Idea theft normalized; library funding cut; AI citation screwups: Newsletter 19 March 2025

Newsletter 86: Insisting on crediting idea creators, AI can’t cite articles properly, a new business hybrid publisher, plus three people to follow and three books to read.

Fight the rip-off culture

I recently accepted a job to write a book chapter. The clients were expert business thinkers. The topic was a business discipline that should be important to every company. I reviewed the client’s extensive and detailed PowerPoint presentations and interviewed their experts.

The source material they shared with me included plenty of great business analysis, data, and detailed advice based on a clear and well-thought-out framework for elements of the business discipline. There was only one problem.

The framework was not original. I only knew that because it was a close copy of a framework from different book I’d worked on a decade earlier, written by two brilliant thinkers I’m lucky to call my friends. And there was no trace of credit for the earlier work in any of the materials I’d reviewed.

When I brought it to the client’s attention, they said, “Sure, add in whatever you feel is appropriate about the original source.” It was no big deal to them.

But it was a big deal to me.

I am an idea person. I am a researcher. I’m not a scientist, but I was trained as a mathematician, a discipline like all academic disciplines in which giving credit for the work of others is a central part of the ethos. I was pleased when I joined a research company for the bulk of my career where the ethos of giving credit continued. When, in a rare case of the violation of that ethos there, my boss attempted take credit for the work of a colleague of mine, others convinced him that he was making a grave mistake and he was forced to correct his error.

But we are living in a world that warmly invites ripping other people off.

Almost all creative work is digital, which makes it easy to copy. People steal each others’ memes, jokes, graphics, and insights and rarely work about credit. People digitally copy text with never a heed to who created it. Those who think for four-tenths of a second about credit append “credit to original owner” to the bottom, imagining that such a note is sufficient and that there’s no need to actually figure out who, lost to the depths of time, that original creator was. Piracy is so common that sites like YouTube use digital tools to identify purloined music and monetize it for the original copyright owner. We long ago gave up on the idea that the stealing was something we should stop. It’s just too easy. We just gave up and said, “Let the machine figure out who to pay a pittance later.”

Theft of this kind on a person-to-person level is common and people treat it as if it is of trifling consequence. Theft on a grand scale then becomes a simple question of efficiency. If you can steal anything, why not steal everything? That is, after all, the business model on which AI models are based. Here’s an excerpt from a recent NBC News article about statements from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, at the White House:

OpenAI is asking the U.S. government to make it easier for AI companies to learn from copyrighted material, citing a need to “strengthen America’s lead” globally in advancing the technology. . .

In its proposal, OpenAI urged the federal government to enact a series of “freedom-focused” policy ideas, including an approach that would no longer compel American AI developers to “comply with overly burdensome state laws.”

Copyright in particular is an issue that has plagued AI developers, as many continue to train their models on human work without informing the original creators, obtaining consent or providing compensation. . .

Still, OpenAI said it believes its strategy — the encouragement of “fair use” policies and fewer intellectual property restrictions — could “[protect] the rights and interests of content creators while also protecting America’s AI leadership and national security.” It did not elaborate on the former.

Many leaders in the AI industry and members of the Trump administration have framed America’s dominance in AI advancements as a matter of national security, comparing it to a high-stakes arms race.

So now institutionalized, efficient theft is not only allowable, but obligatory as a matter of national security. If we don’t steal, how can we keep up with the Chinese researchers who are stealing with fewer impediments. (Of course, Altman also accuses the Chinese of programmatically stealing insights from ChatGPT, which is outrageous, unlike his company’s use of copyrighted content.)

This is not a legal issue, to me. It is a moral one.

Even if theft and ripoffs surround you, and even if there are no legal consequences, if you are an honorable thinker, you do not have license to steal the ideas of others.

If your job requires you to do research built on the insights of others, give credit. Don’t say “Studies show n% of workers are dissatisfied.” Say “According to research by Xxx and Yyy at company Zzzz, n% of workers are dissatisfied.” Don’t just footnote, say their name. “Based on an excellent framework by . . . “, “Previous research by Aaaa showed that”, “I learned about this from a terrific book on the topic.”

Say their names.

Citing the research of others does not decrease your reputation, it improves it. It demonstrates that you know your place in a collaborative community of thinkers. Add a link. Add a footnote. And include their names.

It’s a little more work. But it’s the least you can do to support the dying flicker of credit in a culture thoroughly immersed in rip-offs.

News for writers and others who think

Klaudia Jaźwińska and Aisvarya Chandrasekar conducted a study of AI citations of news articles for Columbia Journalism Review. They found that AI tools confidently shared inaccurate information, bypassed Robot Exclusion Protocol preferences, and fabricated links — regardless of whether or not the AI company had a licensing agreement with the news sources.

The excellent hybrid publisher Page Two started a new business imprint, Simplified, focused on the needs of entrepreneurs. As traditional publishers continue to cut back, hybrid publishing is exploding and diversifying.

The impressive speaker Bonin Bough shares quick and insightful tips on how to go from speaker to performer.

The American Association of Publishers published its response to calls to make it easier for AI tools to rip off content. Shockingly enough, it recommends a licensing regime. (I’m about to get paid $2,500 from my own publisher for licensing AI to access to a recent book. I doubt the market will bear much more than that.)

President Trump issued an Executive Order to dismantle the the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the only federal agency dedicated to funding library services — even though Congress’ recently passed continuing resolution just renewed its funding.

Three people to follow

Michael Abramowitz , director of the now-shuttered Voice of America.

Fadra Nally, O.G. lifestyle and parenting influencer.

Carter Lusher , who analyzes the analysts.

Three books to read

The Business of Being a Writer, Second Edition by Jane Friedman (University of Chicago Press, 2025). This was always the most valuable comprehensive resource available on authoring. Now that it’s updated, you have no excuse not to own a copy.

The Purpose of Purpose: Making Growth the Heart of Your Business by Ron Tite (Page Two, 2025). How to reimagine the strategic heart of your company.

The Non-Obvious Guide to Using AI for Marketing: How to Harness the Transformative Power of AI by David Berkowitz (Ideapress, 2025). Practical strategies and real-world case studies for AI-powered marketers.