One thing i've got to wonder. Would this always remain the case, at what point should society seriously consider the "personhood" of an AI (as a noun).
I agree with the other top-level comment next to yours (at the time of writing): when we're willing to enforce consequences for them in the same way we would for people. If I violate laws, I can get put in jail, and then I (most likely) can't use any computers until I get out. To consider an AI a person, it needs to have legal liability in the same way a fleshy person does.
Being a legal person is not a logical prerequisite for being named as an inventor on that argument alone, because there's not a legal liability that stems from being named as an inventor.
(That's not to say AI should or should not be capable of being named as an inventor).
I'm aware. Being named as an inventor is a benefit we sometimes give to people, and the point the other comment was making (as I understood it) is that AI shouldn't be able to only take the good parts of being a person and skip over the potential downsides.
Specifically for patent law, the distinction should be whether the entity is capable of genuine innovation, ie that it's not simply pulling existing information from its training set and passing things through some RNGs. It's not a matter of how advanced the AI is, it's a matter of the architecture.
Eh. No one has been able to prove to my satisfaction that they're conscious, or even simply define what it is that they claim to possess. Pick something else.