When AI designs a drug, who gets the credit? For now, it's always a person, despite the hard work of generative models. Biotech firm Insilico Medicine announced its AI 'discovered' a potential pulmonary fibrosis treatment but patented it as if their CEO Alex Zhavoronkov had done all the heavy lifting.

The discrepancy highlights a legal quirk: US patents can only list humans as inventors, no matter how much an AI contributes. In 2022, a court ruled that an AI couldn't be named inventor because it’s not a person. But with AIs getting more creative every day, this may soon need to change.

Patent lawyer Sarah Korman suggests future laws will have to adapt. Meanwhile, companies like Insilico are keeping humans in the loop—they still need chemists to synthesize and test drugs before they can be patented. Even if fully automated systems emerge, someone has to push the button and pay for it.

The issue extends beyond patents: the US Copyright Office won't grant rights to AI-generated works, sparking concerns from industries relying on these tools. Abbott argues that excluding AI could hamper drug development, but others fear encouraging too much reliance on machines.

In a world where innovation blurs the line between human and machine, it’s clear we need new rules to keep up with progress.