Author Information
Lin Allen, University of Northern Colorado, United StatesAbstract
This study explores the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case Thaler v. Vidal (2022), which ruled that artificial intelligence cannot be classified as an “inventor,” rendering AI ineligible for patenting. Through an exploration of rhetorical mystification and demystification of AI, arguments presented by Plaintiff Stephen Thaler will be contrasted with arguments presented by Appellant Katherine K. Vidal. Arguments will be charted according to rhetorical and linguistic theorist Kenneth Burke’s model of dramatism, featuring twenty possible pentadic ratio pairings of terms including scene, act, agent, agency, and purpose. For example, a scene/agent ratio casts a different meaning than does an act/purpose ratio. Of special note is how a repositioning of emphasis on these pentadic terms inscribes the way in which artificial intelligence is conceptualized and codified within legal spheres—whether it invents or merely imitates.
Paper Information
Conference: ACAH2025Stream: Arts - Arts Policy
This paper is part of the ACAH2025 Conference Proceedings (View)
Full Paper
View / Download the full paper in a new tab/window
To cite this article:
Allen L. (2025) Polymorph Wants a Cracker? Is AI an Inventor or “Stochastic Parrot” Hacker? ISSN: 2186-229X – The Asian Conference on Arts & Humanities 2025 Official Conference Proceedings (pp. 513-520) https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2186-229X.2025.42
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2186-229X.2025.42
Comments
Powered by WP LinkPress