The introduction of Australia’s news bargaining code in February 2021 has brought attention to the relationship between big tech companies and news publishers. The code requires companies such as Google and Facebook to negotiate with publishers for the use of their content and has moved over $200 million to publishers of journalism. Now, the architect of the code is proposing that artificial intelligence models, such as ChatGPT, should also be required to pay for access to content.
Rod Sims, the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), has said that AI models that rely on accessing news articles to generate content should be subject to the same bargaining rules as Google and Facebook. Sims argues that AI models, like ChatGPT, are essentially using the work of journalists and publishers to create content, and therefore should be required to compensate them for their work.
It is an interesting proposition that raises important questions about the role of AI models in content creation, as well as the value of journalism and news content in the digital age.
The Ethics of AI Access to News Content
The use of AI in content creation is becoming increasingly common, with models like ChatGPT being used for everything from writing news articles to generating social media posts. While these models can be highly effective at producing content quickly and efficiently, they rely on access to vast amounts of data, including news articles and other written content.
The question is, should AI models be required to pay for access to this content? On one hand, it could be argued that the use of news content by AI models is no different from the use of news content by human journalists. Just as journalists use news articles to research and report on a story, AI models use news articles to generate content. Therefore, it could be argued that AI models should not be required to pay for access to news content any more than human journalists are.
On the other hand, it could be argued that AI models are using news content in a fundamentally different way than human journalists. While journalists use news content as a tool for research and reporting, AI models use news content as the basis for generating new content. This raises questions about the value of news content and the compensation that should be provided to those who create it.
The Value of News Content in the Digital Age
The question of whether AI models should be required to pay for access to news content also raises broader questions about the value of news content in the digital age. As traditional revenue streams for news publishers have declined, there has been a growing recognition of the value of news content and the importance of supporting quality journalism.
The introduction of Australia’s news bargaining code is one example of how governments are trying to address this issue by requiring tech companies to compensate publishers for the use of their content. However, the question of how to value news content and how to ensure that those who create it are properly compensated is an ongoing challenge.
One potential solution is to require AI models to pay for access to news content, thereby providing a new revenue stream for news publishers. This would help to ensure that the value of news content is recognized and that those who create it are properly compensated.
The proposal that AI models should be required to pay for access to news content raises important questions about the ethics of AI and the value of news content. While there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate, it is clear that the issue of how to ensure that those who create news content are properly compensated is an important one that will continue to be debated.
As AI models become increasingly sophisticated and play a larger role in content creation, it will be important to find ways to ensure that the value of news content is recognized and that those who create it are properly compensated. Whether requiring AI models to pay for access to news content is the right solution remains to be seen.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Coverpage’s editorial stance
