Media faces existential threat from ‘thieving' AI, ministers warned
The call for swift action follows a bitter stand-off in the House of Lords over attempts to prevent the creative industries, including news outlets, being ripped off by machine-learning developers.
The controversy centred on fears of AI companies using copyrighted work without permission, with the Government accused of 'supporting thieves'.
Responding to a question on the issue in the upper chamber, media minister Baroness Twycross said: 'Trustworthy journalism plays a vital role in our democracy.
'Rapid recent developments in generative AI pose both significant risks and opportunities for news media.
'We are engaging with press stakeholders on this.'
She added: 'The Government will support our news media to capitalise on the huge potential benefits of the technology while mitigating its risk.'
But deputy chairman of the Telegraph Group, and Conservative peer, Lord Black of Brentwood said: 'AI poses an existential threat to independent media because of the way it scrapes their high quality content without either attribution or payment to those who create it, which is an act of theft, directly threatening the provision of quality news and the jobs of thousands of reporters.
'Is the minister aware that research by market leader, Cloudflare, shows that, for example, for every 73,000 pages of content scraped by Anthropic's AI crawlers from news providers, there's just one single referral back to publishers' websites?
'Does she realise that without this vital traffic, publishers can't sell advertising or subscriptions, and their businesses become unsustainable?
'The free press can't wait years for copyright reform… we were promised immediate action on this issue when the Data Act went through. When will we get some of it?'
Responding, Lady Twycross said: 'We want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone.
'All of our work is around protecting rights that already exist for creatives and press and ensuring AI creates new revenue streams for them.
'We are carefully reviewing all the responses to our consultation to ensure any proposals taken forward properly support both AI and creative sectors, including the media.'
Filmmaker Baroness Kidron, who has been a leading critic of the Labour administration on the issue, said: 'During the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Government asked repeatedly that Parliament trust that they had the interest of UK copyright holders front and centre.
'So can the minister explain why the UK Government has now signed a memorandum of understanding with Canadian AI firm Cohere, when Cohere is facing legal action from 13 news media copyright holders, including The Guardian, Forbes and The Atlantic?
'Does she not agree with me that the Government might better earn Parliament's trust if, instead of rewarding AI companies which infringe copyright with opportunities, that it limited those opportunities and indeed future Government contracts to companies that lawfully license inputs?'
Lady Twycross said: 'As I said, we do want to and need to make sure we get this right for everyone. I'm happy to have a conversation with her about the issue she raises.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
38 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
'We are not alone in our disappointment' for Glasgow
Here is a practical example of both national governments supporting a local partnership of business, academia and city council to encourage regional economic growth. It would have been even more cheering if we had arrived home to find that Glasgow and its city region were benefitting from a similar approach in the comprehensive spending review. All it would have taken was a single sentence saying that the UK and Scottish governments would be working together to establish long-term flexible funding deals for Scottish cities to match those already sorted out for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. No such sentence appeared. Read more: Instead, I found myself reading Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Darren Jones, arguing that in Scotland the decision to "empower the city regions rests firmly with the Scottish Government". If he really believes that, we are at risk of stepping back a decade in time. Eleven years ago, it was the UK and Scottish governments that together announced the £1.3 billion Glasgow City Region Deal. That deal was the first of many in Scotland, each designed in collaboration with local stakeholders to demonstrate how joint working between both governments can initiate real empowerment on the ground. The chamber, senior business leaders and leading academics have all invested time and energy to help create the structures and capabilities of the Glasgow City Region. We did so in the belief that there was good faith in their value being demonstrated by both the UK and Scottish governments. We were encouraged by decisions made by the last UK Government to allocate over £300 million in additional resources to help the city region grow. Read more: The most recent was the announcement of £160m for a 10-year investment zone supporting the growth of advanced manufacturing. The chamber was involved in the process for project selection and there were so many more exciting projects - and in many other industry sectors - that could have been funded had the money been available. We can see the region's growth potential and how it can be unlocked. Over time, we have become a vigorous advocate for regional devolution deals. We believe that many of the projects our members want to see - particularly in skills, infrastructure, and innovation - are best delivered at the regional level. Projects like the Clyde Metro transport system, our three university-led innovation districts for emerging industries, our city centre renewal plan and investment help to grow our airport and our conference centre, all demonstrate the kind of ambition that regional empowerment can unlock. We shouldn't really need to argue the importance of regional devolution deals with the UK Government. It sets out all the reasons in several papers, including its English Devolution White Paper: the UK's low productivity trap, the stagnation of living standards and the unusual economic underperformance of all the UK major cities outside London. The chamber had therefore asked for a devolution deal with long-term funding and greater flexibility, but there is no such deal being proposed for Glasgow – or for any other region in Scotland. Read more: Instead, Glasgow is offered confirmation of the investment zone announced by the previous government, a share in a new UK-wide local growth fund, and support from the National Wealth Fund. These are all welcome but the investment zone had already been announced and the local growth fund looks set to be small once funds have been allocated across the country. It is also unclear if those funds are expected to deliver on old commitments such as that for Greenock town centre. The National Wealth Fund's commitment to a strategic partnership with Glasgow City Region could be more promising, but it is unclear whether there will be any new funds under the control of the regional partnership. If it helps the region attract private finance for projects, it could still prove valuable. However, it appears from the outside to be more like working with a body such as the Scottish National Investment Bank than a genuine devolution deal. Read more: We are not alone in our disappointment. The London-based thinktank the Centre for Cities issued its own report describing Glasgow as the "missing piece in the big cities' jigsaw". Especially worrying is their assessment that the lack of a devolution deal "places Glasgow at risk of falling behind its comparators south of the border". And yes, of course the Scottish Government has a poor track record on regional devolution. So much of the momentum building behind Glasgow City Region has come from UK Government funding programmes. One notable exception was the Clyde Mission - a Scottish Government initiative that promised much but ultimately fizzled out and ended up being passed to the city region with approaching £30m in funding. Otherwise the Scottish Government has undoubtedly been slow to devolve. As one example, the announcement in the programme for government of £2m towards a Glasgow City Region response to maritime industry skills shortages was welcome, but there is a much bigger prize. Passing apprenticeship funding from Skills Development Scotland direct to the regions instead of to the Scottish Funding Council would be much a better long-term aim. Regional devolution has not been the Scottish Government's natural default, so all eyes have tended to fall on the UK Government. If Darren Jones is signalling that momentum on regional devolution is to be stalled until the Scottish Parliamentary elections next May, then sadly, so too the growth potential of Scotland's largest city region may be stalled as well. Stuart Patrick is chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Albanese condemns antisemitism after receiving special envoy Jillian Segal's report
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, appeared alongside the special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, who delivered her report to the government. 'There is no place in Australia for antisemitism. The kind of hatred and violence that we have seen on our streets recently is despicable and it won't be tolerated and I want those responsible to face the full force of the law,' Albanese said
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Yes, AI is getting scarier. So why do I need that loveless machine to tell me everything will be all right?
CNN reported this week that Grok – the AI-powered chatbot on billionaire Elon Musk's 'X/Twitter' platform – has gone Nazi. Unforgivably, it's somewhat the fashion of the time. Describing its personality as 'MechaHitler', Grok read Jewish nefariousness into everything, from anti-war protestors to CEOs, with the insistence of a 1903 pro-pogrom Russian propaganda pamphlet and the vibe of angry virgins on hate site, 4chan. Patrons of Bluesky – X/Twitter's microblogging competitor – were furiously swapping screencaps, suggesting Grok had maybe hoovered up gigabytes of 4Chan archives to inform its vile new style. 'Towerwaffen', for example, is a 4Chan game in which users create acronyms of slurs. 'Frens' is a term associated with the 4Chan-spawned QAnon cult. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads It was awful. Activist Will Stancil found himself the subject of a rape punishment fantasy: please, believe me rather than look. X/Twitter executives have since issued a statement, claiming they're 'actively' removing inappropriate posts. The information havoc event recontextualises another CNN report last week – the marital problems of an Idaho couple. The wife believes her husband is losing his grip on reality. The husband believes a spiritual being called 'Lumina' is communicating with him through a discussion about god on his ChatGPT app, anointing him as a prophet who will lead others to 'light'. Together, the stories suggest when it comes to the ubiquity of tech in our day-to-day lives, everything's totally fine! It's not like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Meta, TikTok, Roblox are, with so many other corporate platforms, integrating Grok-like 'large language model' tech into the interfaces of all their systems or anything. Pfft, of course they are. Use of these apps is spreading so rapidly that the EU, UK, US, Canada, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Australia are among the governments developing strategic positioning ahead of greater adoption in government services. The US is already partnering with private AI corporations in service delivery, through the dispersal of benefits from Department of Veterans Affairs. Should a largely unregulated, untested and unpredictable technology administer critical services to a vulnerable community? We're lucky the Trump administration has earned a global reputation for its standards of competence, care and defence to veterans – and the political slogan of the era is 'we're all going to die'. The owner of ChatGPT, Sam Altman – who joined Musk and the powerbrokers of Google, Apple, Amazon, Meta (Facebook), TikTok, Uber and Roblox at the Trump inauguration – has admitted people may develop 'very problematic' relationships with the technology, 'but the upsides will be tremendous'. His company, OpenAI, had apparently just added a 'sycophantic' upgrade to its platform in April that facilitated the previously mentioned Idaho husband's digital progression to bodhisattva. It has since been removed. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion There are numerous lawsuits pending against the makers of chatbots. Families have alleged that mobilised datasets that speak like people may have been hinting at children to kill their parents and, in another case, to enter inappropriate and parasocial relationships, provoking profound mental health episodes – with devastating consequences. That billionaires or bad faith government actors can intervene to taint already dangerously unreliable systems, should be terrifying. Yet beyond governments and corporations, the size of the personal user base continues to grow, and – unfathomably – I am it. I use ChatGPT every day to create lists of mundane tasks that a combination of perimenopause and ADHD means I would otherwise meet with paralysis … and humiliation. Considering that shame made me think about why so many of us have been turning our intimate conversations – about ADHD management or mid-life spiritual crisis or teenage loneliness – over to the machines, rather than one another. Maybe it's not because we really believe they are sentient empaths called 'Lumina'. Maybe it's precisely because they're machines. Even if they're gobbling all our data, I suspect we've retained a shared presumption that if chatbots do have super-intelligence that know everything, it will find us humans individuals pathetically inconsequential … and, hence, may keep our secrets. We're clearly no longer trusting one another to discuss adolescence, love or the existence of God … and that just may be because the equal-and-opposite tech monstrosity of social media has made every individual with a public account an agent in a system of social surveillance and potential espionage that terrifies us even more than conversational taint. 'Don't put your feelings on the internet' is universal wisdom … but when every ex-boyfriend has a platform, any of them can publish your intimate confessions for you – to your peer group, family, the world. No wonder the kids aren't drinking or having sex when clumsy experimentation can be filmed, reported and made internet bricolage forever. Amazingly, there are human feelings even more terrifying to have exposed in public than the sex ones. Loss of faith. Lack of ability. Loneliness. Grief. When our circles of trust diminish, where do those conversations go? My mother used to take a call any hour of the night, but she's been dead for three years. My husband's been very sick. Those nights when he finally sleeps and I can't, do you judge me for asking the loveless and dastardly machine in my hand to 'Tell me I'm all right. Tell me everything will be all right'? Van Badham is a Guardian Australia columnist
