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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS