AI May Actually Work Now

If you're unfamiliar with my previous posts on generative AI--in particular ChatGPT and other similar LLMs--now may be a good time to do a quick review.

For those of you who read them before, allow me to make an exciting announcement: Generative AI might actually work now. That's right, it does what I asked. I am just as shocked as you.

After hearing from my tattoo artist about the Grok app, and its ability to search, I was skeptical. After all, most of these AI models that were not created specifically for searching are just garbage at it! And I had heard nothing even remotely positive about Grok previously. But I put on my librarian hat and did the right thing: I downloaded the app, signed in with my work Google account, and did a little testing.

Holy artificial dialogue. 

I was impressed! And I didn't want to be, either. However, I can recognize when something can provide a good answer. The first question I'll skim over--it was nothing more than I've been able to glean from other models, if among the better responses. It was the second question that caused the reaction.

From the start, I have asked all of the models to find the most recent patents granted to Rice University. Without fail, they have all given me a lot of bad answers, ranging from "I can't" to "here's a list of random patents and patent applications that may or may not be recent". Those that tell me it's "hard" to say what is most recent are just annoying, because patents are granted on specific dates. 

It explains it methodology and sources in its response, not requiring any extra clicks or selections

I ran this question on March 31st without having completed my monthly patent search for anything newly granted to Rice, so I couldn't immediately judge the accuracy of the results. But I do know quite a lot about Rice patents, and the two patents it listed took me by surprise. First, the most recent patent had what looked like a feasible patent number (12,251,449) and was granted to Rice and two other institutions that are frequent collaborators. The first inventor name listed is one I'm familiar with because he is on a lot of Rice patents, and the title of the patent matched his area of research. This was all promising.

All plausible, likely information at first glance

Furthermore, it listed a second patent that was granted near the end of  February, which I fully recognized as completely accurate (that one I had uploaded to the R3 repository). This additional patent made me think the first was that much more likely to be accurate.

Information I already knew was accurate

So I hopped on Patent Public Search, and verified. Sure enough, Grok got it right. 

Not only that, Grok listed quite a few details and sources used. This is also something I appreciate as a librarian and something I remind everyone in my generative AI classes to look for. 

Me shoutout! Love seeing that listed

Here's the bad news, though. It required Grok nearly a minute and 88 sources to find two patents.

This is not a request that requires 88 sources

Me? About 2 seconds and one source. Why? Because I am capable of real reasoning and actual strategic searching, with my very real intelligence.

So, no, Grok isn't going to replace me. Or us. It's just getting that tiny bit much better. Insert your appropriate emotion here: relief that you can stay employed, or disappointment that you still need to work.

Keep Your Drink Warm with some IP

You know what I really appreciate? Travel coffee/tea/whatever mugs that keep my beverage hot for hours. And not just a couple, but for 5 or so. Up until recently, I'd been using the same one for well over a decade because it was so incredibly effective. Unfortunately, it finally broke, and I was forced to use a newer version of the same container--only to find that it's not nearly as good! What happened?

I know for a fact that my old travel mug had multiple patents (this is me, of course I looked). Why abandon them? Ok, aside from the fact that given the age of my tumbler, they had likely passed into public domain (remember, patents have specific time limits). But that doesn't mean they couldn't continue to use the same design.

In celebration of the life of the coffee mug I loved and lost, and in hopes that the new one I bought for my husband's birthday is better--despite being the same brand--let us look at some Contigo (owned by Ignite USA) coffee tumbler lid patents. 

Please pay no mind to the table chaos in the background

There are three listed on the base of my current tumbler: 7,546,933, 7,997,442, and D564,841. Without looking them up, I can tell you immediately that these are not at all new and have quite likely passed into public domain. Since it also claims patent pending, I must assume newer tech is also at work. Let's look for the newer ones. Also, both of the utility patents are continuations within the same family and don't appear to be the tech behind the particular mug they're printed on, which makes them even less interesting for this entry. 

Also, I'm going to stick to utility patents, because that would be more relevant to the ability to keep my coffee warm for long periods. 

Contigo/Ignite USA haven't been very active lately when it comes to patents, as it turns out. There is nothing more recent than 2020--either granted or in application phase. This is a little disappointing, but perhaps their business plan has its reasons.

Let's look at US 10,336,513 Lid Having a Pre-venting Lid Lever and a Seal Arm Assembly. It looks moderately similar to what I have, but not quite the same. I think it's a different model; perhaps it is more effective. Maybe I should buy more tumblers and find out!

A diagram of the lid assembly from US 10,336,513

Next up is US 10,455,959 Portable Beverage Container with a Robust and Easily Cleanable Seal Mechanism. It's nothing like the coffee tumblers I know--it looks more like it is intended for chilled beverages, with the straw-like opening.

This image makes the lid look impossibly complicated

Finally, we have US 10,898,017 No-Spill Drinking Container, that again looks more like it is for a chilled beverage, similar to the above. In fact, they might be for the same whole bottle, just different parts.

It is hard to spill when drinking with a straw

 

How disappointing! None of these are for my coffee mug and none of them explain why the newer version is less effective. Perhaps more research of other patents and other patent office databases would be required.

Tattooing your Intellectual Property

If you haven't met me in person, you are likely unaware that this summer, I decided it was time for my first tattoo. (37 felt like the right age.) Since then, an artist has been working on my left arm across multiple sessions to complete an image of my favorite native Texas flowers. 

My arm immediately after the second session; still red and irritated

I may be one of the cool kids, and able to prove it, but I'm still a PTRC librarian and unable to contemplate anything without bringing in intellectual property. So, as you may expect, I've been thinking about patents related to tattooing technology. Sure, it's an ancient art that humans have practiced without the need of electricity, machinery, or knowledge of antiseptic practices, but I think we can all agree that it is often better with these improvements. 

So, let's see what people have been up to, in terms of patented tattoo inventions.

First, this is aimed at people who don't think enough about their tattoo art, perhaps: US 12,115,235, Tattoo Ink Formulation and Method. Apparently this consists of glass microspheres, containing organic pigments, that can be destroyed with ultrasound, thus allowing for a much more temporary tattoo. I'd just like to know if they work long term, and what special equipment might be required to use the ink. An intentionally removable tattoo seems like it would defeat the purpose of a permanent personal art form.

For people who really want to see tattooing go high-tech, there is US 12,178,980, Robotic Tattooing Systems and Related Technologies, which allows people to select tattoo designs online, with streamlines payment options. Not high tech enough? The tattoo is then applied via robotic machine! I kind of hate that idea; I researched local tattoo shops and selected an artist with a style I liked, and then we worked together on his unique design. I think this removes some of the artistic value, but maybe there are people who are more interested in a fast process. Also, can I just say? The figure they use for the tattoo--a piggy outline--was a choice.

The proposed little piggy tattoo in question

This next one is a bit more predictable, for improved ink formulations and pigments, and the methods of making them. US 12,195,630 Pigment Ink Dispersions, Tattoo Inks Containing the Pigment Ink Dispersions, and Method of Making the Same, was granted to Mario Barth of Las Vegas. Barth has some interesting pigmentation formulas that mean little to me, but are evidently innovative and new. 

Finally, here's an improvement in tattooing equipment: US 12,144,952 Tattoo Machine Assembly. It allows for a more customizable "feel" to the tattoo pen, by providing the use of various thicknesses of coils for springs, which permit different speeds and forces behind the needle. Saturation of pigment is greater due to a slower retraction of the needle after piercing, too. Since some body parts are much more sensitive than others--I noticed that the underside of my arm and closer to the armpit were way worse--this improvement might make the process less painful for some people. (I know one person who does not have a completed circle around her bicep because the inner arm was too much for her.) 

Me, not particularly enjoying the process but too excited to care

Any ideas for other tattoo improvements? Maybe some kind of bandage that speeds healing? The wait for it to look good again is tedious.