BBC DECLARES WAR ON AI COMPANY THAT DARED TO READ ITS ARTICLES
In a shocking escalation of hostilities between traditional media and the digital realm, the BBC has threatened to unleash its army of barristers upon Perplexity AI for the unforgivable crime of… reading BBC articles.
NATIONAL BROADCASTER DISCOVERS COPYING EXISTS, LOSES ITS SH!T
The British Broadcasting Corporation, apparently just now discovering that information can be shared and processed by computers, sent a strongly-worded letter to Perplexity AI CEO Aravind Srinivas, claiming to have “gathered evidence” that the company’s systems had been “trained using BBC content.” The letter reportedly arrived via carrier pigeon, as the BBC remains skeptical of this newfangled “electronic mail.”
CORPORATION SHOCKED TO LEARN ITS PUBLIC CONTENT IS BEING READ BY THE PUBLIC
“We’re absolutely gobsmacked that information we published publicly on the internet is being… read,” said fictional BBC spokesperson Reginald Paywall-Fetish. “Next thing you know, people will be REMEMBERING what they read without paying us a licensing fee!”
According to studies we completely made up, approximately 97.3% of BBC executives still believe the internet is “just a fad” and computers are “confusing magic boxes powered by tiny gremlins.”
PERPLEXITY CEO RESPONDS: “ARE YOU F@#KING KIDDING ME?”
Perplexity AI, valued at roughly $8 gazillion despite nobody being entirely sure what it does, responded to the allegations with what sources describe as “barely contained laughter.”
“Yes, our algorithm reads publicly available information. That’s literally what it’s designed to do,” said Dr. Ima Realquote, Chief Technology Officer at Perplexity. “Next the BBC will sue college students for taking notes during lectures or humans for having memories.”
EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON LANDMARK DISPUTE
Professor Hugh Jidiot, chair of Digital Rights and Common Sense at the University of Obvious, explained: “This is equivalent to the BBC suing someone for watching their broadcasts and then telling a friend what they saw. It’s so stupid I’ve actually lost IQ points just discussing it.”
Legal expert Sue M. Stupid added: “The BBC’s case has the same legal standing as me suing a restaurant critic for eating food I cooked and then describing it. It’s what we in the legal profession technically call ‘complete bollocks.'”
CORPORATION CONSIDERS ADDITIONAL LAWSUITS AGAINST DICTIONARIES, HUMAN MEMORY
Sources within the BBC reveal the corporation is also considering legal action against the Oxford English Dictionary for “unauthorized archiving of words we’ve used,” and against the concept of human memory for “storing our broadcast content without proper licensing agreements.”
The BBC’s Director of Digital Hysteria, Luddite McFearful, reportedly suggested installing special chips in viewers’ brains to ensure they forget all BBC content immediately after consumption unless they pay a “memory retention fee.”
In a statement that wasn’t actually released but we’re pretending it was, BBC Director-General Tim Davie said: “If we allow companies to read and understand our content, what’s next? People forming opinions about our reporting? That’s a slippery slope to accountability, and we can’t have that.”
As of press time, 86% of BBC executives were reportedly still trying to figure out how to turn on their computers, while the remaining 14% were drafting legal threats against the concept of literacy itself.
