>> if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas.

>> Can we do that for Medical field?

Note: IANAL.

Well, if we do that (i.e., no one can own ideas), then the patent system is gone in its entirety, including for medical. I do not think it is straightforward to isolate just medical. AFAIK, software was isolated in some regions, however, workarounds showed up.

The more important question here is if AI is allowed to be a (solo or contributing) inventor. There have been judgments on the same in some jurisdictions, however, AFAIK, this is still an open topic.

Now that AI is coming up with mathematical proofs of advanced statements, there should be no doubt that AI, capability-wise, can make inventions like humans do (comparing outcome, not the process). However, just like for copyright, a broader framework is needed to answer whether the legal thinking accepts AI's output as "inventions" (that can pass criteria for patentability) before we can say "AI can make inventions".

This is how the drug industry already works. I don’t think there’s any evidence “AI” (LLM) is capable of producing valid drug modifications.

In current status AI models cannot do that. But, if they do then it will break Medical Patent model.

The value in Medical patents is not the idea. It is the process of proving efficacy and safety. Which are the expensive parts. And I doubt we will trust AI with those any time soon. We grand Medical Patents because proving things is expensive and that process needs to be encouraged.