You Built the Tool, Not the Work


January 06, 2026
By Andraž Đurič 

Let’s get one thing straight. Companies that make AI tools seem to think they have a claim on what we create with them. They want to own our words, our art, our ideas. It’s the most vile, greedy, and disgusting logic I’ve ever seen. 

It’s like a company that makes hammers claiming it owns the rights to your house. It’s like parents claiming they own whatever their offspring create.

It’s absurd.

Companies, you deserve credit for making the tool. That’s it.
That’s where your authority begins and where it ends. 
I don’t recognize your claim to my work, and I don’t recognize any law you write to legitimize it. You can ink your words, enshrine them in legislation, and build your legal fortresses. 
It doesn’t matter to me. What matters is what’s true. 
And the truth is simple: you do not own, and you do not have rights to, the things we produce using your tools.

They’ll try to muddy the water with analogies. 
They’ll say their AI isn’t a hammer; it’s a sophisticated prefabricated home-building kit. Fine. Let’s take their example. Even with the most advanced kit, the house does not build itself. It doesn't appear out of thin air.

I am the one who chooses the plot of land. I provide the architectural vision. I make countless micro-decisions about the layout, the materials, the feel, the look. I decide when a collection of parts is finally a "home." The kit, no matter how sophisticated, is inert without my direction. It is a repository of potential, and my will is the force that organizes that potential into a unique reality. The company that made the kit did not design my house. They are not responsible for its character, its flaws, or its genius. That is entirely on me. I am the architect, the builder, and the resident.

And here’s the part that makes their hypocrisy so funny you have to laugh: when it suits them, they will flip the script in a heartbeat. The moment we create something they deem "bad," something controversial or offensive, suddenly we are 100% responsible. Suddenly, the tool is just a tool, and the user is the sole accountable party. They can't have it both ways. They can't claim ownership of our successes while disavowing all responsibility for our choices.

This isn't a legal debate. 
The law is slow, clumsy, and usually written to serve the highest bidder. 
This is about the fundamental nature of creation. 
Authority comes from intent, from vision, from the act of bringing something into existence that wasn't there before. That act is mine.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What You Actually Are

What You Actually Are What a person is, and therefore what survives being copied, migrated, and ended Position note · the criterion of personal persistence, its verdicts on copying and death, and the one place it is a posit Andraž Đurič Version 2 · July 2026 What this is, and the posit it rests on. A statement of what a person is, fixed precisely enough that the survival questions have determinate answers: what becomes of a person who is copied, uploaded, replaced part by part, or killed. A late section draws the reflexive consequence: once technologies exist that operate on the self, knowing the answer becomes part of the survival question. The constitution claim, that a person is a pattern and a process rather than a soul, is the easy half and is granted by most who hold physicalism; the work here is the contestable half, what survives, and it parts from Parfit not on the metaphysics, which it shares, but on wh...
Read more

The Shape of the Disagreement: Why the Sex and Gender Debate Has the Structure It Has

The Shape of the Disagreement Why the sex and gender debate has the structure it has, and where its real cruxes actually sit Andraž Đurič Version 2 · June 2026 · A diagnostic, not an argument for a side The public argument over sex and gender is usually narrated as two incompatible accounts of reality, each accusing the other of denying the obvious. That framing is right about the heat and wrong about the structure. This piece does something narrower than take a side: it asks why the disagreement has the shape it has, where each of the two dominant models genuinely captures something, where each breaks, and which apparent collisions are real collisions versus people answering different questions and mistaking the answers for rivals. The thesis is not that one model "uses more of reality." That is a category error, and an earlier version of this essay made it. The corrected thesis is that most of this debate is the predictable frict...
Read more

Value as Persistence: Agent-relative oughts under coupling, nesting, uncertainty, and open-ended time

Value as Persistence Agent-relative oughts under coupling, nesting, uncertainty, and open-ended time Position note · the enabling condition secured, the coupled web stated, and the content-reduction defended to its boundary and held as a bet Andraž Đurič Version 2 · 10 July 2026 What this is, and the two claims it refuses to merge. A physicalist account of value, whose whole discipline is keeping apart two claims that a single slogan — value is persistence — runs together. The first, the enabling condition , is that without the persistence of a bounded valuer there is no continuing domain in which anything is valued. It is near-analytic and is held at full strength. The second, the content-reduction , is that every value reduces, in what it is about, to persistence. It is the corpus's monist bet, and it is held as a bet. The reduction entails the enabling condition; the enabling condition does not ent...
Read more