What is the difference between an invention created by a person that was informed through AI outputs, and an invention created without any use of AI?
An invention is an invention. If it is novel then someone put in the work to get it , such as possibly training the model and definitely the prompts. Most likely the invention as spit out by the AI is not going to be usable as is. Anyone seen the six fingered hands some image AIs make? So a human will need to revise it, modify it, and test it by building a working prototype.
In my opinion, the human should get the patent. Anything else smacks to me of a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of "AI bad!", though there is certainly a lot of that reaction going around. AI, or more properly LLMs, are a tool like fire - nothing more, nothing less. Does it invalidate the patent if you use CAD/CAM in the creation of your invention? If not, then neither should using LLMS.
The patent system is barely useful at this point because of the low friction - giant companies spamming the patent office with concepts they may or may not ever use. I think this rule is about keeping the patent office/system hobbling along. To allow the friction to drop even further for companies with the resources to generate patents via AI means that the abuse will escalate, and the patent office will struggle harder. Those companies would also be afforded a big legal advantage by this abuse, in a way certainly not predicted or intended by designers of the patent system.
In my opinion, the human should get the patent. Anything else smacks to me of a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of "AI bad!", though there is certainly a lot of that reaction going around. AI, or more properly LLMs, are a tool like fire - nothing more, nothing less. Does it invalidate the patent if you use CAD/CAM in the creation of your invention? If not, then neither should using LLMS.