“AI must’ve invented it.”
“AI must’ve invented it.”
That reaction is everywhere and it’s worth tightening our definitions.
Because not everything that uses AI is AI-invented.
For something to be genuinely AI-invented, an AI would have to:
• originate the core idea
• decide the problem framing
• define the formal structure
• assert novel claims
• and do so without human conception or direction
That bar is much higher than most people assume.
Using AI to:
draft or edit text
run calculations or simulations
clean up code
explore variations inside human-defined constraints
…does not cross that line.
That’s tool use. Not invention.
AI doesn’t choose which problems matter.
It doesn’t decide what counts as proof.
It doesn’t set boundaries or ethics.
It doesn’t decide when to stop.
Humans do.
What we’re actually seeing isn’t “AI replacing inventors.”
It’s human-led work becoming more visible, faster—and harder to dismiss.
Transparency about AI use doesn’t weaken authorship.
It clarifies responsibility.
The real skill now isn’t avoiding AI tools.
It’s knowing:
what questions to ask
what structure to impose
what claims you’re accountable for
and where human judgment begins and ends
If your first response to unfamiliar work is “AI must’ve done it,” that’s not skepticism.
It’s a sign your model of invention is outdated.
Tools don’t invent.
People do.
AI HumanInTheLoop Inventorship Authorship AIethics ResearchIntegrity Innovation Engineering ScientificMethod Transparency FutureOfWork CriticalThinking
Comments
Post a Comment