Remember the Toddler Laws of Ownership, by Kevin McHugh?
They perfectly encapsulate the Broligarchy’s attitude to data:
“1. If I like it, it’s mine.
2. If it’s in my hand, it’s mine.
3. If I can take it from you, it’s mine.
4. If I had it a little while ago, it’s mine.
5. If it’s mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way.
6. If I’m doing or building something, all the pieces are mine.
7. If it looks just like mine, it’s mine.
8. If I saw it first, It’s mine.
9. If you are playing with something and you put it down, automatically it becomes mine.
10. If it’s broken, it’s yours.
11. If it is broken, but you are having fun playing with the pieces, it’s mine again.
12. If there is ANY doubt, it’s mine.”
This has never been clearer than watching the tantrums thrown by the American AI industry in the face of DeepSeek, the recently released Large Language Model (LLM) from a small Chinese company. DeepSeek appears to have put egg on the faces of the AI industry by refuting the claim that AI cannot be achieved without free access to all of the data, all of the time, and monstrous amounts of compute, fuelled by wildly unsustainable energy and water consumption. To decorate the cake with the most deliciously fabulous icing, it’s very probable that DeepSeek has done that, at least in part, using output from the LLMs developed by OpenAI, Anthropic, and other US companies.
Suddenly the argument that training AI on other people’s data is fair use goes out the window. It’s only fair use when WE do it. When YOU do it, it’s NOT FAIR DAD! All of the creative folks around the world whose data has been stolen, wholesale, and used for purposes we did not consent to, are currently playing their tiny violins while snacking on some very tasty schadenfreude icing.
Really, those toddler laws of ownership sum up the tech industry alarmingly well. They show about the same level of social and emotional intelligence, and precisely the same regard for the wellbeing of people, society, and the planet. The broligarchy is also very toddleresque when you tell it “No”. And it has the same attitude to losing games (Hi Elon), losing market share (Hi Zuck), or losing power (they haven’t really done that… yet…).
I haven’t quite figured out how we reject this behaviour in a way that really creates change. But reject it we must. Perhaps we could start by refuting their hubris. Critically evaluating their products. Challenging their claims. And demanding better from our legislators.
Technology isn’t magic. It can be reliable, accessible, inclusive, ethical, and transparent. If the tech industry argues that they can’t explain their products, then they should not be allowed to sell them until they can. And it’s probably time to take our advice from experts who don’t stand to make billions from it.