[grantwu]

The patent in question is a patent on the obvious use, not the underlying method. "Deep convolutional neural nets trained using backprop or adversarial networks" is not the thing being patented here. "Using deep convolutional neural nets trained using backprop or adversarial networks to solve a specific problem" is what's being patented. The article argues that the known techniques aren't being applied in a particularly novel or interesting way.

[dahart]

I agree, and yes that happens. But the author concluded based on one example that the whole system is bringing down a whole industry. I didn't title the piece, Joe did.

And in the article he argued "the [patent] office seems prepared to give out patents on using machine learning in obvious and expected ways."

That is not and cannot be the criteria for or against issuing patents.