The content deals between artificial intelligence (AI) companies and top publishers are coming fast and furious. The latest, and claimed to be the biggest, was announced on Wednesday last week: OpenAI reached an agreement with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, reported to be worth about US$250 million over five years.
“The pact acknowledges that there is a premium for premium journalism,” News Corp CEO Robert Thomson said.
No terms were officially disclosed, but assuming the Wall Street Journal is not misreporting on its owner, the US$250 million figure includes “compensation in the form of cash and credits for use of OpenAI technology.”
It is the latest in a flurry of partnerships announced in the past few weeks. The Financial Times struck its own deal with OpenAI last month, followed by Dotdash Meredith, owner of titles such as People magazine and Investopedia, which also included some collaboration on advertising tools.
Other OpenAI deals have included The Associated Press, Axel Springer and Le Monde.
After the unseemly hullabaloo surrounding the ChatGPT voice that actress Scarlett Johansson contended sounded a little too much like hers, the News Corp tie-up helps OpenAI CEO Sam Altman appear to care about human endeavor — and, in this case, the hard, expensive job of reporting the news.
“We are setting the foundation for a future where AI deeply respects, enhances and upholds the standards of world-class journalism,” he said.
Yet it is the comments of people such as Le Monde chairman Louis Dreyfus that stand out the most. As one of the recent beneficiaries of Altman’s selective admiration of the journalism business, one would think Dreyfus would offer a similarly gushing tone as his News Corp counterparts.
However, speaking to the Wall Street Journal, he said: “Without an agreement, they will use our content in a more or less rigorous and more or less clandestine manner without any benefit for us.”
Dreyfus is right. It is highly likely that OpenAI long ago ingested the content it is now paying to “get access” to as part of its rampant scraping of information in the public domain.
In that sense, these deals should be thought of as settlements, the terms of which no doubt included the stipulation that publishers would not take OpenAI to court, as the New York Times has already done. (OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.)
Face it, there is no opting out of AI. As admirable as the Times’ lawsuit is, it has been five months since it was filed, and even a preliminary hearing is months away in a case most expect to go all the way to the Supreme Court. In the interim, publishers can either take a deal or not — knowing that the machine has likely guzzled up their content regardless.
Sure, OpenAI says it is creating a tool to help publishers self-report what they want to be excluded from OpenAI’s training models, but it is not expected to be ready until next year at the earliest.
Of course, OpenAI is just one company of several making large language models.
These deals are rotten. They lack transparency and adequate ethical scrutiny. No one who values the Fourth Estate should accept the prospect of AI companies, which should be the subject of journalistic scrutiny, holding what could one day, if other business models continue to crumble, be extreme control over a publication’s financial health.
For a preview of what such subservience might look like, consider the fears over Google’s recent search engine changes or Meta Plaforms Inc’s decision to no longer care about amplifying news content.
Perhaps the biggest long-term problem is this: It cannot be left to people like Altman, or indeed any other individual or company, to decide which publications are deemed worthy of preferential treatment in his AI future and which are not. His company does not possess the expertise — nor the right.
What about the small local newspapers or Web sites — what few are left — doing the less glamorous job of following council meetings or school boards? Or the trade magazines doing the wonkier reporting on industries such as energy or engineering? Does anyone want AI models to be devoid of the richness of independent publications?
Altman is not going to turn up at their door with cash, although these publications are also likely already in the training data. If AI is genuinely to be a knowledge hub, these sources require sustaining, too — not just the publishing giants that OpenAI worries might sue.
A more equitable system must be created, backed by law.
“Bespoke, secretive deals with the largest or most influential news outlets are not a replacement for public policy,” wrote Courtney Radsch, director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty at the Open Markets Institute.
Author and journalism professor Jeff Jarvis suggested one approach: Create a centralized platform controlled by a publishing coalition. This could aggregate content from any opted-in publisher and make it instantly and dynamically available to AI companies for a fee, based on use or some other agreed-upon metric.
The 178-year-old Associated Press might provide some inspiration here. The nonprofit wire service was first set up and paid for by newspapers to solve the tech challenges of its day: getting news from the Mexican-American War more quickly to readers up north.
Today’s problems are vastly more complex, but the solution could start with a principle that was as true today as it was in 1846: Those who create the content should control it.
Dave Lee is Bloomberg Opinion’s US technology columnist. He was previously a correspondent for the Financial Times and BBC News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
US President Donald Trump is an extremely stable genius. Within his first month of presidency, he proposed to annex Canada and take military action to control the Panama Canal, renamed the Gulf of Mexico, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a dictator and blamed him for the Russian invasion. He has managed to offend many leaders on the planet Earth at warp speed. Demanding that Europe step up its own defense, the Trump administration has threatened to pull US troops from the continent. Accusing Taiwan of stealing the US’ semiconductor business, it intends to impose heavy tariffs on integrated circuit chips
RSS