The CP is most in line with how the current patent system is constructed and avoids cascading legal uncertainty

Erica Fraser, December 2016, “Computers as Inventors – Legal and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law,” https://script-ed.org/article/computers-as-inventors-legal-and-policy-implications-of-artificial-intelligence-on-patent-law/

The final option is to eliminate the statutory requirement to identify an inventor altogether. This option would be the simplest in the cases where there is no individual human inventor who can reasonably lay claim to an invention, such as where the invention is the result of a large team effort, or of a computer whose process of invention is not purposeful or directed and is without human oversight or control. However, eliminating this requirement would obviate certain justifications for the patent system, such as the fair reward and moral benefit of recognition. This could have tangible impacts on scientists and engineers who gain professional credibility and even monetary benefits based on their status as a named inventor on patents. Further, since the requirement is based to a large degree on a natural understanding of fairness, eliminating it could undermine public support for the system as a whole. In the current context and with the prospect of autonomous computer-generated inventions, the optimal balance between perceptions of morality and fairness and the impersonal realities of inventorship is likely to maintain the option of identifying one or more human inventors only where such a person can be reasonably identified. This would maintain the social and financial benefits of attribution where it is warranted, while permitting the patenting of computational inventions without making radical legal changes.