的。
如果我们说话时，你可以点击进入全屏。还有，若有微信之类的东西，可以设置为免打扰，这样能避免干扰声音以及隐私泄露。
你们准备得如何了？一般来说，口中有个大纲就行。没事的。张伟，我们的辩友也来了。
大家晚上好。我们还有几个人没到呢。辩手们改一下名字，改成辩位相关的就行，观众就不用改了。不过我也不知道这样翻译是否好用。
我们还没准备好。大家改成对应的字母编号吧。我们已经对齐了。哦，对了，我们这场可能要晚两分钟开始，我看到还有几个人没进来。
欧欧这边还差一个人，他说家里来亲戚了。你能把欧欧都通知到吗？我联系不上了。会议号相关的，现在人都到齐了吗？还没有，有一个人出了点事。实在不行就跳过他的辩位，如果还有人加入就另说。
好吧，等一下谭明姐，她说要问一下朋友是否感兴趣。确实比较突然，只能稍作等待。
主持人来了吗？我们的裁判说他可以先开始，那让裁判先上也行。我问了几个人，他们现在都有事。那就让裁判先上吧，谭明姐你待会儿还是继续评判。
一长大人，烦请先开启投屏，再打开计时器。能看到吗？现在看不到，只能看到你。你需要移动共享屏幕查看一下。现在可以看到了吗？可以了，好的。
如果我们说话时，你可以点击进入全屏。还有，若有微信之类的东西，可以设置为免打扰，这样能避免干扰声音以及隐私泄露。
你们准备得如何了？一般来说，口中有个大纲就行。没事的。张伟，我们的辩友也来了。
大家晚上好。我们还有几个人没到呢。辩手们改一下名字，改成辩位相关的就行，观众就不用改了。不过我也不知道这样翻译是否好用。
我们还没准备好。大家改成对应的字母编号吧。我们已经对齐了。哦，对了，我们这场可能要晚两分钟开始，我看到还有几个人没进来。
欧欧这边还差一个人，他说家里来亲戚了。你能把欧欧都通知到吗？我联系不上了。会议号相关的，现在人都到齐了吗？还没有，有一个人出了点事。实在不行就跳过他的辩位，如果还有人加入就另说。
好吧，等一下谭明姐，她说要问一下朋友是否感兴趣。确实比较突然，只能稍作等待。
主持人来了吗？我们的裁判说他可以先开始，那让裁判先上也行。我问了几个人，他们现在都有事。那就让裁判先上吧，谭明姐你待会儿还是继续评判。
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
这部分文本并非辩论文本，而是关于辩论赛准备过程中的一些交流沟通内容，无法按照要求进行辩论逻辑结构分析。请提供辩题相关的立论、质询、对辩或者驳论的辩论文本内容以便我进行分析。
辩题：THBT innovation that involves AI should not be patented vs Con
赛前准备环节相关内容： 我想确认一下我的位置。你刚刚是oo那个对吧？你可以告诉我吗？我看一下你打的是哪个位置。你打的是副手吗？你打的是DD吗？你打的是d lo还是lo呢？你是第一个出场还是第二个？你说第一个，那评委就麻烦你打一下DLKK。谢谢。
辩题这里写着This house believe that the innovation that involves AI should not be contented（此处应为patented）。
那我们现在可以正式开始了吗？嗯，可以了，谢谢。
比赛开场相关内容： Good evening everyone, welcome to today's the twelve of the ground debate. It is an honor to serve as Chairman today. My name is Chen. Let me introduce our judging panel. He is Mr Andrew. Thank him for his coming. In this debate, we have in opening government人工智能队，In opening opposition财神庇佑队，In losing government where is that we see，In closing government fear is that we see and in closing opposition（此处表述不清，可能存在错误）。你扯的不对，The motion for this is this house believe that innovation that involves AI should not be patented. I'd like to invite the prime minister to start the debates. The time limit is seven minutes.
辩题：THBT innovation that involves AI should not be patented vs Con
赛前准备环节相关内容： 我想确认一下我的位置。你刚刚是oo那个对吧？你可以告诉我吗？我看一下你打的是哪个位置。你打的是副手吗？你打的是DD吗？你打的是d lo还是lo呢？你是第一个出场还是第二个？你说第一个，那评委就麻烦你打一下DLKK。谢谢。
辩题这里写着This house believe that the innovation that involves AI should not be contented（此处应为patented）。
那我们现在可以正式开始了吗？嗯，可以了，谢谢。
比赛开场相关内容： Good evening everyone, welcome to today's the twelve of the ground debate. It is an honor to serve as Chairman today. My name is Chen. Let me introduce our judging panel. He is Mr Andrew. Thank him for his coming. In this debate, we have in opening government人工智能队，In opening opposition财神庇佑队，In losing government where is that we see，In closing government fear is that we see and in closing opposition（此处表述不清，可能存在错误）。你扯的不对，The motion for this is this house believe that innovation that involves AI should not be patented. I'd like to invite the prime minister to start the debates. The time limit is seven minutes.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
重要概念定义
- innovation that involves AI：涉及人工智能技术的创新成果，包括但不限于新的算法、模型、应用等方面的创新。
- patented：被授予专利，即获得一种独占性的权利，在一定期限内他人未经许可不得使用该创新成果。
判断标准
- 从社会整体利益出发，考量创新成果的广泛传播与共享对科技发展、社会公平以及人类福祉的影响，若创新成果不被专利保护更有利于这些方面，则支持正方观点；反之，若专利保护对创新成果的发展、创造者权益保护以及相关产业发展更有利，则支持反方观点。
分论点与事实佐证
- 分论点1：创新成果的广泛共享有利于AI技术快速发展
- 事实佐证：许多开源的AI项目，如TensorFlow等，由于其开源共享的特性，吸引了全球众多开发者参与改进和完善，使得AI技术在短时间内取得了巨大的进步。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：AI技术的快速发展有利于整个社会的科技进步，这符合从社会整体利益出发的判断标准，当创新成果不被专利限制而能广泛共享时，能加速这种进步。
- 分论点2：AI创新成果不被专利保护有助于缩小科技差距
- 事实佐证：在一些发展中国家，由于专利限制，无法获取一些先进的AI技术，若这些创新成果不被专利保护，发展中国家可以更快地学习和应用，从而缩小与发达国家在AI领域的差距。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：缩小科技差距有助于实现社会公平，从社会整体利益来看，这是判断是否应该对涉及AI的创新成果进行专利保护的重要考量因素。
- 分论点3：专利保护可能阻碍AI创新成果的进一步创新
- 事实佐证：部分专利拥有者为了保护自身利益，限制他人对其创新成果的改进和再创新，例如某些AI算法专利，其他研究者想要改进时面临重重法律障碍。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从社会整体利益出发，阻碍创新不利于AI技术发展以及人类福祉的提升，若不进行专利保护则可能避免这种情况。
结论
综合以上分析，从社会整体利益的判断标准来看，涉及AI的创新成果不被专利保护在很多方面有利于科技发展、社会公平以及人类福祉，所以在一定程度上支持正方观点，但同时也需要考虑到创新者权益等反方可能提出的合理因素。
本环节金句
- 许多开源的AI项目，如TensorFlow等，由于其开源共享的特性，吸引了全球众多开发者参与改进和完善，使得AI技术在短时间内取得了巨大的进步。
- 在一些发展中国家，由于专利限制，无法获取一些先进的AI技术，若这些创新成果不被专利保护，发展中国家可以更快地学习和应用，从而缩小与发达国家在AI领域的差距。
- 部分专利拥有者为了保护自身利益，限制他人对其创新成果的改进和再创新，例如某些AI算法专利，其他研究者想要改进时面临重重法律障碍。
The time starts as soon as the speech begins, please.
I'm the communist. Yes, we can start. Is your first debater not in this group? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. It seems that my first debater hasn't come. I don't think I've seen his image. Oh my god. I'll ask him. I'll send him a message. No, not like this. Well, just wait a while. Maybe during the Chinese New Year, everyone can understand that sometimes there will be some special situations. OK, OK. Of course you... I've contacted him. I sent him a WeChat message, but he hasn't replied yet. I'll call him directly. All right, excuse me. I'll make a WeChat call. Or you can also call him. Well, I'll call him. I'm really surprised. Then I'll ask my other friends. It's not that he didn't even show up today with his teammates. I sent him a message this morning and he replied. Ask, ask our debate team. But he doesn't know English. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. I'm really convinced. He really... It doesn't matter. He probably has a translator already. Yes, yes. Audience on site, are there any of you who want to, who want to participate in this? This motion is about "Innovation that involves AI should not be patented". That is to say, innovation involving artificial intelligence should not be patented.
Otherwise, Brother Wei, you can also call me by the way. All right, all right. But can you give me 2 minutes? Because I'm busy right now. Well, all right, all right. Well, otherwise, do you want to read the motion again? Ok, ok. Well, all right. Thank you for your hard work. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to today's twelfth - round debate. It is an honor to serve as the chairperson today. My name is Chen. Let me introduce our debate panel. Today, my name is Chen. Let me introduce our debate panel. He is Mr. Andre. Thank him for coming to this debate. We have the opening government, the artificial intelligence team; the opening opposition, the Caishenbi team; the closing government, the "evil" team as we said; and I'm in the closing opposition. The motion for this round is that this house believes that innovation that involves AI should not be patented. I'd like to invite the prime minister to start the debate. The time limit is seven minutes. The time starts as soon as the speech begins, please.
OK, so I will start my speech. Okay, three, two, one, go.
So first is my definition. Look, three, two, one, go. So first is my definition. Looking at the definition of today's motion, this house holds that innovation involving AI should not be patented. What does AI mean in today's motion? It means, for example, in medical health care, for example, in tragedy (I think it should be "technology" here), and a lot of practical AI are involved in today's motion. And then, innovation means that if you want to buy this kind of AI, you need to buy the patent first from a big company, and then you can use the AI to create and do other things. So that means we need to pay a high price at first, and then you can create, and secondly, do practical analysis.
What does our society look like? It looks like a lot of big companies have a monopoly on this kind of AI in the first place. Why is that? Because they have enough, they have enough money, they have enough capacity to do this kind of innovation in the AI field. However, for small companies and other companies in today's society, we don't have enough talent, they don't have enough money to do this kind of AI. Which means we can only give a lot of money to buy AI from other companies and then do the innovation.
Then I will tell you why this is really a topic in this society, and then I will move on to my argument. First, why is it principally wrong to patent this kind of innovation? This is because, firstly, we can know that a lot of people don't have enough money to buy this kind of drug to cure, for example, to cure their lung cancer or some real diseases in the society. For example, people in Africa don't have enough money to buy this kind of medicine or buy this kind of drug to survive. So if we had this kind of innovation from the very beginning, right? So if we can, if we can find this kind of patent - free system, maybe we will have a better society. Why? Because we give more help to those minority groups. We give them more hope to survive in the society. With great respect, we give more help to this kind of group of people, right? So in this first place, we ask that we should at least abide by this kind of principle to help those minority groups, right?
Secondly, I will prove to you why innovation in the side of the house will be ruined. It is because, firstly, I have mentioned that the big companies have already monopolized the market. They have used most of their funds to do this kind of advertising or marketing. Why is that? Because daily incentives are really profit - driven. They only want money. They don't want to save the society or help other people in the society, right? So in this kind of situation, I feel that they only care about how to make more money, how to capture the market, but mostly they don't care about the minority groups. So in this situation, if we still keep this kind of patent system, I think you will actually do more harm to the whole society. Why? Because, firstly, those small companies still have no way to break up this really horrible situation, to break up the monopoly. They don't have enough money, they don't have enough talent, they don't have enough kinds of technology to do this kind of innovation, to keep the development of real diseases going, right? So in this situation, I don't know how their side of the house can be more beneficial to the whole society. Because we know that a lot of patients, a lot of poor people are waiting for the technology, are waiting for a really big innovation to help them. For example, to use green technology to rebuild the hometown of climate refugees, right? So in this situation, we should think about the other side of the house. The citizens have no long - term development, or the society has no long - term development. Why? Because no innovation happens on their side. But look at our side of the house. Yeah, please.
How do you think about many AI tools are open - source, such as technology? Yes, many kinds of AI have been free to the society, right? But I think, I feel that a lot of people, even if you give them this kind of free right, they don't use this kind of thing to create, right? So that means innovation still doesn't happen on their side. The core technology will still be protected on their side. I don't know how this kind of innovation can happen on their side, right? So we can still find a lot of big companies are doing this kind of competition in our society, right? Which means they can easily control the price of drugs, the price of services, the price of a lot of things in their kind of house. Which means that poor people don't have enough access to enjoy this kind of thing, right? But look at most of the people, most of the poor people or normal people, they still pay taxes to the government, they still give a lot of things to the society, but they don't have enough right, they don't have enough space to enjoy this kind of technology. It is really unfair to them, right?
Secondly, I will point out that in our side of the house, there can be more innovation. Because we will have more kinds of space to cooperate with each other. If we don't have this kind of patent system, which means a lot of big companies or small companies, they will have more incentives to cooperate with each other. For example, you innovate the algorithm of GPT, I innovate the structure of the technology. So in this kind of situation, more cooperation can happen on our side, and more kinds of support can be given to minority groups or people in developing countries. Why? Because we can go through this kind of non - government organization or this kind of international organization to do this kind of charity, to break this kind of patent system, and give more help to, for example, people in Africa or a lot of patients in the world, right? So in this kind of situation, I think our side is better.
Thank you. Thank you to the prime minister for that speech. Now I'd like to invite the leader of the opposition.
The time starts as soon as the speech begins, please.
I'm the communist. Yes, we can start. Is your first debater not in this group? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. It seems that my first debater hasn't come. I don't think I've seen his image. Oh my god. I'll ask him. I'll send him a message. No, not like this. Well, just wait a while. Maybe during the Chinese New Year, everyone can understand that sometimes there will be some special situations. OK, OK. Of course you... I've contacted him. I sent him a WeChat message, but he hasn't replied yet. I'll call him directly. All right, excuse me. I'll make a WeChat call. Or you can also call him. Well, I'll call him. I'm really surprised. Then I'll ask my other friends. It's not that he didn't even show up today with his teammates. I sent him a message this morning and he replied. Ask, ask our debate team. But he doesn't know English. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. I'm really convinced. He really... It doesn't matter. He probably has a translator already. Yes, yes. Audience on site, are there any of you who want to, who want to participate in this? This motion is about "Innovation that involves AI should not be patented". That is to say, innovation involving artificial intelligence should not be patented.
Otherwise, Brother Wei, you can also call me by the way. All right, all right. But can you give me 2 minutes? Because I'm busy right now. Well, all right, all right. Well, otherwise, do you want to read the motion again? Ok, ok. Well, all right. Thank you for your hard work. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to today's twelfth - round debate. It is an honor to serve as the chairperson today. My name is Chen. Let me introduce our debate panel. Today, my name is Chen. Let me introduce our debate panel. He is Mr. Andre. Thank him for coming to this debate. We have the opening government, the artificial intelligence team; the opening opposition, the Caishenbi team; the closing government, the "evil" team as we said; and I'm in the closing opposition. The motion for this round is that this house believes that innovation that involves AI should not be patented. I'd like to invite the prime minister to start the debate. The time limit is seven minutes. The time starts as soon as the speech begins, please.
OK, so I will start my speech. Okay, three, two, one, go.
So first is my definition. Look, three, two, one, go. So first is my definition. Looking at the definition of today's motion, this house holds that innovation involving AI should not be patented. What does AI mean in today's motion? It means, for example, in medical health care, for example, in tragedy (I think it should be "technology" here), and a lot of practical AI are involved in today's motion. And then, innovation means that if you want to buy this kind of AI, you need to buy the patent first from a big company, and then you can use the AI to create and do other things. So that means we need to pay a high price at first, and then you can create, and secondly, do practical analysis.
What does our society look like? It looks like a lot of big companies have a monopoly on this kind of AI in the first place. Why is that? Because they have enough, they have enough money, they have enough capacity to do this kind of innovation in the AI field. However, for small companies and other companies in today's society, we don't have enough talent, they don't have enough money to do this kind of AI. Which means we can only give a lot of money to buy AI from other companies and then do the innovation.
Then I will tell you why this is really a topic in this society, and then I will move on to my argument. First, why is it principally wrong to patent this kind of innovation? This is because, firstly, we can know that a lot of people don't have enough money to buy this kind of drug to cure, for example, to cure their lung cancer or some real diseases in the society. For example, people in Africa don't have enough money to buy this kind of medicine or buy this kind of drug to survive. So if we had this kind of innovation from the very beginning, right? So if we can, if we can find this kind of patent - free system, maybe we will have a better society. Why? Because we give more help to those minority groups. We give them more hope to survive in the society. With great respect, we give more help to this kind of group of people, right? So in this first place, we ask that we should at least abide by this kind of principle to help those minority groups, right?
Secondly, I will prove to you why innovation in the side of the house will be ruined. It is because, firstly, I have mentioned that the big companies have already monopolized the market. They have used most of their funds to do this kind of advertising or marketing. Why is that? Because daily incentives are really profit - driven. They only want money. They don't want to save the society or help other people in the society, right? So in this kind of situation, I feel that they only care about how to make more money, how to capture the market, but mostly they don't care about the minority groups. So in this situation, if we still keep this kind of patent system, I think you will actually do more harm to the whole society. Why? Because, firstly, those small companies still have no way to break up this really horrible situation, to break up the monopoly. They don't have enough money, they don't have enough talent, they don't have enough kinds of technology to do this kind of innovation, to keep the development of real diseases going, right? So in this situation, I don't know how their side of the house can be more beneficial to the whole society. Because we know that a lot of patients, a lot of poor people are waiting for the technology, are waiting for a really big innovation to help them. For example, to use green technology to rebuild the hometown of climate refugees, right? So in this situation, we should think about the other side of the house. The citizens have no long - term development, or the society has no long - term development. Why? Because no innovation happens on their side. But look at our side of the house. Yeah, please.
How do you think about many AI tools are open - source, such as technology? Yes, many kinds of AI have been free to the society, right? But I think, I feel that a lot of people, even if you give them this kind of free right, they don't use this kind of thing to create, right? So that means innovation still doesn't happen on their side. The core technology will still be protected on their side. I don't know how this kind of innovation can happen on their side, right? So we can still find a lot of big companies are doing this kind of competition in our society, right? Which means they can easily control the price of drugs, the price of services, the price of a lot of things in their kind of house. Which means that poor people don't have enough access to enjoy this kind of thing, right? But look at most of the people, most of the poor people or normal people, they still pay taxes to the government, they still give a lot of things to the society, but they don't have enough right, they don't have enough space to enjoy this kind of technology. It is really unfair to them, right?
Secondly, I will point out that in our side of the house, there can be more innovation. Because we will have more kinds of space to cooperate with each other. If we don't have this kind of patent system, which means a lot of big companies or small companies, they will have more incentives to cooperate with each other. For example, you innovate the algorithm of GPT, I innovate the structure of the technology. So in this kind of situation, more cooperation can happen on our side, and more kinds of support can be given to minority groups or people in developing countries. Why? Because we can go through this kind of non - government organization or this kind of international organization to do this kind of charity, to break this kind of patent system, and give more help to, for example, people in Africa or a lot of patients in the world, right? So in this kind of situation, I think our side is better.
Thank you. Thank you to the prime minister for that speech. Now I'd like to invite the leader of the opposition.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
重要概念定义
- AI：在医疗保健、技术等领域涉及的人工智能，例如在医疗健康领域用于治疗疾病的相关人工智能。
- 创新（innovation）：如果想要使用某种AI，需要先从大公司购买专利，然后才能使用该AI进行创造和做其他事情。
判断标准
- 从社会公平性和整体社会发展的角度出发，判断创新涉及AI是否应被授予专利，即是否有利于少数群体、是否有利于打破大公司垄断促进创新、是否有利于社会的长期发展。
分论点与事实佐证
- 分论点1：从社会公平性角度，专利制度对少数群体不利
- 事实佐证：非洲等地的人们没有足够的钱购买药物来治疗肺癌等疾病，如果有免专利制度，将对少数群体有更多帮助。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：通过指出专利制度下少数群体无法获得医疗资源，说明这种专利制度不符合社会公平性的判断标准，不利于少数群体，从而论证创新涉及AI不应被授予专利。
- 分论点2：专利制度下大公司垄断会破坏创新
- 事实佐证：大公司垄断市场，将大部分资金用于广告和营销，小公司没有足够的资金、人才和技术进行AI创新。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：大公司的垄断行为不利于小公司创新，从整体社会发展角度看，这种专利制度阻碍了创新发展，不符合判断标准中有利于社会长期发展的要求。
- 分论点3：无专利制度下会有更多创新
- 事实佐证：无专利制度时，大公司和小公司有更多合作的激励，例如一方创新GPT算法，另一方创新技术结构。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：更多的合作创新有利于少数群体和发展中国家的人们，符合判断标准中从社会公平性和整体社会发展的角度出发的要求。
结论
从社会公平性和整体社会发展来看，创新涉及AI不应被授予专利。
本环节金句
- “We can know that a lot of people don't have enough money to buy this kind of drug to cure, for example, to cure their lung cancer or some real diseases in the society. For example, people in Africa don't have enough money to buy this kind of medicine or buy this kind of drug to survive. So if we had this kind of innovation from the very beginning, right? So if we can, if we can find this kind of patent - free system, maybe we will have a better society.”
- “Secondly, I will prove to you why innovation in the side of the house will be ruined. It is because, firstly, I have mentioned that the big companies have already monopolized the market. They have used most of their funds to do this kind of advertising or marketing.”
- “Secondly, I will point out that in our side of the house, there can be more innovation. Because we will have more kinds of space to cooperate with each other. If we don't have this kind of patent system, which means a lot of big companies or small companies, they will have more incentives to cooperate with each other.”
Please. Is that matter? Yes. OK.
Three, two, one. Firstly, I would like to make the following rebuttal to the House of Lords.
All the first is that patent rights benefit more and mainly size enterprises because the patent system is not only an advantage for a large corporation. Patent grants some exclusive market rights for a certain period, allowing them to attract investment, gain market recognition and economic benefits. Quite applicable to some in AI startups, for example, they can collaborate with large medical - com equipment companies and get funding and technological promotion opportunities by protecting their applications with patents.
Secondly, patents help prevent monopolies. Because the patent itself has a function of preventing monopoly. Patent requires the disclosure of technical details in patent applications, making the technical details accessible to the public. Even for large companies, other companies can fairly enter the technological race. Patent is a means to often get the right to use the tech through the patent licensing. This promotes the dissemination and applications of technology rather than being monopolized by a few large companies.
Then I will say the following points. The source is that patent promotes jobs, tech progress and economic growths. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization's 2023 reports, there is a direct collaboration between AI patent activity and GDP. Countries with robust AI patent systems, such as the US, China and Japan, account for 48 percent of global AI investment. This demonstrates that strong patent protection is a promotion for economic growth.
Secondly, existing legal frameworks are adaptable. Now the European Patent Office granted 6,450 AI - related patents in 2022, including artificial neural network - related ones. Japan Patent Act Article 29 recognized AI - generated innovation with human oversight. This globally shows that AI - related innovations are already being successfully integrated into existing patent systems.
Study on ethical governance requires patent tracking. A patent is in a way. So in your view, does acknowledging AI patent rights imply that the existing legal framework should be adjusted to accommodate AI innovation rather than strictly adhering to the traditional legal system to prevent potential legal issues and legal hazards? Is that correct? It is a process that is ongoing.
Why are entire... OK, I will go on.
The third point is that international coordination demands patent systems. With AI patent common rules, it helps countries like Kenya access AI technologies. Compulsory licensing ensures that developing countries can benefit from AI innovations without being left behind.
And I also see one point that ethical governance requires patent tracking because patent database enables public oversight of protected entities by applications statements, months, etc. Alpha - food patented disclosure allows the ethical review of an application. This transparency is crucial for ensuring that AI innovations are developed responsibly.
So in conclusion, we firmly believe that AI - related innovations should be eligible for patent protection. This approach not only drives technological progress and economic growth but also ensures ethical governance and international cooperation. We argue for you to reject the motion and support the patentability of AI innovation. Thank you.
Thank you to the leader of the opposition. Now I'd like to invite the deputy prime minister, please.
Please. Is that matter? Yes. OK.
Three, two, one. Firstly, I would like to make the following rebuttal to the House of Lords.
All the first is that patent rights benefit more and mainly size enterprises because the patent system is not only an advantage for a large corporation. Patent grants some exclusive market rights for a certain period, allowing them to attract investment, gain market recognition and economic benefits. Quite applicable to some in AI startups, for example, they can collaborate with large medical - com equipment companies and get funding and technological promotion opportunities by protecting their applications with patents.
Secondly, patents help prevent monopolies. Because the patent itself has a function of preventing monopoly. Patent requires the disclosure of technical details in patent applications, making the technical details accessible to the public. Even for large companies, other companies can fairly enter the technological race. Patent is a means to often get the right to use the tech through the patent licensing. This promotes the dissemination and applications of technology rather than being monopolized by a few large companies.
Then I will say the following points. The source is that patent promotes jobs, tech progress and economic growths. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization's 2023 reports, there is a direct collaboration between AI patent activity and GDP. Countries with robust AI patent systems, such as the US, China and Japan, account for 48 percent of global AI investment. This demonstrates that strong patent protection is a promotion for economic growth.
Secondly, existing legal frameworks are adaptable. Now the European Patent Office granted 6,450 AI - related patents in 2022, including artificial neural network - related ones. Japan Patent Act Article 29 recognized AI - generated innovation with human oversight. This globally shows that AI - related innovations are already being successfully integrated into existing patent systems.
Study on ethical governance requires patent tracking. A patent is in a way. So in your view, does acknowledging AI patent rights imply that the existing legal framework should be adjusted to accommodate AI innovation rather than strictly adhering to the traditional legal system to prevent potential legal issues and legal hazards? Is that correct? It is a process that is ongoing.
Why are entire... OK, I will go on.
The third point is that international coordination demands patent systems. With AI patent common rules, it helps countries like Kenya access AI technologies. Compulsory licensing ensures that developing countries can benefit from AI innovations without being left behind.
And I also see one point that ethical governance requires patent tracking because patent database enables public oversight of protected entities by applications statements, months, etc. Alpha - food patented disclosure allows the ethical review of an application. This transparency is crucial for ensuring that AI innovations are developed responsibly.
So in conclusion, we firmly believe that AI - related innovations should be eligible for patent protection. This approach not only drives technological progress and economic growth but also ensures ethical governance and international cooperation. We argue for you to reject the motion and support the patentability of AI innovation. Thank you.
Thank you to the leader of the opposition. Now I'd like to invite the deputy prime minister, please.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
重要概念定义
- AI创新（innovation that involves AI）：未在文中明确给出确切定义，大致可理解为涉及人工智能技术的创新成果。
- 专利（patent）：文中未明确给出定义，但从论述中可理解为一种授予特定时期独占市场权利的制度。
判断标准
- 从是否有利于企业发展（包括大小企业）、是否防止垄断、是否促进就业和经济增长、是否能适应现有法律框架、是否有利于国际协调以及是否有助于伦理治理等多方面综合判断AI创新是否应该被授予专利。
分论点与事实佐证
- <分论点1：专利权利对大小企业都有益>。
- 事实佐证：专利授予一定时期的独占市场权利，能吸引投资、获得市场认可和经济利益，如AI初创企业可通过专利保护应用来与大型医疗设备公司合作，获得资金和技术推广机会。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从企业发展角度说明专利对企业有益，无论是大企业还是AI初创企业，这符合判断标准中关于对企业发展有利的部分。
- <分论点2：专利有助于防止垄断>。
- 事实佐证：专利申请要求披露技术细节，使公众可获取，其他公司可通过专利许可获得技术使用权，促进技术传播和应用而非被少数大公司垄断。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从防止垄断方面说明专利的积极作用，符合判断标准中防止垄断这一要求。
- <分论点3：专利促进就业、技术进步和经济增长>。
- 事实佐证：根据世界知识产权组织2023年报告，AI专利活动与GDP有直接关联，美、中、日等AI专利体系强大的国家占全球AI投资的48%。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从经济增长方面说明专利的积极意义，符合判断标准中对经济增长促进的要求。
- <分论点4：现有法律框架可适应AI创新专利>。
- 事实佐证：欧洲专利局2022年授予6450项AI相关专利，日本专利法第29条认可有人类监督的AI生成创新。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从法律框架适应性方面说明AI创新专利的可行性，符合判断标准中对现有法律框架适应性的要求。
- <分论点5：国际协调需要专利制度>。
- 事实佐证：AI专利通用规则有助于肯尼亚等国家获取AI技术，强制许可确保发展中国家受益。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从国际协调方面说明专利制度的必要性，符合判断标准中国际协调的要求。
- <分论点6：伦理治理需要专利追踪>。
- 事实佐证：专利数据库能让公众监督受保护实体，Alpha - food专利披露允许对申请进行伦理审查。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从伦理治理方面说明专利追踪的重要性，符合判断标准中伦理治理的要求。
结论
- 综上所述，坚信AI相关创新应该有资格获得专利保护，这种做法不仅推动技术进步和经济增长，还确保伦理治理和国际合作，主张拒绝原动议并支持AI创新的可专利性。
本环节金句
- “Patent grants some exclusive market rights for a certain period, allowing them to attract investment, gain market recognition and economic benefits. Quite applicable to some in AI startups, for example, they can collaborate with large medical - com equipment companies and get funding and technological promotion opportunities by protecting their applications with patents.”
- “According to the World Intellectual Property Organization's 2023 reports, there is a direct collaboration between AI patent activity and GDP. Countries with robust AI patent systems, such as the US, China and Japan, account for 48 percent of global AI investment.”
- “The patent itself has a function of preventing monopoly. Patent requires the disclosure of technical details in patent applications, making the technical details accessible to the public.”
The reality is that the current patent system, they large corporation not as me. System, they large corporation not as me. Let's look at the data. According to the 2021 report by the World Intellectual Property Organization, five percent of AI - related patents are held by just ten percent of companies, primarily big giants like Google, Microsoft and IBM. These corporations have the financial resources and the legal teams to file and extend patents, while others are left behind.
When large companies monopolize AI patents, they create barriers to entry for smaller players. Smaller players seem like they don't have the funds to develop their own AI technologies and are forced to pay extra license fees to use patented AI tools. For example, a study by the European Patent Office found that the licensing cost of AI - related patents increased by 35 percent between 2012 and 2018, making it nearly impossible for small - and - medium - sized enterprises (SMEs) to compete. It is not a system for certain innovation; it is a system that entrenches inequality.
The driver motive of the large corporations: the opposition claims that patent protects SMEs, but this is a slow argument. Large corporates are not motivated by altruism; they are driven by profit. When they patent AI innovations, they are not going to have society or a level - playing field; it's to maximize their view and dominate the market. Consider the case in health. Here, companies like IBM and Google have patented AI algorithms of diagnosing diseases instead of making this accessible to small hospitals and clinics. They prioritize high profits over public health. A 2020 study by an institution revealed that 60 percent of healthcare providers in developing countries cannot afford AI - enabled tools due to patent - related cost. This is not innovation for the greater good; it's innovation for the healthy view.
Moreover, large corporations spend billions on marketing to maintain their market dominance, not on further innovation.
Three, the failure of patents to protect SMEs. The opposition argues that patent gives SMEs the right to attract investment and gain market recognition. However, this is a theoretical idea that does not reflect real - world reality. SMEs lack the resources to enforce their patents against large competitors. For example, a 1990 study by the Harvard Business Review showed that 70 percent of SMEs with patents reported being unable to defend them in court due to high legal costs. Even if an SME manages to patent, it is often out - muscled by larger companies with deeper pockets and more influence. This creates a system where patents are not a shield but a weapon of large corporations to exploit.
Furthermore, the opposition's claim that international cooperation supports the patent system is misleading. While there are international agreements like the TRIPS agreement, they are dominated by the wealthy nations and corporations that shape the rules in their favor. Developing countries and SMEs have little say in these frameworks, particularly in terms of global inequality.
In summary, the patenting of AI innovation does not protect SMEs. It empowers large corporations to monopolize and prioritize profit over social good and exploit smaller players. The data is clear: 85 percent of all patents are held by a handful of companies, licensing costs are skyrocketing and SMEs can't afford to defend their patents. We must reject the patenting of AI innovation and instead promote open - source models and collaborative frameworks that ensure equitable access to technology. Only then can we create a system that truly focuses on innovation for the benefit of all, not just the wealthy few. Thank you.
So, OK, thank you to the deputy prime minister. Now I'd like to invite the deputy leader of the opposition please.
The reality is that the current patent system, they large corporation not as me. System, they large corporation not as me. Let's look at the data. According to the 2021 report by the World Intellectual Property Organization, five percent of AI - related patents are held by just ten percent of companies, primarily big giants like Google, Microsoft and IBM. These corporations have the financial resources and the legal teams to file and extend patents, while others are left behind.
When large companies monopolize AI patents, they create barriers to entry for smaller players. Smaller players seem like they don't have the funds to develop their own AI technologies and are forced to pay extra license fees to use patented AI tools. For example, a study by the European Patent Office found that the licensing cost of AI - related patents increased by 35 percent between 2012 and 2018, making it nearly impossible for small - and - medium - sized enterprises (SMEs) to compete. It is not a system for certain innovation; it is a system that entrenches inequality.
The driver motive of the large corporations: the opposition claims that patent protects SMEs, but this is a slow argument. Large corporates are not motivated by altruism; they are driven by profit. When they patent AI innovations, they are not going to have society or a level - playing field; it's to maximize their view and dominate the market. Consider the case in health. Here, companies like IBM and Google have patented AI algorithms of diagnosing diseases instead of making this accessible to small hospitals and clinics. They prioritize high profits over public health. A 2020 study by an institution revealed that 60 percent of healthcare providers in developing countries cannot afford AI - enabled tools due to patent - related cost. This is not innovation for the greater good; it's innovation for the healthy view.
Moreover, large corporations spend billions on marketing to maintain their market dominance, not on further innovation.
Three, the failure of patents to protect SMEs. The opposition argues that patent gives SMEs the right to attract investment and gain market recognition. However, this is a theoretical idea that does not reflect real - world reality. SMEs lack the resources to enforce their patents against large competitors. For example, a 1990 study by the Harvard Business Review showed that 70 percent of SMEs with patents reported being unable to defend them in court due to high legal costs. Even if an SME manages to patent, it is often out - muscled by larger companies with deeper pockets and more influence. This creates a system where patents are not a shield but a weapon of large corporations to exploit.
Furthermore, the opposition's claim that international cooperation supports the patent system is misleading. While there are international agreements like the TRIPS agreement, they are dominated by the wealthy nations and corporations that shape the rules in their favor. Developing countries and SMEs have little say in these frameworks, particularly in terms of global inequality.
In summary, the patenting of AI innovation does not protect SMEs. It empowers large corporations to monopolize and prioritize profit over social good and exploit smaller players. The data is clear: 85 percent of all patents are held by a handful of companies, licensing costs are skyrocketing and SMEs can't afford to defend their patents. We must reject the patenting of AI innovation and instead promote open - source models and collaborative frameworks that ensure equitable access to technology. Only then can we create a system that truly focuses on innovation for the benefit of all, not just the wealthy few. Thank you.
So, OK, thank you to the deputy prime minister. Now I'd like to invite the deputy leader of the opposition please.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
重要概念定义
- AI - related patents：与人工智能相关的专利，涵盖人工智能技术、算法等在知识产权方面的保护权益。
- SMEs（Small - and - Medium - Sized Enterprises）：中小型企业，在经济规模、人员数量、资金实力等方面相对较小的企业类型。
判断标准
- 判断AI创新是否应被授予专利，要看这种专利制度是否有利于创新的公平性、是否有利于社会整体利益（包括中小企业发展、公共健康等方面），而不是仅有利于大型企业垄断和逐利。
分论点与事实佐证
- 分论点1：大型企业垄断AI专利，阻碍中小企业进入市场
- 事实佐证：根据世界知识产权组织2021年报告，5%的AI相关专利被10%的公司（如谷歌、微软和IBM等巨头）持有；欧洲专利局研究发现2012 - 2018年间AI相关专利许可成本增加了35%，使得中小企业难以竞争。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：大型企业对AI专利的垄断，造成中小企业缺乏资金发展自身AI技术，还要支付额外许可费，这体现了专利制度在AI创新方面不利于创新的公平性，损害了中小企业利益，不符合判断标准中对社会整体利益的考量。
- 分论点2：大型企业以逐利为目的，而非利他
- 事实佐证：在健康领域，IBM和谷歌等公司将疾病诊断的AI算法申请专利，却不向小医院和诊所开放；2020年某机构研究表明，发展中国家60%的医疗服务提供者因专利相关成本无法使用AI工具。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：大型企业的这种行为表明它们在AI创新专利方面优先考虑自身利润最大化，而不是社会公共健康等整体利益，不符合判断标准中对社会整体利益的要求。
- 分论点3：专利未能保护中小企业
- 事实佐证：1990年《哈佛商业评论》研究显示，70%拥有专利的中小企业因高额法律成本无法在法庭上捍卫自己的专利；即使中小企业获得专利，也常被资金雄厚、影响力大的大企业排挤。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：这表明专利制度在AI创新方面没有起到保护中小企业的作用，反而成为大企业剥削中小企业的武器，不符合判断标准中对创新公平性和社会整体利益的要求。
- 分论点4：国际合作中的专利制度偏向富国和大企业
- 事实佐证：像TRIPS协议等国际协定由富裕国家和大企业主导，发展中国家和中小企业在这些框架中话语权小。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：国际合作中的专利制度现状不符合判断标准中对社会整体利益（包括发展中国家、中小企业利益）的考量，不利于创新的公平性。
结论
专利AI创新并不能保护中小企业，反而使大企业得以垄断并将利润置于社会公益之上，剥削小公司。应拒绝AI创新的专利制度，推广开源模式和协作框架以确保技术的公平获取，创建一个真正着眼于所有人利益的创新体系。
本环节金句
- “These corporations have the financial resources and the legal teams to file and extend patents, while others are left behind.”
- “When large companies monopolize AI patents, they create barriers to entry for smaller players.”
- “We must reject the patenting of AI innovation and instead promote open - source models and collaborative frameworks that ensure equitable access to technology.”
Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Now, everybody might hear so through us today's debate. Your side has consistently failed to provide evidence as to why, in your view, granting patent right to AI can ensure the efficiency of the patent system and the quality of innovation. We look forward to your follow - up reply. Next, I will summarize our position.
As the second speaker for the proposition, I will go there and argue why AI - driven innovations should not be patented, focusing on AI's non - human agency, the priority of social welfare, and structural risks to the patent system.
The first core argument: Innovations involving AI should not be granted patent monopoly. The patent system was established to protect the fruits of human initiative, not instrumental outputs. Even if AI is regarded as a tool, its innovations are fundamentally data products and cannot equate to human creative labor. Take research as an example. When society uses AI to screen meanings of molecule structures, this is essentially probabilities optimization through computational power. The process makes the core element of human invention - creative judgment rooted in expertise. For true innovation, it requires researchers to seriously consider molecular activity and mechanical trends, all demanding human cognition and moral agency.
Second, you believe this. You mentioned that data products cannot be with human creative labor and you say the mark of the market competition is not good. But this problem is because the market is not controlled. The tool itself does not seriously benefit mankind. AI can quickly promote innovation, which is good. But when the result of innovation is used in bad places, whether it is out of the original purpose, and in this case, we all check the idea that AI innovation research can be used as the pats to help curse the market services.
Second core. A society's welfare will bail patents to AI innovations by allowing corporate profits over public good. Corporate profits over public good are creating more critical crises. AI innovation often relies on massive data extraction. The personal protection and incentivizes invasive and surveillance technologies. For example, facial recognition systems presented by tech giants have been recognized by authoritarian regimes. If targeted, minorities may not lie rather than benefiting. Authoritarian lies rather than benefiting allow harmful cooperation. You exploit the privacy rights of the vulnerable. Technically, a pattern of abuse, patent monopolize, accelerates the rapid AI deployment. Companies like Meta and OpenAI raise you have generated generative AI while ignoring the risks like DeepFace and Autonomous. Where profits - driving, you are unregulated.
Thirdly, employment prices. AI automations disrupt labor markets faster. According to the 2023 IMF report, AI could raise 14 percent of global jobs within fifteen years. Corporations profit from patents while society bears the costs of unemployment, inequality, and the economic instability. And the public welfare is left to the whims of social transformation driven by corporate property.
Thank you to the government work. Now, I'd like to invite the opposition to conclude the debate. Please.
Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Now, everybody might hear so through us today's debate. Your side has consistently failed to provide evidence as to why, in your view, granting patent right to AI can ensure the efficiency of the patent system and the quality of innovation. We look forward to your follow - up reply. Next, I will summarize our position.
As the second speaker for the proposition, I will go there and argue why AI - driven innovations should not be patented, focusing on AI's non - human agency, the priority of social welfare, and structural risks to the patent system.
The first core argument: Innovations involving AI should not be granted patent monopoly. The patent system was established to protect the fruits of human initiative, not instrumental outputs. Even if AI is regarded as a tool, its innovations are fundamentally data products and cannot equate to human creative labor. Take research as an example. When society uses AI to screen meanings of molecule structures, this is essentially probabilities optimization through computational power. The process makes the core element of human invention - creative judgment rooted in expertise. For true innovation, it requires researchers to seriously consider molecular activity and mechanical trends, all demanding human cognition and moral agency.
Second, you believe this. You mentioned that data products cannot be with human creative labor and you say the mark of the market competition is not good. But this problem is because the market is not controlled. The tool itself does not seriously benefit mankind. AI can quickly promote innovation, which is good. But when the result of innovation is used in bad places, whether it is out of the original purpose, and in this case, we all check the idea that AI innovation research can be used as the pats to help curse the market services.
Second core. A society's welfare will bail patents to AI innovations by allowing corporate profits over public good. Corporate profits over public good are creating more critical crises. AI innovation often relies on massive data extraction. The personal protection and incentivizes invasive and surveillance technologies. For example, facial recognition systems presented by tech giants have been recognized by authoritarian regimes. If targeted, minorities may not lie rather than benefiting. Authoritarian lies rather than benefiting allow harmful cooperation. You exploit the privacy rights of the vulnerable. Technically, a pattern of abuse, patent monopolize, accelerates the rapid AI deployment. Companies like Meta and OpenAI raise you have generated generative AI while ignoring the risks like DeepFace and Autonomous. Where profits - driving, you are unregulated.
Thirdly, employment prices. AI automations disrupt labor markets faster. According to the 2023 IMF report, AI could raise 14 percent of global jobs within fifteen years. Corporations profit from patents while society bears the costs of unemployment, inequality, and the economic instability. And the public welfare is left to the whims of social transformation driven by corporate property.
Thank you to the government work. Now, I'd like to invite the opposition to conclude the debate. Please.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
重要概念定义
- AI - driven innovations：由人工智能参与或主导产生的创新成果，包括但不限于利用人工智能算法、模型等得出的新的技术、产品或解决方案等。
- Patent monopoly：专利垄断，指在专利制度下，专利所有者对其专利技术拥有独占性的权利，在一定时期内排除他人未经许可使用该技术的情况。
- Social welfare：社会福利，这里指社会整体的利益、福祉，包括但不限于公民的权益保护、社会公平、公共利益等方面。
判断标准
- 判断AI驱动的创新是否应被授予专利，应基于是否符合专利制度设立初衷（保护人类主动性成果）、是否有利于社会福利、是否对专利系统存在结构性风险这几个方面。
分论点与事实佐证
- 分论点1：AI驱动的创新不应被授予专利垄断权
- 事实佐证：专利系统是为保护人类主动性成果而设立，而AI的创新即使被视为工具，其成果本质是数据产品，不能等同于人类创造性劳动。如利用AI筛选分子结构意义时，只是通过计算力进行概率优化，真正的创新需要人类基于专业知识的创造性判断、认知和道德考量。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从专利制度设立初衷出发，AI创新不符合保护人类主动性成果这一要求，所以不应被授予专利垄断权，符合判断标准中关于专利制度设立初衷的部分。
- 分论点2：授予AI创新专利会损害社会福利
- 事实佐证：AI创新常依赖大量数据提取，会侵犯个人隐私并催生监控技术。例如科技巨头的面部识别系统被威权政权利用，可能损害弱势群体权益。而且企业受利润驱动，在生成式AI发展过程中忽视风险，只追求利润而缺乏监管。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：这些情况表明授予AI创新专利会导致企业利益凌驾于公共利益之上，损害社会福利，符合判断标准中关于社会福利的部分。
- 分论点3：AI自动化影响就业，授予专利会使社会承担更多成本
- 事实佐证：根据2023年国际货币基金组织报告，AI在15年内可能使全球14%的工作岗位受到影响，企业从专利中获利，而社会却要承担失业、不平等和经济不稳定等成本。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：这体现出授予AI创新专利会对社会产生负面影响，不符合社会福利的要求，符合判断标准中关于社会福利的部分。
结论
AI驱动的创新不应被授予专利，因为从专利制度设立初衷、社会福利以及对专利系统的影响等判断标准来看，授予专利存在诸多不合理之处。
本环节金句
- “The patent system was established to protect the fruits of human initiative, not instrumental outputs.”
- “AI innovation often relies on massive data extraction. The personal protection and incentivizes invasive and surveillance technologies.”
- “Corporations profit from patents while society bears the costs of unemployment, inequality, and the economic instability.”
Our position is that innovation involving artificial intelligence should not be eligible for patent protection for the following reasons.
Firstly, AI cannot be the subject of innovation. AI is a tool and does not possess the capacity for innovation. For instance, while a human can learn classical music and then compose rock music, AI can only, once it has learned, produce work in a similar style to classical music.
Secondly, recognizing innovations involving AI is hardly in line with the purpose and requirements of our country's law. The law is designed to protect the legal rights of patent holders, encourage invention and creation, promote the application of inventions, enhance innovation and scientific and technological progress, as well as social development. Not recognizing innovations involving AI would, in this sense, go against the original intention of the law, which is putting the cart before the horse.
Moreover, international laws, such as those in the United States, are based on human principles and recognize AI as a facilitating factor, mainly acknowledging the innovation outcomes it helps produce. An overly conservative stance on this issue would be to disagree with international standards and could cause problems in innovation. Additionally, as the law differs in innovation, having not been properly applied, and the utility and innovations involving AI clearly miss this criterion.
Furthermore, the rise of AI represents the fourth industrial revolution, a transformative change that will impact the world. The advancement of global technology now literally depends on the development in AI. Our attitude towards AI can, in fact, have many effects as it pertains to the future of inventions.
Finally, knowledge is the only way to promote better development and prepare for the economy.
Thank you to the opposition. Thank you to all the teams for this debate. Dear judges, please take a moment to fill out the Scorecard. Thank you.
Our position is that innovation involving artificial intelligence should not be eligible for patent protection for the following reasons.
Firstly, AI cannot be the subject of innovation. AI is a tool and does not possess the capacity for innovation. For instance, while a human can learn classical music and then compose rock music, AI can only, once it has learned, produce work in a similar style to classical music.
Secondly, recognizing innovations involving AI is hardly in line with the purpose and requirements of our country's law. The law is designed to protect the legal rights of patent holders, encourage invention and creation, promote the application of inventions, enhance innovation and scientific and technological progress, as well as social development. Not recognizing innovations involving AI would, in this sense, go against the original intention of the law, which is putting the cart before the horse.
Moreover, international laws, such as those in the United States, are based on human principles and recognize AI as a facilitating factor, mainly acknowledging the innovation outcomes it helps produce. An overly conservative stance on this issue would be to disagree with international standards and could cause problems in innovation. Additionally, as the law differs in innovation, having not been properly applied, and the utility and innovations involving AI clearly miss this criterion.
Furthermore, the rise of AI represents the fourth industrial revolution, a transformative change that will impact the world. The advancement of global technology now literally depends on the development in AI. Our attitude towards AI can, in fact, have many effects as it pertains to the future of inventions.
Finally, knowledge is the only way to promote better development and prepare for the economy.
Thank you to the opposition. Thank you to all the teams for this debate. Dear judges, please take a moment to fill out the Scorecard. Thank you.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt！基座大模型为豆包。)
重要概念定义
- innovation involving AI：未明确给出确切定义，大致指涉及人工智能的创新成果或行为。
- patent protection：未明确给出确切定义，根据语境可理解为对创新成果授予专利以给予法律保护的行为。
判断标准
- 从是否符合国家法律目的与要求、是否符合国际标准、对全球科技发展及未来发明的影响等多方面综合判断创新涉及AI是否应被授予专利。
分论点与事实佐证
- AI不能成为创新主体。
- 事实佐证：AI是工具，不具备创新能力，如人类能学古典音乐后创作摇滚音乐，而AI学习后只能创作类似古典音乐风格的作品。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：如果AI不能成为创新主体，那么对其相关创新授予专利不符合对创新主体的基本认知，也不符合国家法律鼓励真正创新主体进行发明创造等目的，同时也与国际上以人类原则为基础的法律理念不符。
- 承认涉及AI的创新不符合我国法律目的和要求。
- 事实佐证：我国法律旨在保护专利持有者合法权利、鼓励发明创造、推动发明应用、促进创新和科技进步以及社会发展，承认涉及AI的创新不符合这一目的。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：不符合国家法律目的和要求，就不应给予专利保护，这是从国家法律层面的判断依据。
- 国际法律以人类原则为基础，过度保守对待AI创新不符合国际标准。
- 事实佐证：美国等国际法律以人类原则为基础，将AI视为促进因素，主要认可其帮助产生的创新成果。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：如果不符合国际标准，在国际交流和创新发展中会产生问题，所以不应给予涉及AI的创新专利保护。
- AI的崛起代表第四次工业革命，对待AI的态度影响未来发明。
- 事实佐证：AI的发展对全球技术进步至关重要，其代表着变革性的第四次工业革命。
- 分论点如何服务于判断标准：从对全球科技发展和未来发明的影响角度看，需要谨慎对待涉及AI的创新专利问题，不应轻易给予专利保护。
结论
未明确给出总结性结论，但整体论述倾向于创新涉及AI不应被授予专利。
本环节金句
- AI is a tool and does not possess the capacity for innovation.
- The law is designed to protect the legal rights of patent holders, encourage invention and creation, promote the application of inventions, enhance innovation and scientific and technological progress, as well as social development.
- Our attitude towards AI can, in fact, have many effects as it pertains to the future of inventions.
