Do you even know what the study of AI is about? I even laid it out for you and yet you still bring up nonsense like references to Skynet? Just because they use a term artificial intelligence does not mean they're talking about the Hollywood definition of what AI means, it means they're talking about a system which behaves in a way we would consider more intelligent than what we're used to currently (and most successful AI projects just become regarded as the normal way things are done). Google's search suggestions and related searches would be regarded as examples of AI. See http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~isb9112/dept/phil341/wisai/Wha... for a good explanation.
You seem to be getting stuck on the title of the patent application, and this has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the scope of the claimed invention and is, as far as patent validity is concerned completely irrelevant and must only be generally related to the disclosure.
"The patent should protect the implementation, not the idea"... That is exactly what this application seeks to do! It's seeking to protect their implementation of performing a search or giving suggestions (or something similar, on an iPhone and don't want to have to read it again on here). But you can't do that by providing source code, it would make the patent worthless because someone sticking some extra irrelevant step in the middle could claim it doesn't do the same thing. If you invented a new toaster that used one tenth the energy and took a tenth as long, would you want to be able to stop people using the same mechanism that allowed you to do that? Or would you want to be able to only stop people from making a toaster that is exactly the same as the one you've created, and if someone adds a cooling rack on top, you couldn't stop them from taking your idea which you've invested time and effort in. This is exactly the same for software patents. You patent inventive solutions to problems, in a way that means you can protect it in all it's forms, just just the one way you've written it in the one language you've chosen to do so.
Of course people should be able to apply for patents for mere ideas before actual creation; this is how you make money from being an inventor for anything more than simple back shed ideas: you come up with a novel and inventive way to do something, you talk to a patent attorney and apply for a patent, and then you go to investors and say "hey, I have this awesome idea that can make you money. Give me money to implement it, and my patent will insure that only you are allowed to use that idea or to licence it to those of your choosing". The patent system is all about protecting ideas, but people chuck a spaz when it's not something as tangible as a new gearbox or a new chemical or a new piece of mining equipment or whatever it is. It is my firm belief that people who come up with novel and inventive ideas through hard work and often a lot of their own money should be able to protect others from stealing their ideas. Without this, there is almost no incentive for people to form start ups with great new ideas they've had; large companies are free to just take their ideas and there's nothing that can be done about it.
The toaster example is relevant. It is a physical thing, like a particular git repo would be, too. In contrast, an idea is not relevant. It just happens that in US, ideas are patentable - which is nonsense. A nonsense that you happen to agree with.
Yet you contradict yourself - on one paragraph you want to protect the implementation, and in another you wish you could protect the idea.
I'm not stuck on the title, and I know just as little about AI as only there are strong and weak forms of it. But if I happen to look at Star Trek tonight I should not be allowed to go and patent 30+ "ideas" that I saw in that movie or that I dreamt of.
You seem to be getting stuck on the title of the patent application, and this has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the scope of the claimed invention and is, as far as patent validity is concerned completely irrelevant and must only be generally related to the disclosure.
"The patent should protect the implementation, not the idea"... That is exactly what this application seeks to do! It's seeking to protect their implementation of performing a search or giving suggestions (or something similar, on an iPhone and don't want to have to read it again on here). But you can't do that by providing source code, it would make the patent worthless because someone sticking some extra irrelevant step in the middle could claim it doesn't do the same thing. If you invented a new toaster that used one tenth the energy and took a tenth as long, would you want to be able to stop people using the same mechanism that allowed you to do that? Or would you want to be able to only stop people from making a toaster that is exactly the same as the one you've created, and if someone adds a cooling rack on top, you couldn't stop them from taking your idea which you've invested time and effort in. This is exactly the same for software patents. You patent inventive solutions to problems, in a way that means you can protect it in all it's forms, just just the one way you've written it in the one language you've chosen to do so.
Of course people should be able to apply for patents for mere ideas before actual creation; this is how you make money from being an inventor for anything more than simple back shed ideas: you come up with a novel and inventive way to do something, you talk to a patent attorney and apply for a patent, and then you go to investors and say "hey, I have this awesome idea that can make you money. Give me money to implement it, and my patent will insure that only you are allowed to use that idea or to licence it to those of your choosing". The patent system is all about protecting ideas, but people chuck a spaz when it's not something as tangible as a new gearbox or a new chemical or a new piece of mining equipment or whatever it is. It is my firm belief that people who come up with novel and inventive ideas through hard work and often a lot of their own money should be able to protect others from stealing their ideas. Without this, there is almost no incentive for people to form start ups with great new ideas they've had; large companies are free to just take their ideas and there's nothing that can be done about it.