I think individual creators or publishers tend to overestimate the value of their specific content in the grand scheme of [AI training]. […]
We pay for content when it’s valuable to people. We’re just not going to pay for content when it’s not valuable to people. I think that you’ll probably see a similar dynamic with AI, which my guess is that there are going to be certain partnerships that get made when content is really important and valuable. I’d guess that there are probably a lot of people who have a concern about the feel of it, like you’re saying. But then, when push comes to shove, if they demanded that we don’t use their content, then we just wouldn’t use their content. It’s not like that’s going to change the outcome of this stuff that much.
Recent articles
- My review of Claude's new Code Interpreter, released under a very confusing name - 9th September 2025
- Recreating the Apollo AI adoption rate chart with GPT-5, Python and Pyodide - 9th September 2025
- GPT-5 Thinking in ChatGPT (aka Research Goblin) is shockingly good at search - 6th September 2025