UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"UK Government Declines to Mandate Disclosure of AI Training Practices"

UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI analysis cover image

The Guardian 7.2

Image Source: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/37527b0eaaa4f80da6b788c94b9766a5fdc10a41/473_0_5000_4000/master/5000.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctZGVmYXVsdC5wbmc&enable=upscale&s=5b4ce822d5a8d4a5151ff28caaa12224

Original Article Source: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jun/06/uk-government-signals-it-will-not-force-tech-firms-to-disclose-how-they-train-ai

View Raw Article Source (External Link)

Raw Article Publish Date: 06 June 2025

AI Analysis Average Score: 7.2

These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The UK government has faced significant backlash from campaigners and the creative industries after indicating it will not mandate transparency from artificial intelligence (AI) companies regarding the training of their models. This decision comes amid a standoff with the House of Lords, which recently voted to amend the data bill, insisting that artists receive immediate copyright protection against AI firms. The Lords' amendment, which passed by a vote of 221 to 116, sought to ensure that AI companies disclose the copyrighted material they utilize in developing their models. However, the government dismissed this request, pledging instead to publish an economic impact assessment and technical reports about the future of AI and copyright regulation, which critics argue is insufficient and evasive. Beeban Kidron, a prominent campaigner and cross-bench peer, expressed her frustration with the government's actions, suggesting they have undermined the creative industries and misled Parliament about their intentions regarding copyright protections.

Industry leaders have echoed these sentiments, with Owen Meredith, chief executive of the News Media Association (NMA), asserting that the government's refusal to heed the Lords' strong recommendations risks damaging the legislative process. The government’s approach has angered notable figures in the creative sector, including artists like Paul McCartney and Elton John, who have termed the issue as existential for their industries. As the data bill returns to the Lords for further consideration, there remains the possibility for new amendments to be proposed, aiming to enhance transparency and restore trust within the £126 billion creative sector. The ongoing consultation on copyright changes, which will conclude by the end of the year, presents several options, including allowing AI firms to use copyrighted works without permission or requiring them to obtain licenses. Kidron's proposed amendments are designed to ensure that AI companies must seek licensing deals for any content utilized in training, a measure that would provide greater protections for artists and creatives in an evolving digital landscape.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article reveals a significant tension between the UK government and the creative industries regarding the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The government's recent decision not to require tech firms to disclose their training processes for AI raises critical questions about transparency, copyright, and the protection of creative content.

Government's Stance on AI Regulation

The UK government's refusal to force AI companies to reveal how they train their models has led to accusations of dishonesty from campaigners. This decision comes amidst calls from the House of Lords to grant immediate copyright protection to artists against AI firms. The Lords voted in favor of an amendment to the data bill that would mandate transparency about the copyrighted material used in AI training, indicating a clear divide between government policy and the desires of the creative sector.

Industry Reaction and Trust Issues

Beeban Kidron, a notable figure advocating for creative industries, expressed her frustration over the government's actions, stating that they have failed to protect UK copyright holders. This sentiment is echoed by industry representatives like Owen Meredith from the News Media Association, who criticized the government's disregard for industry concerns. Such reactions suggest a deepening crisis of trust between the creative sector and the government, which could have long-term implications for collaboration and support.

Potential Hidden Agendas

The government's decision to dismiss the Lords' amendment while promising future assessments may indicate an intention to prioritize economic growth over the protection of intellectual property rights. This approach could be seen as an attempt to foster a more business-friendly environment at the expense of established creative rights. The lack of immediate action on copyright protections could be perceived as an effort to appease powerful tech firms, raising questions about the government's commitment to safeguarding the interests of creators.

Impact on Society and Economy

The refusal to regulate AI training transparency could have far-reaching consequences for the creative industry, potentially undermining the revenues and rights of artists and creators. This situation may lead to a chilling effect on innovation within the sector, as creators might hesitate to produce new works without adequate protection against AI appropriation. Moreover, the growing discord might provoke public protests or calls for more stringent regulations, impacting the political landscape.

Broader Implications for Global Markets

In terms of market impact, this news could influence investor sentiment regarding tech firms and creative industries. Companies that rely on creative content may face scrutiny and backlash, affecting their stock prices. The ongoing debate about AI regulation also ties into broader global discussions on technology governance, which may influence international relations and competitiveness in the tech sector.

Community Support and Target Audience

The article likely resonates more with communities in the creative sector, including artists, writers, and publishers, who are concerned about the implications of AI on their work. By highlighting the government's stance, the article aims to galvanize support from these groups, encouraging them to advocate for stronger protections against AI exploitation.

Manipulation and Trustworthiness

While the article presents factual information about the government's actions and the reactions from the creative community, it does carry an undertone of alarmism regarding the potential consequences of these decisions. The language used evokes a sense of betrayal and urgency, possibly manipulating readers' emotions to foster a sense of solidarity against perceived governmental negligence. However, the core facts appear to be grounded in political reality, suggesting that while there may be elements of manipulation, the overall reliability of the information is intact.

In conclusion, the article effectively highlights the conflict between government policy and the interests of the creative industries, raising important questions about transparency and copyright protection in the age of AI. The implications for trust, market dynamics, and societal impact are significant, indicating that further developments in this area will be closely watched.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Source URL: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jun/06/uk-government-signals-it-will-not-force-tech-firms-to-disclose-how-they-train-ai

Campaigners have accused ministers of lying to parliament and the creative industries after the government signalled it would not force AI companies to disclose how they train their models.

Ministers are holding firm in a standoff with theHouse of Lords, which has called for artists to be offered immediate copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies.

Peers votedby 221 to 116 on Wednesdayto insist on an amendment to the data bill that would force AI firms to be transparent about what copyrighted material they use to train their models.

In an amendment tabled on Friday, the government dismissed the Lords’ request and reiterated its promise to publish an economic impact assessment and technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation.

Beeban Kidron, the cross-bench peer and film director who has campaigned on behalf of the industry, said during Wednesday’s debate that she would “accept anything that the Commons does” after this week. “I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case,” she said.

But the News Media Association (NMA), which represents publishers including the Guardian, said peers could table further amendments to the data bill when it returns to the Lords next Wednesday.

Industry figures said the government was acting in bad faith by not addressing the Lords’ concerns and called for it to make further amendments of its own before MPs vote on it on Tuesday.

Kidron said: “The government has repeatedly taken all protections for UK copyrights holders out of the data bill. In doing so they have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK’s second biggest industrial sector. They have lied to parliament, and they are lying to the sector.”

She said the government’s action “adds another sector to the growing number that have an unbridgeable gap of trust with the government”.

Owen Meredith, chief executive of the NMA, said: “the government’s refusal to listen to the strong view of the Lords … risks undermining the legislative process.

“There is still time for the government to do the right thing, and take transparency powers in this bill. This would be a key step towards rebuilding trust with a £126bn industry.”

Get the day’s headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning

after newsletter promotion

The government’s approach to copyright has drawn the ire of major creative artists and organisations including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush and the National Theatre, with Elton John describing the situation as an “existential issue” this week.

Opponents of the plans have warned that even if the attempts to insert clauses into the data bill fail, the government could be challenged in the courts over the proposed changes.

The consultation on copyright changes, which is due to produce its findings before the end of the year, contains four options: to let AI companies use copyrighted work without permission, alongside an option for artists to “opt out” of the process; to leave the situation unchanged; to require AI companies to seek licences for using copyrighted work; and to allow AI firms to use copyrighted work with no opt-out for creative companies and individuals.

Kyle has said the copyright-waiver-plus-opt-out scenario is no longer the government’s preferred option, but Kidron’s amendments have attempted to head off that option by effectively requiring tech companies to seek licensing deals for any content that they use to train their AI models.

Back to Home

Source: The Guardian