An anonymous reader shared this Washington Post report:
For years, tech companies like Open AI have freely used current events to create datasets that teach their machines how to recognize and fluently respond to human queries about the world. But as the quest to develop cutting-edge AI models grows ever more frenzied, newspaper publishers and other data owners are demanding a share of the potentially huge generative AI market, which is expected to reach $1.3 trillion. dollars by 2032, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. .
Since August, at least 535 press agencies – including the New York Times, Reuters and the Washington Post – have installed a blocker that prevents their content from being collected and used to train ChatGPT. Now discussions are focused on paying publishers so the chatbot can surface links to individual news articles in its responses, a development that would benefit newspapers in two ways: by providing direct payment and potentially increasing traffic to their websites. In July, Open AI struck a deal to license Associated Press content as training data for its AI models. Ongoing discussions have also touched on this idea, according to two people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, but have focused more on spreading stories in ChatGPT responses.
Other useful data sources are also looking for leverage. Reddit, the popular social discussion forum, has met with top generative AI companies about getting paid for its data, according to a person familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations. If a deal cannot be reached, Reddit plans to block Google and Bing’s search bots, which would prevent the forum from being discovered in searches and reduce the number of visitors to the site. But the company believes the tradeoff would be worth it, the person said, adding, “Reddit can survive without search.”
“These measures reflect a growing sense of urgency and uncertainty about who benefits from online information,” the article states. “With generative AI poised to transform the way users interact with the Internet, many publishers and other companies view paying fairly for their data as an existential question.”
They also cite James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and information law at Cornell University, who suggests that Open AI’s decision to negotiate “may reflect a desire to reach agreements before the courts have jurisdiction.” opportunity to determine whether technology companies have a clear legal obligation to grant licenses. – and pay for – content.
