> It does seem to be becoming the norm for AI companies to licence premium content in America, judging by the deals they're making.

This is a very surprising claim to me (and I imagine many small website owners who keep getting scraped by Anthropic and OpenAI).

Do you have a source?

▲

usef- 3 days ago | parent [-]

There's been many news stories of it over the past year(s) as they signed each one. Here's the first result I could see with a rundown of many of them (am on mobile).

https://digiday.com/media/a-timeline-of-the-major-deals-betw...

▲

Bratmon 3 days ago | parent [-]

Those are licenses for API access to data too new to be in the training data (for use by agents), not for the training itself.

I don't really understand why you think they're relevant, given that this conversation is about the training itself.

	▲	usef- 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It isn't just that, it includes publishing houses, Wiley etc, and non-live media. Even the news orgs say explicitly in the press releases that it's about training on their archive eg. http://ap.org/media-center/press-releases/2023/ap-open-ai-ag... --- edit, examples: Wiley https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-releases/press-release-deta... Shutterstock https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release... Axel Springer https://openai.com/index/axel-springer-partnership Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.co/partnerships Disney (for characters in video. Video is especially where licensing is a big difference internationally right now) https://openai.com/index/disney-sora-agreement etc. The news corp one had a leaked price ($250mill), so they don't seem to be insignificant. These would have to be included in API prices I presume.