New York Times Rattles Tech World: Bans AI Training on Its Content – A Deep Dive into Implications for AI and Publishing Industry

New York Times Rattles Tech World: Bans AI Training on Its Content – A Deep Dive into Implications for AI and Publishing Industry

New York Times Rattles Tech World: Bans AI Training on Its Content – A Deep Dive into Implications for AI and Publishing Industry

As Seen On

The New York Times Prevents AI Content Usage

Recently, The New York Times has rattled the tech world by making an unprecedented move. In an update to their terms of service, they have effectively banned all AI and machine learning systems from using their content for training. This directive also applies to any content usage including but not limited to articles, headlines, and metadata. A possible exception exists for usage that’s undertaken with explicit permission in the form of a licensing agreement, drastically reframing the dynamics of AI training.

Implications of this Move

An interesting question rises here – why does this move matter? Various AI models, including those by tech heavyweights like OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft, rely heavily on web content for training their algorithms. This content is used to teach AI systems how to respond to prompts or answer questions about a wide array of topics. The Times’ decision may signal a shift toward brands exerting more control over how their web content is indexed and crawled beyond the traditional use of robots.txt. Data providers may start looking at more stringent measures to control the use of their content; consequently reshaping machine learning processes.

Specific Amendments to the Times’ Terms of Service

The amendments made by the New York Times in their terms of service, specifically target AI. They prohibit the usage of their content for building or enhancing any database, developing, and training algorithms or any direct competitor to the New York Times. This step sets a new precedent for content creators and publishers in how they protect their intellectual properties from use in AI systems, increasing their control over the dissemination and adaptation of their data.

Potential Compensation for Content

The decision by the New York Times perhaps indicates a future where AI companies would be required to compensate publishers for their content. Notably, there are successful instances of such arrangements; for instance, OpenAI recently licensed the Associated Press’ news archive for training its GPT-3 model. Google also has a commercial agreement with the Times for top-story panels.

Microsoft’s Initiatives

Adding another interesting facet to this conversation, Microsoft has initiated revenue sharing with publishers who contribute to its Start program. While this primarily benefits members of the program specifically, this move illustrates the potential for more symbiotic relationships between publishers and tech giants.

As we step into an increasingly digital future, the New York Times’ action has undeniably sparked a perturbing debate in the world of AI and publishing. AI enthusiasts, SEO experts, tech industry professionals, and digital marketers will certainly watch closely. How will this impact the growth of AI and machine learning? Will the entire publishing industry follow suit? Only time will tell the true implications of this move.

Finally, we’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Do you see this as an effective strategy for publishers to protect their content? Or do you find it stifling the growth of AI? Join the discussion in the comments below.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Casey Jones Avatar
Casey Jones
11 months ago

Why Us?

  • Award-Winning Results

  • Team of 11+ Experts

  • 10,000+ Page #1 Rankings on Google

  • Dedicated to SMBs

  • $175,000,000 in Reported Client
    Revenue

Contact Us

Up until working with Casey, we had only had poor to mediocre experiences outsourcing work to agencies. Casey & the team at CJ&CO are the exception to the rule.

Communication was beyond great, his understanding of our vision was phenomenal, and instead of needing babysitting like the other agencies we worked with, he was not only completely dependable but also gave us sound suggestions on how to get better results, at the risk of us not needing him for the initial job we requested (absolute gem).

This has truly been the first time we worked with someone outside of our business that quickly grasped our vision, and that I could completely forget about and would still deliver above expectations.

I honestly can't wait to work in many more projects together!

Contact Us

Disclaimer

*The information this blog provides is for general informational purposes only and is not intended as financial or professional advice. The information may not reflect current developments and may be changed or updated without notice. Any opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s employer or any other organization. You should not act or rely on any information contained in this blog without first seeking the advice of a professional. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this blog. The author and affiliated parties assume no liability for any errors or omissions.