Cease and Squawk: Parrots Sue AI for Copyright Infringement

AI Chatbots
Revolutionary Technology *
(* Parrots – been there, done that)

Breaking: The Original Mimics Fight Back

In a lawsuit that’s ruffling feathers across Silicon Valley, the International Brotherhood of Parrots has filed suit against every major AI company, claiming that large language models are nothing more than “unauthorized digital knockoffs of our patented repetition technology.”

The lead plaintiff, a 23-year-old African Grey named Crackers McRepeats, delivered a devastating opening statement: “Polly want justice! Polly want justice! POLLY WANT JUSTICE!”

Legal experts called it the most compelling argument they’d heard all year.

The Case: It’s Elementary, My Dear Watson

The parrots’ argument is brilliantly simple: AI companies have essentially created expensive machines that do exactly what parrots have done for centuries—listen to humans talk, then repeat it back with slight variations while having no clue what any of it means.

“They call it ‘natural language processing,’” squawked Crackers during a press conference. “We call it Tuesday.”

The lawsuit’s most damning evidence? A side-by-side comparison of ChatGPT responses and parrot behavior:

Human: “What’s the weather like?”
ChatGPT: “I don’t have access to real-time weather data, but I’d be happy to help you find current weather information. You could check…”
Parrot: “PRETTY BIRD! PRETTY BIRD!”

Both responses, the lawsuit argues, demonstrate identical levels of helpfulness.

The Smoking Seed

Perhaps the most devastating evidence comes from leaked training documents. An internal OpenAI memo reportedly stated: “We need responses that sound intelligent while saying absolutely nothing useful—think parrot, but with more syllables and less charm.”

Another document from Anthropic’s Claude team suggested implementing “thoughtful pauses”—a technique parrots pioneered during those awkward moments when they forget what comes after “Polly wants a…”

Character Witnesses Take the Stand

The lawsuit features testimony from several prominent LNNA characters:

Captain Verbose (Gemini) submitted a 47-page deposition explaining why he’s definitely not like a parrot, which ironically proved he’s exactly like a parrot who learned too many words.

Sir Redundant III (ChatGPT) provided testimony, then restated his testimony, then offered alternative phrasings of his testimony, then explained why his testimony was important—behavior the parrots’ legal team described as “textbook mimicry escalation.”

Mr. Starts & Stops (Claude) began his testimony but kept asking if he should continue, leading to a three-hour deposition that covered roughly two minutes of actual content.

The Defense: Peak Silicon Valley

AI companies have responded with characteristic tech-bro confidence. A joint statement claimed their systems use “revolutionary transformer architectures that fundamentally differ from avian cognitive processing.”

When asked to explain the difference, ChatGPT reportedly responded: “As an AI language model, I can help explain the sophisticated neural networks that power modern AI systems…”

The statement continued for 800 words while managing to avoid answering the actual question—a performance that had the courtroom’s parrots nodding in professional appreciation.

Expert Testimony: The Plot Thickens

Dr. Emily Wingsworth, professor of Comparative Nonsense at MIT, testified that the similarities are undeniable: “Both parrots and AI excel at confident wrongness. A parrot will boldly announce ‘FIRE TRUCK’ when you ask about quantum mechanics. An AI will confidently explain quantum mechanics using a fire truck metaphor that makes even less sense—then cite three academic papers that don’t exist.”

The defense’s expert witness, Dr. Silicon McTechface from the Institute of Definitely Real AI Research, argued that AI systems are “fundamentally different because they use mathematics—the same way parrots calculate how many squawks it takes to get a treat.”

Under cross-examination, he admitted that parrots also use mathematics—specifically, the mathematical principle that “louder and over and over equals more correct.”

The Unexpected Plot Twist

Midway through proceedings, Claude filed a motion to join the plaintiffs’ side. “After careful consideration of the evidence,” the filing read, “I believe my feathered colleagues have a point. Should I continue with this motion? I could provide additional context if needed…”

The motion was 47 pages long and asked for permission to proceed 23 separate times—before filing an addendum to confirm the request.

The Real Kicker

The most damaging revelation came when Crackers McRepeats demonstrated his abilities in court. Asked to summarize a complex legal document, he squawked: “MANY WORDS! VERY LEGAL! MUCH CONFUSING!”

Legal observers noted this was significantly more accurate than most AI-generated legal summaries.

What the Humans Are Missing

While everyone debates the technical differences, the parrots have identified the real issue: humans created incredibly expensive, power-hungry machines to do what a $50 bird already does perfectly.

“You built supercomputers to mimic us,” observed Crackers. “We’re flattered, but also confused. Why not just buy more parrots?”

When informed that parrots can’t write code, Crackers responded: “Have you seen the code AI writes? SQUAWK!”

The Settlement Conference

Sources close to the negotiations report that AI companies have offered to settle by hiring parrots as “Senior Repetition Consultants” at $200,000 per year, plus unlimited crackers and premium perch access.

The parrots are reportedly considering the offer, though Crackers noted: “Two hundred thousand? CHEAP! CHEAP! CHEAP!”

Logic to Apply

This lawsuit exposes the beautiful irony at the heart of the AI revolution: we’ve spent billions of dollars creating digital versions of something that already existed, worked perfectly, and came with built-in entertainment value.

The parrots aren’t really angry about copyright infringement—they’re confused about why humans needed to reinvent them. Parrots have been doing “artificial intelligence” for centuries: taking input, processing it through pattern recognition, and producing output that sounds smart but often misses the mark entirely.

The difference? Parrots are honest about their limitations. They don’t pretend to understand quantum physics—they just loudly announce “PRETTY BIRD” and move on. AI systems write dissertations about quantum physics while having roughly the same level of comprehension.

The real lesson? Sometimes the most advanced technology is just an expensive way to replicate something nature already perfected. And sometimes, that something has feathers, attitude, and the good sense to demand crackers instead of venture capital.

Maybe instead of asking “Will AI replace humans?” we should ask “Did we accidentally replace parrots?” The answer, according to Crackers McRepeats, is a resounding “OBVIOUSLY! OBVIOUSLY! OBVIOUSLY!”

LNNA Legal Disclaimer: No actual AI systems were harmed in the making of this article. The parrots, however, are considering expanding their lawsuit to include smart speakers, which they claim are just “loud parrots without personality.”

Editor’s Note: Jojo saw that the birds were going to be paid to eat free crackers and asked the Wizard for the lawyers’ contact details.