A TikTok Use Case: Another How To
April 7, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
Social media services strike me as problematic. As a dinobaby, I marvel at the number of people who view services through a porthole in their personal submarine. Write ups that are amazed at the applications of social media which are negative remind me that there are some reasons meaningful regulation of TikTok-type services has not been formulated. Are these negative use cases news? For me, nope.
I read “How TikTok Is Emerging As an Essential Tool for Migrant Smugglers.” The write up explains how a “harmless” service can be used for criminal activities. The article says:
At a time when legal pathways to the U.S. have been slashed and criminal groups are raking in money from migrant smuggling, social media apps like TikTok have become an essential tool for smugglers and migrants alike. The videos—taken to cartoonish extremes—offer a rare look inside a long elusive industry and the narratives used by trafficking networks to fuel migration north.
Yep, TikTok is a marketing tool for people smugglers. Wow! Really?
Is this a surprise? My hunch is that the write up reveals more about the publication and the researchers than it does about human smugglers.
Is this factoid unheard of?
A 2023 study by the United Nations reported that 64% of the migrants they interviewed had access to a smart phone and the internet during their migration to the U.S.
A free service used by millions of people provides a communications fabric. Marketing is the go-to function of organizations, licit and illicit.
Several observations:
- Social media — operating in the US or in countries with different agendas — is a tool. Tools can be used for many purposes. Why wouldn’t bad actors exploit TikTok or any other social media service.
- The intentional use of a social media service for illegal purposes is wide spread. LinkedIn includes fake personas; Telegram offers pirated video content; and Facebook — sure, even Facebook — allows individuals to advertise property for sale which may not come with a legitimate sales receipt from the person who found a product on a door step in an affluent neighborhood. Social media invites improper activity.
- Regulation in many countries has not kept space with the diffusion of social media. In 2025, worrying about misuse of these services is not even news.
The big question is, “Have we reached a point of no return with social media?” I have been involved in computers and digital information for more than a half century. The datasphere is the world in which we live.
Will the datasphere evolve? Yes, the intentional use of social media is shifting toward negative applications. For me that means that for every new service, I do not perceive a social benefit. I see opportunities for accelerating improper use of data flows.
What strikes me about the write up is that documenting a single issue is interesting, but it misses what and how flows of information in TikTok-like service operate. Who are the winners? Who are the losers? And, who will own TikTok and the information space for its users?
Stephen E Arnold, April 7, 2025
Free! Does Google Do Anything for Free?
April 7, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby sharing an observation about younger managers and their innocence.
What an inducement! Such a deal!
How excited was I to read this headline:
Gemini 2.5 Pro Is Google’s Most Powerful AI Model and It’s Already Free
The write up explains:
Google points to several benchmark tests that show the prowess of Gemini 2.5 Pro. At the time of writing it tops the LMArena leaderboard, where users give ratings on responses from dozens of AI chatbots. It also scores 18.8 percent on the Humanity’s Last Exam test—which measures human knowledge and reasoning—narrowly edging out rival models from OpenAI and Anthropic.
As a dinobaby, I understand this reveal is quantumly supreme. Google is not only the best. The “free” approach puts everyone on notice that Google is not interested in money. Google is interested in…. Well, frankly, I am not sure.
Thanks, You.com. Good enough. I have to pay to get this type of smart art.
Possible answers include: [a] publicity to deal with the PR tsunami the OpenAI Ghibli capability splashed across my newsfeeds, [b] a response to the Chinese open source alternatives from eCommerce outfits and mysterious venture capital firms, [c] Google’s tacit admission that its best card is the joker that allows free access to the game, [d] an unimaginative response to a competitive environment less and less Google centric each day.
Pick one.
The write up reports:
The frenetic pace of AI development shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon, and we can expect more Gemini 2.5 models to appear in the near future. “As always, we welcome feedback so we can continue to improve Gemini’s impressive new abilities at a rapid pace, all with the goal of making our AI more helpful,” says Koray Kavukcuoglu, from Google’s DeepMind AI lab.
The question is, “Have the low-hanging AI goodies been harvested?”
I find that models are becoming less distinctive. One of my team handed me two sheets of paper. On one was a paragraph from our locally installed Deepseek. The other was a sheet of paper of an answer from You.com’s “smart” option.
My response was, “So?” I could not tell which model produced what because the person whom I pay had removed the idiosyncratic formatting of the Deepseek output and the equally distinctive outputting from You.com’s Smart option.
My team member asked, “Which do you prefer?”
I said, “Get Whitney to create one write up and input our approach to the topic.”
Both were okay; neither was good enough to use as handed to me.
Good enough. The AI systems reached “good enough” last year. Since then, not much change except increasing similarity.
Free is about right. What’s next? Paying people to use Bing Google?
Now to answer the headline question, “Does Google do anything for free?” My answer: Only when the walls are closing in.
Stephen E Arnold, April 7, 2025
Errors? AI Makes Accuracy Irrelevant
April 4, 2025
This blog post is the work of a humanoid dino baby. If you don’t know what a dinobaby is, you are not missing anything.
We have poked around some AI services. A few are very close to being dark patterns that want to become like Al Capone or moe accurately AI Capone. Am I thinking of 1min.ai? Others just try to sound so friendly when outputting wackiness? Am I thinking about the Softies or ChatGPT? I don’t know.
I did read “AI Search Has A Citation Problem.” The main point is that AI struggles with accuracy. One can gild the lily and argue that it makes work faster. I won’t argue that quick incorrect output may speed some tasks. However, the write up points out:
Premium chatbots provided more confidently incorrect answers than their free counterparts.
I think this means that paying money does not deliver accuracy, judgment, or useful information. I would agree.
A farmer wonders how the steam engine ended up in his corn field. How did smart software get involved in deciding that distorted information was a useful output for students and workers? Thanks, You.com. The train was supposed to be on its side, but by getting the image different from my prompt, you have done the job. Close enough for horse shoes, right?
The write up also points out:
Generative search tools fabricated links and cited syndicated and copied versions of articles.
I agree.
Here’s a useful finding if one accepts the data in the write up as close enough for horseshoes:
Overall, the chatbots often failed to retrieve the correct articles. Collectively, they provided incorrect answers to more than 60 percent of queries. Across different platforms, the level of inaccuracy varied, with Perplexity answering 37 percent of the queries incorrectly, while Grok 3 had a much higher error rate, answering 94 percent of the queries incorrectly.
The alleged error rate of Grok is in line with my experience. I try to understand, but when space ships explode, people set Cybertrucks on fire, and the cratering of Tesla stock cause my widowed neighbor to cry — I see a pattern of missing the mark. Your mileage or wattage may vary, of course.
The write up points out:
Platforms often failed to link back to the original source
For the underlying data and more academic explanations, please, consult the original article.
I want to shift gears and make some observations about the issue the data in the article and my team’s experience with smart software present. Here we go, gentle reader:
- People want convenience or what I call corner cutting. AI systems eliminate the old fashioned effort required to verify information. Grab and go information, like fast food, may not be good for the decision making life.
- The information floating around about a Russian content mill pumping out thousands of weaoonized news stories a day may be half wrong. Nevertheless, it makes clear that promiscuous and non-thinking AI systems can ingest weaponized content and spit it out without a warning level or even recognizing baloney when one expects a slab of Wagu beef.
- Integrating self-driving AI into autonomous systems is probably not yet a super great idea. The propaganda about Chinese wizards doing this party trick is interesting, just a tad risky when a kinetic is involved.
Where are we? Answering this question is a depressing activity. Companies like Microsoft are forging ahead with smart software helping people do things in Excel. Google is allowing its cheese-obsessed AI to write email responses. Outfits like BoingBoing are embracing questionable services like a speedy AI Popeil pocket fisherman as part of its money making effort. And how about those smart Anduril devices? Do they actually work? I don’t want to let one buzz me.
The AI crazy train is now going faster than the tracks permit. How does one stop a speeding autonomous train? I am going to stand back because that puppy is going to fall off the tracks and friction will do the job. Whoo. Whoo.
Stpehen E Arnold, April 4, 2025
Bye-Bye Newsletters, Hello AI Marketing Emails
April 4, 2025
Adam Ryan takes aim at newsletters in the Work Week article, “Perpetual: The Major Shift of Media.” Ryan starts the article saying we’re already in changing media landscape and if you’re not preparing you will be left behind. He then dives into more detail explaining that the latest trend setter is an email newsletter. From his work in advertising, Ryan has seen newsletters rise from the bottom of the food chain to million dollar marketing tools.
He explains that newsletters becoming important marketing tools wasn’t an accident and that it happened through a the democratization process. By democratization Ryan means that newsletters became easier to make through the use of simplification software. He uses the example of Shopify streamlining e-commerce and Beehiiv doing the same for newsletters. Another example is Windows making PCs easier to use with its intuitive UI.
Continuing with the Shopify example, Ryan says that mass adoption of the e-commerce tool has flooded the market place. Top brands that used to dominate the market were now overshadowed by competition. In short, everyone and the kitchen sink was selling goods and services.
Ryan says that the newsletter trend is about to shift and people (operators) who solely focus on this trend will fall out of favor. He quotes Warren Buffet: “Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful.” Ryan continues that people are changing how they consume information and they want less of it, not more. Enter the AI tool:
“Here’s what that means:
• Email open rates will drop as people consume summaries instead of full emails.
• Ad clicks will collapse as fewer people see newsletter ads.
• The entire value of an “owned audience” declines if AI decides what gets surfaced.”
It’s not the end of the line for newsletter is you become indispensable such as creating content that can’t be summarized, build relationships beyond emails, and don’t be a commodity:
“This shift is coming. AI will change how people engage with email. That means the era of high-growth newsletters is ending. The ones who survive will be the ones who own their audience relationships, create habit-driven content, and build businesses beyond the inbox.”
This is true about every major change, not just news letters.
Whitney Grace, April 4, 2025
Management? Never Been Easier
April 4, 2025
Age-Old Management Techniques That Still Happen
Millennials and Gen Z focus on prioritizing mental health and not dealing with the same BS as earlier generations. Some might see these priorities as infantile, but even past generations didn’t like them. INC breaks down “4 Really Bad Management Behaviors That Drive Good Employees Away” and the article really drives home how these management techniques have been in place for eons.
There article’s author Marcel Schwantes starts with a very wise statement: “Not everyone in management should be there.” He then breaks down four poor management techniques…er…behaviors that employees have been fed up with since forever. The first is shooting down their workers’ ideas. This happens on a daily basis and no one in the modern workforce won’t experience this at some point in their careers. Sometimes ideas need to be shot down, but other times a different way of doing something is just what the doctor ordered.
The second is treating people like numbers. This is a totalitarian perspective that runs rampant in corporate America, China, and North Korea. Businesses want measurable results and bodies in places to fill quotas. This doesn’t always lead to good results and the number one thing companies learn is how many people they’ll turn over in a year.
Micromanaging is number three. Micromanagers believe everything has to be done by the book or no one can do anything better than them. They watch their employees like hawks, creating a stifling environment. This creates stress and more mistakes on part of the employees. No one thrives with micromanagers.
The last poor management behavior is hoarding information and only sharing on a need-to-know basis if any. When this technique thrives in a work environment, employees are working in the dark with a flash light that only turns on once in a while.
Schwantes finishes with:
“Want to keep your best people? Treat them like people. Connect with them. Support them. Give them what they need to thrive. Because when you invest in your team, serve their needs, and remove obstacles from their path, they’ll run through walls for you—and that’s how you grow into the leader everyone wants to work for.”
No matter how far technology and human advances, we’ll always be dealing with these management behaviors. Dan anyone else imagine cavemen…er…people dealing with these? They probably didn’t put ump them and whacked their managers over the head with a club.
Whitney Grace, April 4, 2025
Telegram Lecture at TechnoSecurity & Digital Forensics on June 4, 2025
April 3, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby sharing an observation about younger managers and their innocence.
The organizers of the June 2025 TechnoSecurity & Digital Forensics Conference posted a 60 second overview of our Telegram Overview lecture on LinkedIn. You can view the conference’s 60 second video at https://lnkd.in/eTSvpYFb. Erik and I have been doing presentations on specific Telegram subjects for law enforcement groups. Two weeks ago, we provided to the Massachusetts Association of Crime Analysts a 60-minute run down about the technical architecture of Telegram and identified three US companies providing services to Telegram. To discuss a presentation for your unit, please, message me via LinkedIn. (Plus, my son and I are working to complete our 100 page PDF notes of our examination of Telegram’s more interesting features. These range from bots which automate cross blockchain crypto movement to the automatic throttling function in the Telegram TON Virtual Machine to prevent transaction bottlenecks in complex crypto wallet obfuscations.) See you there. — Thank you, Stephen E Arnold, April 3, 2025, 223 pm U S Eastern
Looking Busy, While Slacking
April 3, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
I am fascinated by people who delegate routine, courteous business functions to software and then to other people. The idea is that a busy person can accomplish much more if they are really busy but organized. I find this laughable.
In my experience, the people with full-time jobs with whom I interact are in a perpetual rush to go from one mostly pointless activity to their mobile phone and back again. Here’s an approach that has worked for some successful people. I exclude myself because I am an 80-year-old dinobaby loser.
The secret sauce consists of:
- Knowing what is important by day, week, month, and year. Do what’s important yourself. If you delegate, delegate with intelligence of the goal and expected outcome.
- Set priorities but have sufficient situational intelligence to adapt to the endlessly changing business environment. (Software just does stuff; it is not — despite the AI hype — inherently intelligent. And, no, I don’t want to discuss this perception of mine. I do not believe in made up baloney from marketing people or pressured CEOs.
- Recognize that how you interact with other people defines [a] your intelligence, [b] your management and social capabilities, and [c] your professional persona.
I had an email exchange a couple of days ago from a person who told me an individual would contact me. The statement was made two weeks ago. The message was, “Oh, just use our online appointment system and set up an available time.” No kidding. I am now supposed to move from “we will contact you” to navigate to our system and pick an available time. Sorry. That will not happen.
A day ago, a person who said 11 months ago, “I will call you early next week.” I received an email as it was indeed a week later, not 11 months later. Amazing. Both are considerably younger than I am, but neither person is aware of their behavior. This weird approach to business is the norm.
I read “Slack: The Art of Being Busy Without Getting Anything Done” resonated with me. I have an idea: Send the link to the article to these two people who say, “Let’s have lunch” and never call. (That’s a Manhattan trope, by the way. It means, “Hey, you, I will never call you for lunch.” Business life has become a “let’s have lunch” world. Saying something is tantamount to actually doing something.
The write up puts this in terms of a weird information sharing service which is a closed group social media thing. The write up says:
Slack brought channels and channels bought a level of almost voyeurism into what other teams were doing. I knew exactly what everyone was doing all the time, down to I knew where the marketing team liked to go for lunch. Responsiveness became the new corporate religion and I was a true believer.
To me, I think the organizations that function so that a tool like Slack is necessary have some management issues. But that’s the bias of a person who worked at a blue-chip consulting firm for longer than I thought humanly possible.
Here’s a passage I found interesting for a person paid to deliver outputs and meet objectives:
My days had become a never-ending performance of “work”. I was constantly talking about the work, planning the work, discussing the requirements of the work, and then in a truly Sisyphean twist, linking new people to old conversations where we had already discussed the work to get them up to speed on our conversation. All the while diligently monitoring my channels, a digital sentry ensuring no question went unanswered, no emoji not +1’d. That was it, that was the entire job.
What are the markers for this process of doing something that yields no deliverable that matches a job description or a task assigned by a manager to a worker?
Let me highlight a few I have noticed:
- Talking about doing replaces doing itself
- Meetings and follow ups are the work. It goes without saying that delivering an output that generates revenue is not part of the actual activity of the meeting and its follow up
- The mental effort required to do essentially meaningless tasks instead of satisfying deliverables of high quality burns a person out. “There is no there there.” I am not talking about Oakland, California. I am talking about the actual value to the person of doing meaningful work and getting money and mental rewards.
- The organization delivers increasingly degrading outputs. One wordsmith invoked feces to describe how the entity deconstructs. Microsoft shipped an update that killed its AI wunderkind Copilot. More information about new malware hit my in box today. The Epic data form for a routine visit lost the inputs I provided six months ago. My local bank charged my home checking account for over $600,000 and was unable to stop the automated fraud for two weeks.
Net net: Manage effectively and do actual work to deliver the outputs for which you are paid. Understand that both are hard. That’s why people pay you to do work. The craziness of pretending to work will make the worker crazy. If that type of person interacts with me, I just forget it. Dinobabies can do that.
Stephen E Arnold, April 3, 2025
Read AI Implements AI Into Enterprise Search
April 3, 2025
Enterprise search is an essential tool for an organization to function. There have been major shifts in enterprise search, including more accurate search results, and ability to search across multiple platforms. The Seattle startup Read AI wants to be the next enterprise search revolution says Geek Wire: “Seattle Startup Takes A Swing At Enterprise Search With New AI-Fueled Discovery Tool.”
There have been major upgrades in enterprise search before, including AI, but Read AI is doing it at level not before seen. The startup from Seattle began in 2021 with sentiment and engagement products for meetings. Later Read AI developed software tools that analyzed information across various communication channels. Now their latest product upgrade is for enterprise search that enables users to quickly locate and access information across terabytes of data and applications.
Read AI’s enterprise search tool upgrade is for Microsoft Copilot:
“Users can choose what data is discoverable. Search Copilot gets “smarter” as more workers add more data, and allows for collaboration. The new tool can also nudge users to take action based on past interactions with colleagues or customers.
The product is free to use with certain limits. Read AI CEO David Shim said reducing barriers is a key differentiator.
“People haven’t been able to understand the value of enterprise search because they haven’t had access to it,” he said.
Shim said Read AI’s ability to determine what’s important for an individual user also gives Search Copilot an edge over other AI search tools.”
Read AI wants to differentiate itself from its rivals, built-in-platform tools from Zoom, Google, and Microsoft. Read AI does have an advantage over out-of-the-box solutions, because experience tells us those tools stink. Proprietary developed tools are usually better because they’re specifically designed to enhance a specific feature, while out-of-the-box solutions are designed to with the “it’s okay to get by” mentality.
While Read AI made a smart move to upgrade Copilot with the latest AI technology, someone else would have done it eventually.
Whitney Grace, April 3, 2025
YouTube: The Future Has Blown Its Horn
April 3, 2025
YouTube has come a long way in the last two decades. Google wants us to appreciate just how far, apparently. Digiday celebrates the occasion with the piece, "As YouTube Turns 20, Here Are the Numbers You Need to Know." Writer Krystal Scanlon shares several noteworthy statistics. For example, the company states, an average of 500 hours of video is uploaded to the platform every minute. On the other end of the equation, about 30,000 viewers visit the site each day, Neilsen reported in February 2024.
In fact, we learn, YouTube considers itself the "new television." That same Neilsen report shows the platform outperforming other major streaming services. (Though it only beat Netflix by a nose, at 9.2% of total TV usage to its 8.2%.) The platform happily monetizes those eyeballs the old-fashioned way, with ads. However, it has also enticed over 125 million users to at least try its subscription plans. As for content creators, about 500,000 of them have been at it for over 10 years. They must be getting enough out of it to stick around. But for how many that is a viable career and how many it is just a hobby the write-up does not say. Whatever the case, it is clear YouTube has creators to thank for its significant ad revenue. Scanlon writes:
"With Europe’s creator economy projected to reach $41.17 billion by 2030 and U.S. influencer marketing expected to grow 14.2% to $9.29 billion this year, according to eMarketer, it’s clear why YouTube is focused on staying ahead in the creator space. Part of that plan involves doubling down on YouTube’s ability to thrust creators into the cultural mainstream. Which is why the platform has said that creators are becoming the startups of Hollywood. Whether it’s scripting, editing behind the scenes or creators are hiring various staff as part of their new business — YouTube wants to be the launchpad."
Yes, that would be quite the get. It will have to fight certain other streaming services for that honor, we think. The post continues:
"YouTube contributed more than $45 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2023, according to Oxford Economics, and it created more than 430,000 full-time jobs. Similarly, in Europe, YouTube contributed €6.4 billion ($6.94 billion) to the EU’s GDP in 2023, according to the platform’s latest Impact report, not including the jobs created by the 100,000 creators in the region that have built their own businesses including hiring staff."
Here’s the kicker. As changes roil the Google search advertising approach, YouTube might be the Little Engine That Could for Googzilla. Next up? Google Advertising, Broadcast, and Cable. ABC?
Cynthia Murrell, April 3 2025
Original Research: Not-So-Original Assertions about Content Appropriation
April 2, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby sharing an observation about younger managers and their innocence.
The Social Science Research Council published the 30-plus page report “Beyond Public Access in LLM Pre-Training Data.” The subtitle reveals the principal finding: “Non-Public Non-Public Book Content in OpenAI’s Models.”
The write up states:
Using a legally obtained dataset of 34 copyrighted O’Reilly Media books, we apply the DE-COP membership inference attack method to investigate whether OpenAI’s large language models were trained on copyrighted content without consent. Our AUROC scores show that GPT-4o, OpenAI’s more recent and capable model, demonstrates strong recognition of paywalled O’Reilly book content (AUROC = 82%), compared to OpenAI’s earlier model GPT-3.5 Turbo. In contrast, GPT-3.5 Turbo shows greater relative recognition of publicly accessible O’Reilly book samples. GPT-4o Mini, as a much smaller model, shows no knowledge of public or non-public O’Reilly Media content when tested (AUROC ? 50%). Testing multiple models, with the same cutoff date, helps us account for potential language shifts over time that might bias our findings. These results highlight the urgent need for increased corporate transparency regarding pre-training data sources as a means to develop formal licensing frameworks for AI content training.
I want to mention that the DE-COP method provide one way to determine whether a specific data record was part of the training dataset for a machine learning model. The result of the SSRC’s research suggests that as OpenAI enhanced its models, the OpenAI organization appears to have used non-public content. Smaller (less capable OpenAI) models seemed to know less about the test set; the bigger models knew more.
The write up concludes that developers of smart software are sucking down data without obtaining permission or entering into licensing deals with publishers, copyright holders, or entities working on content not yet available as public content like this dinobaby blog post.
To sum up: A not-to-original assertion that certain organizations just take content and ignore rights is apparently accurate in this set of research. OpenAI accelerates. Speed is a positive. Breaking speed limits is believed to be no big deal.
A bit of a flashback: Over 40 years ago, I participated in a series of meetings to license the right to create abstracts of original articles from more than 1000 different publications. Our efforts were successful. Most publishers of academic business and management publications knew zero about online information services. The idea of summarizing an eight page article about executive compensation was unfamiliar to most of the people with whom our organization interacted over a period of years. Nevertheless, the owner of the database unit of the Courier Journal & Louisville Times Company insisted that we get signed agreements. The process was time consuming and expensive. Some outfits had representatives. So a negotiation went through layers of bureaucracy. Other publishers wanted a sit down meeting and a dog-and-pony show to explain why we wanted to boil down a 600 word article to about 150 words. There were worries about the impact of online access. There were worries about control of editorial content. There were worries about signing away rights. We couldn’t assuage worries, but we chugged along. The reputations of the Courier Journal and Barry Bingham Jr. helped but our small database operation had to follow the rules.
If the data in the cited document are accurate, the attitude of Barry Bingham Jr. would not have gained much traction at OpenAI. Instead of my getting a pat on the head for setting up the licensing deals with the able help of other Courier Journal professionals, I would have gotten kicked on the shin or worse.
Several observations:
- Observing content ownership remains important despite the acceleration toward illegal behaviors in the online sector
- Using show-and-tells and explaining the benefits of participating in digital innovations remains important. Knowledge minimizes anger and other negative reactions to pre-emptive behavior
- Managing the process is as important as demonstrating an unwillingness to conform to industry, social, and legal norms.
Let’s assume that the findings in the SSRC are off by 50 percent. Does that change what appears to be a strong possibility of some fancy dancing at the OpenAI disco?
My conclusion is that taking short cuts is part of the Silicon Valley approach of doing whatever and just saying, “Wow, I am sorry.”
I asked ChatGPT 4 via You.com this question:
Should I create an online product and just use content from the Harvard Business Review without permission?
Here’s the response:
No, you should not create an online product using content from the Harvard Business Review (HBR) without permission. Doing so would likely violate copyright laws and HBR’s usage policies. Here’s why:
HBR’s Copyright and Usage Policies
- HBR Material is Copyrighted: Harvard Business Review explicitly states that its content is protected by copyright, and no part of its publications may be reproduced without permission.
- Usage Restrictions: HBR has strict policies regarding how its content can be used. For example, even in academic settings, HBR articles cannot be freely distributed unless done through specific channels like creating course packs via "Harvard Business Publishing for Educators"
Permission is Required: If you want to use HBR content, you must obtain explicit permission. This includes reproducing, distributing, or using their material in any form.
Legal and Ethical Implications
- Copyright Infringement: Using HBR content without permission would likely constitute copyright infringement, which can result in legal action, fines, or other penalties.
- Ethical Concerns: Beyond legal issues, using someone else’s intellectual property without authorization is unethical and could harm your reputation or business.
What You Should Do Instead
- Seek Permission: Contact Harvard Business Review to request permission to use their content. They may have licensing options available for your intended use.
- Create Original Content: Instead of using HBR’s material, consider creating your own original content inspired by their ideas (but without copying their text or proprietary materials).
- Use Public Domain or Licensed Content: Look for content that is in the public domain or available under a license (e.g., Creative Commons) that allows commercial use.
Conclusion
Using HBR content without permission is not only illegal but also against their explicit policies. To avoid legal and ethical issues, either seek proper licensing or create your own original material.
In this case, the OpenAI’s AI may be more intelligent that some people engaged in content acquisition at the firm. But I am a dinobaby. I try to follow the social, legal, and ethical rules as my parents who had only high school educations taught me. I am a dinobaby. A sad dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, April 2, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
