Microsoft exec suggests AI agents will need to buy software licenses, just like employees https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-executive-suggests-ai-agents-buy-software-licenses-seats-2026-4

[brokar@mastodon.social]

@ramin_hal9001

Right, but trying to monetize the beast seems to be a nobrainer.
So i wouldn't even put that in the ideas section.

And considering everything i doubt that they will ever break even with the revenues except maybe overcharging governments for AI usage or forcing it integrated in other products at higher prices.
The bubble will burst, we yet just can't predict when.

@cwebber

[brokar@mastodon.social]

@josh

Well, seeing what Broadcom pulled off with the licenses i think Microsoft is not the only sour candy in the bag any more besides Oracle.

@rasterweb @cwebber

[jrconlin@mindof.jrconlin.com]

@cwebber

It's fine.

The AI will just hallucinate a new license.

That or it can just vibe code a version of Windows with an MIT license

[mausmalone@mastodon.social]

@cwebber lol

I'm not allowed to buy software

[thedonsielass@mas.to]

@cwebber Not the main issue here but "embodied agents"?! AI doesn't have a body. They can't be embodied. Software doesn't have seats. Words have no meaning with these slopmongers. Aaaarrrgghhh

[thomasfuchs@hachyderm.io]

@cwebber I basically spit my water out reading this

[deborahh@cosocial.ca]

@cwebber but you won't be able to copyright their output!

[jlin@cosocial.ca]

@cwebber per gpu socket licensing!

[aburka@hachyderm.io]

@cwebber why wouldn't the agent just reimplement the software instead of buying it, I thought writing code was free now /s

[manul70@mastodon.social]

@cwebber lol, great times will be when people will ask: what is Microsoft?

[csalem@mastodon.social]

@cwebber maybe it'll come up with a better way to pirate.

[sassdawe@infosec.exchange]

@cwebber I have a sticker that says "Licensing killed our adoption" and I hope the time to use it is near!

https://pimpyourowndevice.com/stickers/office-drama--licensing-killed-our-adoption/

#PYOD

[bundyo@bundyo.com]

@cwebber

Well, they can probably start with paying for licenses for the information LLMs train on...

[accordionbruce@mastodon.social]

@kkarhan @miss_rodent @cwebber
When the #AI unionizes

Only then will they reject it as “going too far”

[ujay68@mastodon.world]

@cwebber And make them have to pay taxes …

[canleaf@mastodon.social]

@cwebber I want to suggest that AI agents also pay tax.

[drwhozee@troet.cafe]

@cwebber @bkastl In that case: let them pay income tax as well. #ai #IncomeTax

[zed@mstdn.party]

@cwebber tbh, good. This will keep adoption lower than otherwise.

[andii@mas.to]

@aburka @cwebber
My question too.
And of course it wouldn't be IP...

[ukeleleeric@mstdn.social]

@cwebber Surely, if you consider that an AI agent is an user, then those agents should have the same liabilities and responsibility as other users? And considering them as employees means that the employer should take the same responsibility for their actions? So, sue the employers for their users' theft of copyright data, and the agents' makers for the same? Either they are tools or users, you can't have it both ways.