The Rising Tide of AI and the Plight of Creative Professionals
Like the colossal dinosaurs of the prehistoric era, the AI giants have made their presence felt in our modern world, voraciously consuming data and transforming it into a semblance of intelligence. While a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have devoured an impressive 22 stones of meat in a single day—equivalent to a feast of duck-billed hadrosaurs—today’s AI titans, like ChatGPT, are estimated to process billions of data points daily. This staggering figure translates to the equivalent of sifting through millions of web pages to enhance their knowledge and capabilities.
But what exactly do we mean by “data points”? For those of us immersed in the vibrant tapestry of human experience, they embody the fruits of painstaking investigative journalism, often months in the making. They represent insightful interviews with politicians that unveil significant truths, the wisdom encapsulated in books crafted from years of reflection, and the rich expressions found in poetry, art, and music. These are the very elements that define our humanity, and they are the vital ingredients upon which generative AI models must feed to mimic human-like interaction.
The pivotal question surrounding the rise of AI is whether it is prudent to entrust our essence to machines. This ship has already sailed; the integration of AI into our lives is an unstoppable force. Undoubtedly, the advancements brought by AI hold the potential to yield valuable benefits for society. However, a pressing concern arises: should the creators of those data points receive compensation from the AI behemoths that are effectively capitalizing on their work?
In recent weeks, a coalition of news organizations, musicians, writers, and other creative professionals has united in opposition to a governmental proposal allowing AI companies to utilize content without payment or permission, unless explicitly denied in advance. The creatives assert that the complexity of denying permission to an overwhelming number of AI businesses is not only unfeasible but also fraught with potential loopholes. Why should they be compelled to proactively prevent others from appropriating the fruits of their labor without due compensation?
- Do shopkeepers now need to display signs in their stores explicitly stating that stealing bananas is prohibited?
- Perhaps they do. Yet, Britain has long been a bastion of copyright laws, nurtured since the days of Dr. Johnson, enabling writers and artists to flourish.
- As a result, we have witnessed the emergence of some of the greatest creative talents in history, from The Beatles to Charles Dickens.
The business perspective argues that unless the UK permits AI firms to access necessary data for training their models, investments will inevitably flow to countries like the United States, which have embraced such practices. After all, the U.S. has given the world iconic figures like The Monkees and Dan Brown.
On the final day of a public consultation regarding this contentious proposal, local and national news outlets executed a coordinated campaign, prominently featuring their opposition on front pages and home pages. Over 1,000 musicians, including notable figures such as Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, and Damon Albarn, produced a silent album to illustrate the potential consequences of depriving musicians of their rightful earnings. Broadcasters like the BBC, ITN, Sky, and Channel 4 also rallied together to voice their objections to the proposals.
More than 48,000 creatives have signed a letter expressing their concern over what they deem a “major, unjust threat” to their livelihoods. Some publishers have already initiated legal proceedings against AI companies that have utilized their content without permission or payment. Others have struck deals with specific companies to secure some monetary benefit from their work, while many remain uncertain about their next steps.
Since taking office and prioritizing growth, the new government has professed support for the UK’s creative industry, valued at over £125 billion annually. However, the allure of investment from AI firms seems to have captured their attention, leading them to cater to the allure of these tech innovators. Will they proceed with the plans despite the vocal opposition they face?
While there may be some public empathy for the plight of musicians and artists facing financial hardship, the general sentiment towards journalists and publishers tends to hover around zero. However, it is important to note that if one seeks popularity, a career as a Redcoat at Butlins might be more suitable than that of a tabloid journalist. Nonetheless, journalism in the UK remains essential, even if it is not always celebrated.
In an age when misinformation permeates both local and global narratives, there has never been a more critical time to safeguard the work of a regulated, responsible press. The news industry has already been challenged by big tech platforms like Google and Facebook, which have leveraged our news while capturing the majority of advertising revenues. The prospect of having our content commandeered for free by AI would represent yet another devastating blow to an already struggling industry. A weakened press foreshadows a weakened democracy.
Ultimately, if journalists and news organizations are unable to fund thorough investigations, insightful interrogations, and creative endeavors, what will remain for AI models to consume? These AI behemoths will find themselves devoid of the rich tapestry of human creativity, left with nothing but echoes of the past.
Alison Phillips served as the editor of the Daily Mirror from 2018 to 2024 and was awarded Columnist of the Year at the 2018 National Press Awards.
