Anthony Edwards and Tech Integrity
How a New York Times Article on an Orange Wristband Informs AI Ethics
The Rundown↓
KNOW that the New York Times signed a deal to license their content for use by Amazon’s AI services.
REALIZE that the Times has a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft over using Times content for OpenAI’s LLM training.
EXPLORE our article on Between Blind Acceptance and Reflexive Rejection.
Details↓
Last week the New York Times agreed to a licensing deal with Amazon to allow their AI services like Alexa to use the news company’s content. In an internal memo obtained and published by CNN, Times CEO, Meredith Kopit Levien, wrote:
It aligns with our deliberate approach to ensuring that our work is valued appropriately, whether through commercial deals or through the enforcement of our intellectual property rights.”
This is a first for the Times, which is in the middle of a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. The Times alleges OpenAI used their stories and IP without license or permission to train their LLMs (AI models). OpenAI claims LLM training is covered by the fair use legal doctrine.
Commentary↓
I get it. It’s easy to think news like this is irrelevant. Who cares about the New York Times? Many don’t. I only follow Times articles by Jon Krawczynski, who covers the Timberwolves. He recently wrote an article about the orange wristband Anthony Edwards wore this season. Luca, a Michigan boy who has been fighting Leukemia, gave Edwards the wristband after a Timberwolves loss to the Pistons in January. Edwards told Luca, “I’ll wear this for the rest of my career.”
Edward’s connection with Luca is not only a heart-warming story from a respected journalist, but it also represents valuable new data. Many of the novel stories like this or other future events, innovations, and discoveries are likely to be copyright protected. Amazon knows this, which is why they signed a deal with the New York Times. OpenAI has licensing deals in place with publishers like the Associated Press, Financial Times, and NewsCorp, and they even attempted to secure a deal with the Times.
The copyright debate tends to only look in the rear view mirror. Tech companies argue fair use in court for past public data (including copyrighted work) while simultaneously inking multi-year billion dollar deals for future data. They’re asking for a free pass on past training while hiding behind the curtains of progress and human flourishing.
As a judge in a copyright case against Meta pointed out last month, “You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products. You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person's work, and you're saying that you don't even have to pay a license to that person.”
Contradictions like this are part of why we’re working on a set of principles that guide our Know Curtains research, insight, and commentary. Not just how we use technology, but how, as AI Now puts it, “it’s being used on us.” They are the lenses through which we view technology… the orange wristband to wear for as long as we do this: Humanity, Privacy, Autonomy, and fittingly for this story… Integrity. As social media’s rollout (and subsequent fallout) has shown us, when it comes to AI, humanity must get this moment right.
Postscript↓
We’ll elaborate on those four principles in upcoming posts.
Don’t miss Between Blind Acceptance and Reflexive Rejection: The Studio Ghibli Craze and AI's Shared Playbook with Social Media.