Scout and generative AI concerns (applicants and attys welcome)
I'm no generative AI hater, per se, so I think this could have various reasonable legit uses if proper guardrails and training are in place. But since all changes for the last two years have been implement first, think second, I was interested in opinions both inside and out on a few of starter concerns...
1 - No training or training time (yet 🙄).
2 - public trust info
3 - public transparency in it's use
4 - consistency in implementation
5 - wasted resources
One is self explanatory, it's a waste our time, for sure to get new tools, and no time to figure out if/how it's useful. We complain about that all the time.
For two, we know we should be cautious when working on any application pre PGPub since it's not public yet; don't forget we are apparently national security employees. But with production increases, morale at an all time low, stress at an all time high and like 10k examiners with no substantive compensated training, there are going to be claims and specs that are not public pasted into scout and given to these AI firms, right?
Applicants, attorneys, you cool with that?
For transparency, we'll get some half baked guidance but the MPEP isn't updated yet. For example we have MPEP 719.05 to document the search. But if we are using generative AI to get suggested searches, keywords, classifications, or whatever; I bet applicant would want to know that. Maybe the terms and classifications themselves are in the search history but it's shifting from what someone actually skilled in the art would think to search vs. what comes out of an ever evolving and never re-producable black box.
Again, applicants, attorneys, that cool?
What transparency would you like to see when generative AI is used to look for art or possibly draft rejections?
Consistency is self explanatory, but do you really expect a 20+ year primary to employ this in any way similar to a recent college grad. Naturally, inconsistency in strategies among 10k examiners is nothing new, but this seems like a different magnitude.
Last, if we're just expected to figure out what use this has through trial and error with no training, that's a lot of time, energy, money, and water just being wasted. We had an R&D unit until recently that was design for something like this. Going corps wide, right from the jump is just sloppy and wasteful.
That's a fraction of my thoughts on the issue and I'm sure examiners are too burned out to care but there you have it.
Stay strong, or at least employed