How the Seven Lethal Sins Hold Him from Licensing Options – Music Know-how Coverage

Run quick and skip issues.

White Home AI Czar and Silicon Valley Viceroy David Sacks has made a reputation for himself as one among Silicon Valley’s loudest voices in opposition to licensing frameworks for copyright, privateness, and biometric security in AI. The Different Particular Authorities Worker (with a visa overstay) frames licensing as bureaucratic overreach and copyright as “regulation.” You’ll assume that the sensible individuals from the highest enterprise colleges might handle to determine a path that might truly profit all People. However the reality is less complicated—and much much less flattering. The AI cult he needs to impose on the world isn’t rooted in imaginative and prescient or precept. It’s an acute case of mental sloth, propped up by a couple of of the opposite Lethal Sins for good measure.

David Sacks trashes licensing for copyright, privacy, and biometric safety as “bureaucratic,” but his real play is keeping AI’s free buffet open. This piece argues Sacks’s anti-licensing crusade isn’t vision—it’s shortcut politics: sloth plus the rest of the Seven Deadly Sins. We contrast proven licensing models (music, genomics) with the “do nothing” model that fuels scraping, voice-cloning, legal chaos, and public backlash. In the process, Sacks undermines President Trump’s stated goals of protecting American creators and industries, handing the advantage to predatory foreign actors and leaving U.S. workers exposed. By rejecting workable safeguards, he’s not just failing artists—he’s failing Trump, the voters, and America itself.

Sloth – The Root Vice

Licensing options exist already in dozens of industries—from music publishing to genomic information. A severe policymaker would adapt these fashions to AI. However Sacks refuses to do the work: no proposal for honest royalty charges in copyright, no scheme for consent-based information entry, no biometric id safety plan. He’s content material with scraping child photos from Fb and snarfing down music from wherever. You’d assume it was Google Search or one thing. Sack’s sloth is the coverage equal of hitting “snooze” on the alarm clock after which blaming the clock for tardiness.

Greed

Avoiding licensing isn’t about effectivity—it’s about preserving a “take now, pay by no means” mannequin for his AI-backing buyers. Every single day with out licensing is one other day of free coaching information, harvested from creators and customers with out compensation or permission–innovation by nap.

Pleasure

Sacks usually implies that solely the sensible individuals in Silicon Valley’s internal circle actually “get” AI coverage. Licensing, in his telling, is a concession for slower minds. That is the conceitedness of a person who assumes precedent, course of, and public rights are beneath him. As a result of transfer quick and skip issues.

Envy

Licensing regimes work in different sectors, and Sacks is aware of it. However adopting them would imply admitting regulators or rival international locations might need a greater deal with on balancing innovation with rights. That admission is unthinkable. And naturally the farther down the rabbit gap of his prideful refusal to do the suitable factor, the tougher it’s to confess the error and the extra probably he’s to throw Trump beneath the bus when it lastly catches as much as him.

Wrath

His public posture in direction of copyright holders, privateness advocates, and biometric security campaigners is combative not collaborative. As an alternative of treating them as stakeholders, he paints them as enemies of progress—fueling culture-war hostility that shuts down compromise. That is straight out of 1999 and is. So. Outdated. And. Lazy.

Gluttony

AI’s urge for food for information is huge, however licensing is a portion-control mechanism. By opposing it with permissionless procrastination, Sacks retains the AI trade on an “all-you-can-eat” binge of copyrighted works, private data, and biometric identifiers.

Lust

There’s a fixation—virtually an intoxication—with unfettered technological conquest, no matter consent or penalties. Licensing would power AI firms to decelerate and get permission. That, apparently, kills the joys.

Licensing vs. the Sacks “Do Nothing” Mannequin

Situation Space	Licensing Resolution	Sacks’ “Do Nothing” Mannequin
Copyright	Statutory or voluntary licenses; honest charges; opt-outs for creators	Mass ingestion of works with out permission; infinite litigation as default. Use rescindable Govt Orders to construct an trade on quicksand.
Privateness	Knowledge-use consent frameworks; information minimization; cross-border compliance guidelines	Unchecked scraping of non-public information; failing GDPR/CCPA workarounds that idiot nobody.
Biometric Security	Specific licensing for likeness and voice; audit trails; safety requirements	Voice and face cloning with out consent; post-injury treatments solely (at finest) with a ultimate non-appealable judgement for which he can’t create an uber secure harbor.
Danger Administration	Predictable compliance prices; diminished authorized publicity	Years of expensive lawsuits; regulatory whiplash
Innovation Local weather	Steady, rights-respecting ecosystem attracting funding	Chaotic authorized setting deterring long-term funding as soon as an investor will get socked.
Public Belief	Clear guidelines and recourse for hurt	Rising distrust and political backlash

The irony is that licensing isn’t a brake on AI—it’s the bridge to a sustainable, trusted AI financial system. However Sacks would relatively skip the development work and preserve the gold rush going. In the long run, it’s not imaginative and prescient that drives him away from licensing—it’s a cocktail of Sloth, Greed, Pleasure, Envy, Wrath, Gluttony, and Lust. The Seven Lethal Sins aren’t simply dangerous for the immortal soul.

In Sacks’ case, they’re dangerous for coverage, too. By rejecting workable safeguards, he’s not simply failing artists—he’s failing Trump, the voters, and America itself.