The job of the patent office is to determine whether that’s a valid patent application or not. As in, can you actually patent that thing, has someone else already patented it etc. As long as it’s technically valid, it gets approved. It’s up to the patent holder to test if its actually useful or not. If they choose to build the thing IRL, it’s up to the courts to determine if that breaks any laws. Every step along the way, the general public is there to judge the moral integrity of said invention, but usually that has no impact on the validity of the patent. Depending on jurisdiction, the patent office may need to follow some moral guielines, but the threshold of rejection is very high. My guess is, you won’t be able to patent a gas chamber for exterminating “illegal immigrants”, but patenting wild Meta BS is technically fine.
See also: this abomination
Novis@lemdro.id 2 weeks ago
This reminds me of that one judge that let prosecution use an AI approximation of a dead man against someone that killed the dead man to speak in the dead man’s voice and I just wanted to throw the justice system INTO THE OCEAN cause wtf.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
That is so horribly unethical. Wtf is wrong with people.
Novis@lemdro.id 2 weeks ago
What? Come on! It made the judge “feel” something! Not like someone’s died or something! /s
mech@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
WTF.
Novis@lemdro.id 2 weeks ago
Yeah, ain’t it great that judges can be easily swayed by some bullshit? Good country, ethics really well here.
dellish@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
How is that even admissible in court? It’s worse than hearsay, it’s madeupsay.
If your honour pleases, we have used AI to turn this child’s crayon drawing into the defendant pleading guilty! I’ll allow it.
For fucks sake.