Doesn't your scheme point out contradictions in "intellectual property"? That is, a machine can churn out a discovery, demonstrating that the act of creation isn't special. And that undermines categories of justifications for IP.
The machines in question aren't motivated to create by a government granted monopoly on the fruits of their creation.
The act of creating the invention isn't special - a machine did it. No need to reward the machine for immense creativity or stunning inspiration.
The machines in question aren't motivated to create by a government granted monopoly on the fruits of their creation.
The act of creating the invention isn't special - a machine did it. No need to reward the machine for immense creativity or stunning inspiration.