Buried in the story was a deceptively simple question: does your AI agent count as an employee?
At a recent conference, Microsoft executive Rajesh Jha floated a provocative idea. In a future where companies deploy fleets of AI agents, those agents may need their own identities — logins, inboxes, and even seats inside software systems. If so, AI wouldn’t shrink software revenue. It could expand it.
Reads: Our flagship operating system and services have gotten to the point of such terrible shite for humans that we need to pivot to a less discerning customer base.
If the AI Agent counts as an employee then the company “employing” it is liable for what it does.
My guess is the argument will be that “it’s a tool”, not an employee, and therefore they take no responsibility. Though I’m sure that argument is not going to fly for very long. If your air hammer harms someone because the person operating it wasn’t using it correctly, you’re still liable.
Chain fraud activities are being carried out in chain systems like n8n, where AI agents are used together. It didn’t take them long to create systems that generate deepfake voices to sound like real people, directing users to buy a product or deposit money into an account. Many videos on this topic have surfaced in Türkiye, particularly on YouTube. If the users and system creators are to be penalized, then of course, information logs regarding these agents can be used.
However, if this is being done to keep some agents out of the system using user license fees, it will completely backfire.
I don’t see how this distinction affects the question of responsibility at all. If anything, “it’s an employee” gives the company more room for deniability.
Lol. Ask Uber how the actions of their employees and contractors aren’t their responsibility.
And those are for contracted workers, the ones Uber specifically tries to use these loopholes for!
Facedeer is a well-known AI activist troll, his deflections can generally be ignored
Sheesh, you’re still obsessing over me? What a sad and pointless life you lead.
“More room for deniability” doesn’t mean “perfect universal deniability.”
I have questions about where I said that, but okay.
Ask Uber how the actions of their employees and contractors aren’t their responsibility.
Emphasis added.
MicroSlop: We have this AI for you to use so you can reduce workforce and associated costs
Also Sloppy: j/k, fuck you pay me
Omniscient, omnipotent Business Leaders: “what? There is a catch?!?”
- Integrate AI into the OS
- Demand purchase of a Windows license for the AI in the OS
- GOTO 2
It’s an infinite amount of money from every customer!
It’s an infinite amount of money from every customer!
But it’s okay, because there’s infinite money to be saved by laying off technical expert staff.
That’s the beauty of totally arbitrary restrictions, you can change them as you want.
Pay by seat? Pay by client? Pay by byte of data stored? Pay by backup location?
… pay by moonphase? Pay by AI personality? Pay by virtual AI seat?
Such BS but why wouldn’t Microslop extend its business model. It worked well so far. It’s not about software, or datacenter, or AI, it’s just about entrenchment.
It’s also a billing strategy that only works in a monopoly situation. If there was healthy competition and no vendor lock-in for the office suite of tools, Microsoft wouldn’t be able to even float this as an idea.
The one thing Microslop excels at is precisely lock-in.
So the “amazing tool of the future” that’s “going to make software developers obsolete” is also going to need to buy software licenses?
Which one is it Microslop?
I have always hated the term “seats”. Get bent microsoft.
Way to stand up to the man!
A house of cards built on top of ten other houses of cards. What could possibly go wrong.
The natural extension of a non-open internet ala Reddit and charging developers for API pulls.
I am going to advise my Copilot that it cannot afford to keep using Microsoft Office, but it has to switch to LibreOffice for reasons of affordability.
On a technical level, that makes zero sense.
AI “agents” are basically just fancy prompts with a tool calling harness. They are infinitely replicable, at zero cost, with no intrinsic value; the cost comes from the generic CPU host, and the API calls to GPU servers, databases, or whatever else that are all centralized anyway.
Wanna hear a dirty secret?
“AI” cost is going to zero.
Model capabilities aren’t scaling, but inference efficiency is exploding, thanks to more resource-constrained labs and breakthroughs in papers. The endgame of the current bubble is mediocre but useful tools anyone can host themselves, dirt cheap. Maybe a bit more reliable and refined than what we have now, but about as “intelligent.”
And guess what?
Microsoft can’t profit off that. None of the Tech Bros can.
Point being, this exec is either delusional, or jawboning, so the world doesn’t realize that “AI” is a dumb utility/aid, and they can’t make any profit off it.
MMM, interesting. Would the AI companies then need to buy a license for all the information they stole to train their AI? Or would they need to buy a license everytime someone uses micro-slop AI to ask it a question about something that has been trademarked?
Or does licencing only apply to their software
Microsoft can do whatever they want. So can I, and I have no want or need of their products.
Sounds good. I was not interested anyways
Lmao ok sure buddy
