Scroll Top
The New York Times Calls for OpenAI & Microsoft to Compensate for Training Data


– The New York Times (NYT) is demanding payment from OpenAI and Microsoft for use of its data in training artificial intelligence (AI) systems.
– NYT argues that their published content, used as training data, is intellectual property thus subject to compensation.
– This builds upon an ongoing debate about the ethics of content scraping and the larger implications for businesses leveraging AI technology.
– The potential impact of this would see tech giants being forced to acquire rights for publicly available information used to construct their AI algorithms.


The world of AI training is possibly taking a sharp turn as The New York Times takes on tech giants, OpenAI and Microsoft. Asserting their rights as creators of content, NYT demands appropriate compensation for the usage of its published matter in AI training. Their claim is anchored on the conviction that their published articles – consumed as training data to shape AI models – is their lienable intellectual property.

This battle chips into a broader debate around the ethics of content scraping. Should companies have free access to public information in their quest to artificially intelligent systems? While many stand on the firm ground of free internet principles, others argue for a fair usage policy. This could involve payment or permission, recognizing the time, effort, and resources spent in creating that content.

If The New York Times’ stand gains ground, it could revolutionize the way data is treated in AI training, pegging rights and added costs to the otherwise freely available information.


This news comes as a thought-provoking challenge to existing AI training norms. On one hand, preventing companies from freely using public data could stifle innovation. On the other, respecting content creation by providing appropriate compensation could promote more equitable business practices. Will companies like OpenAI and Microsoft blink first? Or will they fight to maintain the status quo?


Source: [LINK](

Personal opinions

In the Brandon Sanderson-esque way of juggling multiple perspectives, we may experience a change of narrative here. While the current model of free access to data keeps the gears of AI development turning quickly, perhaps it’s time for a more ethical approach. Writers or creators should be rewarded for their work, even if, through a roundabout way, it helps churn out smarter, more capable AI. After all, isn’t that the very essence of fair trade? This will no doubt introduce an operational and financial challenge to AI tech companies. However, it may also incite a renewed focus on getting the most out of smaller, high-quality training sets instead of hoarding vast, low-quality ones. As the plot thickens, do you agree that NYT’s stand could lead to a more balanced ecosystem in AI training? Or do you see this as an overreach restricting the growth of AI technologies?

Related Posts

Leave a comment

Privacy Preferences
When you visit our website, it may store information through your browser from specific services, usually in form of cookies. Here you can change your privacy preferences. Please note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our website and the services we offer.