CP solves directly, in a manner less disruptive to the patent system.
Villasenor 8/25 – Nonresident Senior Fellow of Governance Studies in the Center for Technology Innovation, Brookings John Villasenor, Patents and AI inventions: Recent court rulings and broader policy questions, The Brookings Institution, August 25, 2022 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2022/08/25/patents-and-ai-inventions-recent-court-rulings-and-broader-policy-questions/#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Circuit%20concluded%20that,%2C%20so%20AI%20cannot%20be.%E2%80%9D
A second option is to conclude that the use of AI should not render unpatentable an otherwise patentable invention. This would preserve the innovation-promoting incentives that the patent system was designed to foster. But it would lead to complex questions of inventorship. As the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property stated in a 2020 resolution, “given the ability of AI systems to ‘learn,’ traditional notions of inventorship may be challenged.” Under this second option, it seems reasonable to attribute inventorship to the natural persons behind the AI, thereby avoiding the many problems that would arise if AI systems were deemed inventors. Of course, this attribution process would raise its own substantial complexities given the varying roles people play in designing, programming, training, and evaluating the outputs of AI systems. And it would require rethinking the current framework under which, as the U.S. PTO explains in a widely referenced but non-binding guidance document, the “threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived the invention.”