when the news comes out Last year, artificial intelligence heavyweights OpenAI and Axel Springer struck a financial deal and partnership that seemed to herald harmony between writers and tech companies that use words to help create and train artificial intelligence models. At that time, OpenAI also reached an agreement with the Associated Press for reference.
Then, at the end of the year, the New York Times sued OpenAI and its backer Microsoft, claiming that the AI company’s generative AI model was “created by copying and using millions of The New York Times’ copyrighted News articles, in-depth investigations, opinion pieces, reviews, – guides and more.” Because The Times considers “unlawful use [its] OpenAI works to create artificial intelligence products that “can generate output that recites New York Times content verbatim, carefully summarizes it, and mimics its delivery style, as seen in dozens of examples.”
The exchange explores new startups, markets and funding.
Read it every morning on TechCrunch+, or get The Exchange newsletter every Saturday.
The New York Times added in the lawsuit that it “objected after discovering that the defendants used New York Times content without permission to develop their models and tools” and that “negotiations with OpenAI have not yet resulted in a resolution.”
How to balance the need to respect copyright and The question of ensuring that the development of artificial intelligence does not come to a standstill will not be answered anytime soon. But agreements and more heated disputes between creators and artificial intelligence companies that want to absorb and use these works to build artificial intelligence models have led to unpleasant moments for both sides of the conflict. Tech companies are busy developing new generative artificial intelligence models that are trained on materials that incorporate copyrighted material into their software products; notably, Microsoft is a leader in this particular effort . Media companies, which have long spent vast amounts of money building stories and other created materials, are angry that their efforts are being fed into machines that generate no reward for the people who provided the training data.
