• A version of this story originally appeared in the BI Tech Memo newsletter.
• Sign up for the weekly BI Tech Memo newsletter here.

Here’s some delicious AI irony for you.

For years, tech giants have argued that if information is available on the internet, it can be used for AI model development and outputs. They call it fair use. Content owners have tried to prevent this, with no success.

Now Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google are discovering what the rest of the internet has already learned through painful experience: once you put something online, people will find ways to use it in ways you don’t like and can’t stop.

The latest flashpoint is something called “distillation,” using the outputs of one AI model to improve another. Anthropic says competitors are harvesting its outputs at scale, turning billions of dollars of research into a shortcut for rivals. OpenAI and Google have made similar warnings recently.

The fear is obvious. Why spend billions building the best AI models if someone else can recreate much of this intelligence for a fraction of the cost?

That’s a legitimate business concern. But here’s the awkward part.

Symmetry

From 30,000 feet, distillation looks an awful lot like what AI companies have been doing to the rest of the internet. Scrape web content for free and without permission. Turn it into a product you sell. Argue it’s fair use. Hope the lawyers sort out the details later.

Anthropic says rivals are extracting intelligence from its top models. Website owners have spent the past three years saying Anthropic extracted intelligence from them. Both sides argue this is against their terms of service. The symmetry is hard to ignore.

And despite pitching itself as the most ethical AI company, Anthropic is by far the worst actor here. Its data-sucking bots crawl webpages thousands of times for every one referral the company sends back to the web.

Bots on both sides

Anthropic, OpenAI, and especially Google, frame this as a cybersecurity issue, pointing to swarms of bots “attacking” their models to extract intelligence. But, they’ve been doing the same to many websites, bombarding them with so much bot crawling activity that site owners have seen their operating costs skyrocket. Not only are some websites having their content used without permission, they are paying more for the privilege.

AI researchers say distillation is different from web scraping. But the AI industry can’t even decide whether distillation is OK or not, or where to draw the line.

There’s the original, benign form of distillation, where labs use outputs from their own models to create different, often smaller, models. Then, there’s what Anthropic calls “distillation attacks,” where rivals use other people’s AI outputs to develop or improve their own offerings.

Even here, though, the lines blur, with some AI researchers now worrying that Anthropic’s aggressive stance will hurt all types of distillation. Open-source AI expert Nathan Lambert calls this “distillation panic.”

So, let me wrap this up for you, from the AI giants’ perspective: They can extract intelligence from the web for free and without permission. That’s different from distillation, which is OK. Oh, but not when distillation involves using their content in ways they don’t like.

“A cat-and-mouse game”

This contorted argument is being demolished by the brutal realities of the modern internet. Anthropic has spent months tightening access to its top models to stop competitors from learning too much. Those efforts have either backfired, or they’re just spurring more elaborate workarounds.

Once information goes online, clever people will figure out how to collect it, remix it, and profit from it. That’s true for blogs, photos, software code, videos, and yes, AI giants’ precious model outputs.

“It’s always a kind of a cat-and-mouse game,” Zilan Qian, a researcher at the Oxford China Policy Lab, told Business Insider. As long as AI model outputs are out in the world, “people will probably find a way to get access to it.”

Indeed, distilling another company’s AI model may even be fair use. These legal arguments can cut both ways.

Welcome to the new internet, Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. Get used to it.

Sign up for BI’s Tech Memo newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com.

• I canceled Amazon Prime to save money and curb impulse purchases.
• The change made me rethink my dependence on one retailer.
• Running errands has become one of the unexpected joys of my week.

I didn’t get an Amazon Prime membership until the pandemic, when the allure of delivery finally outweighed the yearly cost for me.

I was impressed by the convenience, and never looked back — until three months ago when my Prime membership was about to renew. My budget has tightened, and I thought that if I’d lived without it before, surely I could do it again, right?

Plus, I knew I’d save money when the ease of ordering was no longer an option. There have been far too many times when I’ve regretted late-night purchases that I wouldn’t make in the light of day. Over the holidays, for instance, I woke up to see if I could cancel the $25 Amazon order of gourmet gummy bears I had placed the night before, but it was too late.

I felt free after canceling, but it was scary too

I knew that letting go of Prime meant having to run more errands again, but errands are something I’ve caught myself wanting more of — not less.

I’ve grown to miss running out for even silly things, like milk for my coffee and cereal the next morning. So the idea of being forced to find all of my favorite things out in the physical world again was appealing. I just wasn’t used to it anymore.

I’m adjusting to making lists now for the stuff I need and planning errands, but I didn’t realize I wouldn’t know where to buy anything anymore.

Once I saw the level of dependency I had developed with Prime, I didn’t want to use it anymore

I became determined to figure out where my favorite products are available and have sometimes opted to order directly from the company instead of going to a large superstore for the same thing. I might spend more because of shipping costs, but I feel better about supporting a smaller company. I also feel like I’ve made a connection with the people behind the business, as if my direct sale is a direct thank-you. Plus, I often get some kind of bonus, such as free samples, discounts for later, or a cute memento.

In some cases, I’ve even found new products to replace ones that, for whatever reason, I could only buy through Amazon, such as certain vitamins and supplements, and foregone other products entirely, realizing in their absence that I didn’t really need them.

I’ve returned to a more mindful shopping experience, where I consider the quality of what I’m buying or what I might be supporting through my purchase. In this way, I feel more invested in my purchasing decisions again, and like I’ve reclaimed some of my buying power.

I’ve realized how much I gave up for the convenience of delivery

I’ve learned it helps to give myself a pep talk that I’m only going inside to buy whatever it is I came for. I have failed the most at this in used bookstores and bargain stores. For instance, I went into Five Below specifically looking for a dog bed — and I left without one, but somehow I’d spent $60 on other amazing finds. While I do love everything I found that day, I didn’t necessarily have the budget for it. In this way, running errands again has gotten me into trouble a few times.

I knew I missed getting ready to go out for a morning or an afternoon of errands, but what I had forgotten about missing were the smaller things: hearing just the right song in the car, treating myself to an errand coffee, physically sifting through items like clothes in a store, and the simple joy of just browsing.

And it does seem a little too simple sometimes, because I would have never thought that incorporating more to-dos back into my life would ultimately bring so much back to me.

I’m hoping the shiny new feeling of running errands doesn’t wear off, because what once felt like chores now feel like these mini adventures I’ve just been having so much fun on.

• England and Norway are facing off in the FIFA World Cup quarterfinals on Saturday.
• British Airways and Norwegian Air Shuttle bet on the match’s outcome earlier this week.
• The loser has to use the winner’s logo on social media for a day.

The most exciting bet ahead of England and Norway’s World Cup quarterfinal match isn’t taking place on DraftKings.

Norwegian Air Shuttle proposed a wager against British Airways in an Instagram post after the matchup was set earlier this week. The challenge would pit Scandinavia’s second-largest airline against the United Kingdom’s flag carrier.

“Hey @british_airways, do you wanna make a bet?👀🇳🇴🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿,” Norwegian Air Shuttle wrote on Instagram. “If Norway wins, you have to switch to our logo on Instagram on Sunday (one day). And vice versa. Deal?”

British Airways accepted the challenge with a cheeky comment.

“Don’t make bets you can’t win 😉,” it replied.

The wager caught the attention of other major airlines. “We’ll be watching with our satay in one hand and signature drink in the other.🍹” Malaysia Airlines wrote in the comments.

“You two fight over the logo,” Austrian Airlines wrote. “We’ll bring the Schnitzel.”

On Friday, the airlines posted a joint video featuring an official handshake and the exchange of logos. “After all the comments, all the banter, and all the speculation, the handshake has officially been delivered at @british_airways HQ🤝 The deal is on,” the post’s caption said.

The two airlines continued to take playful jabs at each other in the days leading up to the match. “Today’s the day @flynorwegian, nervous yet? 👀🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇳🇴,” British Airways wrote.

“just chilling innit xx,” Norwegian Air Shuttle replied.

Eivind Hammer Myhre, a spokesperson for Norwegian, told Business Insider that its social media team came up with the idea to challenge another airline.

“But what wager is fun without risk? And we thought, what’s the most visible thing we can bet? Our logo,” Myhre said. “From there, we created the post, and while we were quite happy with the idea, we would never in a million years have anticipated this kind of reception.”

Myhre said the social media posts have reached tens of millions of people around the world.

“I think the most important thing is that every single comment and feedback has been positive,” he said. “Throughout this, we were a bit worried about the reception at British Airways, but they have been such great sports. This has almost gone from a wager to being a collaboration between two airlines and what seems like the entire internet.”

Still, Myhre couldn’t resist one more jab. “May the best Norwegian team win!” he said.

England and Norway will face off at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami at 5 p.m. ET on Saturday. The quarterfinal match will pit tournament standouts like Harry Kane and Erling Haaland against each other. As of Saturday afternoon, platforms like DraftKings, Polymarket, and Kalshi are predicting England to win.

• Moving to rural Tennessee left my daughter and me feeling isolated.
• It took years of searching before we found a community of local moms.
• Those friendships transformed both my daughter’s childhood and my mental health.

As a native New Yorker, I thought my move to Tennessee was temporary. But I’m a country girl at heart.

Starting over a thousand miles from loved ones is challenging, especially as a new mom aged out of childbearing years. My daughter Violet longed for friends, and I did too. But we couldn’t find any.

I tried going to things even miles away

I joined every mom Facebook group within a hundred miles, driving 50 minutes for mom coffees, hikes, tinker-tots, gymnastics, and play centers.

Coffees and hikes were one-offs; I got lost in the city park looking for tinker-tots, melting down while my daughter happily swung. The play center was great, but families came pre-paired. Gymnastics was amazing but anti-social.

My heart cracked every timeViolet shouted, “Look! Kids!” at our playground, right before they’d leave. Like storytime, everywhere were closed, tight-knit families. One invited us to a creek, but canceled. Like an awkward 4th grader scanning the cafeteria, I kept returning. Every trip North visiting cousins was bittersweet; she loved them so much that I questioned starting a life across the country.

I slowly found community

A flyer on the library’s bulletin board introduced a Friday playgroup, 40 minutes away. Twelve moms awkwardly made small talk while 30 kids ran wild. Violet clung to me. When the playgroup ended two months later, we were just starting to warm up.

Another mom also wanted community, so she reached out. Our smaller group was less overwhelming, and very slowly, organically grew. The kids loved each other. We moms do, too, bonding over stories of new mom fears and the difficulty of finding friends.

Now six families with 12 kids meet four hours multiple times a week — more time than I’ve spent with anyone besides my husband since high-school.

Meeting other moms helped my mental health

Right before Violet’s birth, my husband became disabled, and my mom died. Suddenly transitioning careers, I also navigated the new terrain of motherhood and loss. Denial and newborn demands cushioned me from realizing how alone and frightened I felt. I reached for the phone to call my mother when Violet didn’t latch immediately, or to ask for suggestions for safe bug spray.

After I jumped out of bed at midnight to trim 1-year-old Violet’s tiny nails, convinced she’d scratch her eyes, then an hour later woke her again to change her bedding, sure she’d choke on a nail clipping, my husband gently suggested postpartum depression. I insisted he was wrong.

Finding a community of other moms brought joy and confidence back into my life, and I hadn’t known I’d missed. They gave me a perspective no one else could, helping me relax and enjoy motherhood. Violet sang the names of her friends throughout the day. Another mom said her kids recite their friends’ names in the car, and a third shared her girls say them alongside their bedtime prayers.

Then, the ice storm came. Our Middle Tennessee area was the hardest hit, stuck without power for six days. When my phone reconnected on the third day, I discovered a chain of concerned texts from “The Moms” (as my husband dubbed us). The family closest to us took us in, turning our disaster into a fun sleepover party.

Our relationships deepened as we shared how deeply we appreciated each other — and not just for our kids — and how, from a small library flyer, this mom group had now bettered all our lives.

We support each other

Our ages range from 26 to 43 — but I don’t feel older. We’re from all parts of the country, and include a former engineer and a pandemic nurse. They all plan to homeschool their multiple children. I’m the only mom still working, and with just one child.

The unspoken motto in our group is that different families have different rules, and we support each other. Whenever new moms come to the library, we welcome them.

As birthdays rolled around, Violet eagerly anticipated hers. When we asked what she wanted, she shouted: “Allllll my friends!”

• Meta launched a new AI image generation model, Muse Image, on Tuesday.
• The tool allowed users to generate AI images based on public Instagram posts.
• Following backlash from users and entertainment groups, the feature is no longer available.

It started as a routine product drop. Then it spiraled into a PR nightmare. Now it’s gone.

On Friday, Meta said a new feature that allowed users to generate AI images from public Instagram posts is no longer available. Users learned of the feature on Tuesday when Meta unveiled Muse Image, the first image-generation model from Meta Superintelligence Labs. Muse Image is available through Meta AI.

“Our intent was to provide a useful creative tool and to give people control over whether their public content could be referenced in this way. We’ve heard the feedback that this feature missed the mark, so it’s no longer available,” Meta said in an Instagram blog post.

Other Muse Image features, like the ability to make edits directly on photos, are still available.

Instagram users swiftly rebuked the feature after its rollout. They said it raised privacy concerns and created space for deepfake content. Many users shared advice on how to opt out of the feature on social media sites like X and Reddit.

Privacy advocates like Apar Gupta, the founding director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, criticized Meta in a video posted on X on Friday.

“Just because Meta owns one of the largest social media platforms, and we’re forced to use it, it’s been taking it as an excuse to violate our consent and privacy again and again,” Gupta said.

Entertainment groups also criticized the feature. SAG-AFTRA, a labor union representing about 160,000 entertainment and media professionals, urged its members to opt out of the feature.

In a statement to Business Insider, SAG-AFTRA said that “anything other than a clear and conspicuous OPT-IN for these types of uses of Instagram users’ images is unacceptable, and an utter miscalculation of public sentiment regarding the obvious dangers and harms inherent in such use.”

The union applauded Meta’s decision to reel back the feature. “With the dangers of nonconsensual digital replicas well known to all, a feature that encouraged that behavior is unwise. We appreciate its discontinuance. It is the responsible thing to do,” the union said.

Creative Artists Agency, a talent group representing a slew of A-list stars, also criticized the feature. “No one’s name, image, likeness, voice, or creative work should be used by any third party, including AI models, without clear, documented consent,” the agency said in a statement shared with Variety. “True innovation puts creators first: respecting their rights, protecting their livelihoods, and giving them real control, not handing it over to platforms.”

AI has become a source of tension for entertainers, some of whom worry that it will be used to steal their likeness, voices, or iconic phrases without their consent. Celebrities like Matthew McConaughey and Jeremy Clarkson have registered trademarks to protect their likeness from AI.

Like Meta, OpenAI faced backlash after releasing Sora 2, an AI video-generation platform, in 2025. The platform initially allowed users to create content featuring trademarked characters, drawing ire from entertainment companies such as Studio Ghibli. Although OpenAI secured a partnership with Disney to legally use those characters, Sora 2 shut down in March.

• A version of this story originally appeared in the BI Tech Memo newsletter.
• Sign up for the weekly BI Tech Memo newsletter here.

AI isn’t replacing engineers so much as reshaping who else gets hired.

New data from SignalFire shows software engineers make up 55% of hiring at major tech companies, up from 46% in 2019, even as overall hiring remains below pre-pandemic levels.

Other functions are shrinking faster. While engineer hiring is down 11% since 2019, design hiring is down 48%, product management has fallen 39%, and marketing is down 36%.

The result is a leaner org chart built around technical talent, with fewer specialized support roles.

Sign up for BI’s Tech Memo newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com.