![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/GettyImages-2278568087-1024x683.jpg.optimal.jpg\" "\\"FRANCE-MEDIA\\"")
Chairman of The New York Times Company and Publisher of The New York Times A.G. Sulzberger gives a speech on AI, Journalism and the uncertain future of the public square on the opening day of the 77th World News Media Congress in Marseille, France on June 1, 2026. (Photo by MIGUEL MEDINA \/ AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n
The irony is inescapable. Months after the last nuclear arms control agreement between Russia and the US expired, tech industry leaders are citing Cold War nuclear verification as a model for regulating the safety of artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n
Marina Favaro, leader of the Anthropic Institute, and Jack Clark, a co-founder of Anthropic, have called on their industry to \u2018build a \u201cbrake pedal\u201d\u2019 because AI is approaching a frontier where humans may lose control as machines develop themselves. \u201cThe world has built verification regimes for other complex technologies,\u201d they wrote in a blog post<\/a>, citing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), from which the US withdrew in 2019, followed by expiry of the New START arms control pact in 2026.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve done this before. In the height of the Cold War, under highly tense situations between rivalrous countries, they found ways to stabilize aspects of the nuclear arms race,\u201d Clark told CNN.<\/p>\n But as AI satisfies its rapacious appetite for data by reaping the intellectual commons, its spokespeople seem to ignore an important element of the history of nuclear arms control: It was won not only by exhaustive bargaining, but through public action informed by trusted journalism.<\/p>\n Reporting on a subject area as complex and opaque as nuclear weapons\u2014from which the public is currently separated by a yawning gap\u2014demands dedicated, time-consuming journalism. AI threatens the news industry\u2019s ability to support that kind of reportage\u2014not just on nuclear weapons, but also on other existential risks, including artificial intelligence itself.<\/p>\n \u201cTech giants strip-mine news websites without permission or compensation. They repackage these stolen goods as their own, siphoning off the audiences and revenue that otherwise would go to the news organizations that created this work,\u201d New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger told the World Association of News Publisher<\/a>s in Marseilles, France in June. (The Times has sued<\/a> a number of AI corporations for violations of its intellectual property rights under US copyright law in the training of their products and ongoing use of its work)<\/p>\n Sulzberger\u2019s comments were delivered shortly after Google announced<\/a> \u201cthe biggest upgrade to our Search box in over 25 years\u2014now completely reimagined with AI,\u201d emphasising answers to questions that are provided directly through AI, rather than through links to news articles and other sources. Initial users say Google AI gives articles on news sites and research studies short shrift.<\/p>\n \u201cHow will AI change the news?\u201d Sulzberger asked his Marseilles audience. \u201cHow will those changes affect the information ecosystem that serves as the public square for engaged citizens worldwide? And what can the people in this room do to ensure the future of first-hand, fact-based reporting that\u2019s essential to the health of our democracies?<\/p>\n \u201cI fear we are careening toward a future with fewer and fewer journalists to do the expensive, difficult work of original reporting\u2014going to places, talking to people, digging up information, covering important issues and events, providing context and analysis, investigating the powerful. A future where a crucial wellspring of a healthy society and a stable democracy\u2014the truth, understanding and accountability provided by original journalism\u2014continues to dry up.\u201d<\/p>\n Governments have frequently regarded the truth as an inconvenience in asserting claims about nuclear weapons, capitalising on the ease with which the public can be deceived about an unfamiliar and powerful subject.<\/p>\n After the 1945 atomic bombing in Japan a handful of intrepid journalists defied US government claims to the contrary and offered first-hand reports\u2014based on so-called shoe leather reporting\u2014about the deadly effects of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.<\/p>\n In the run up to the 2003 Iraq war, journalists relied on official sources, and\u2014lacking the understanding with which to challenge false claims about Iraq\u2019s possession of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction\u2014failed their audiences in their reporting.<\/p>\n Since that era, disinformation and misinformation have become epidemic. There are fewer reporters, because the news industry has been diminished by loss of advertising revenue to social media and search engines and changing news consumer habits. At the same time, press freedom is under attack globally.<\/p>\n The tech giants building AI (six of the industry\u2019s major players have been valued at $11 trillion) are fueling a continued decline in original reporting, \u00a0Sulzberger said, \u201ca continued surge in misinformation, propaganda, conspiracy theories, deepfakes and computer-generated slop. A public that continues to be radicalized by algorithms that amplify fear, anger and division.\u201d<\/p>\n Although more people are turning to AI as a source for news, research by the BBC and the European Broadcast Union<\/a> said AI failed in terms of \u00a0reliability, \u201cfalling short on basic criteria like accuracy and providing adequate context, things which are essential editorial values for quality journalism and news content. Overall, 45% of all AI responses were found to have at least one \u2018significant\u2019 issue. When including \u2018some issues\u2019, 81% of responses (were).\u201d<\/p>\n The EBU wants publishers to have greater control over whether and how their material is used by AI. And where it is authorised for use, \u201cclearer attribution and citations in an agreed format with prominent links to original material,\u201d are needed, the EBU contends.<\/p>\n Or, as Sulzberger has suggested, \u201cThe clearest path to support quality reporting will be through direct relationships with audiences.\u201d<\/p>\n In the AI storm there may be some solace in the findings of a study by the Reuters Institute<\/a>. \u201cWhen the conversation turns specifically to journalism, public sentiment cools considerably\u201d writes Felix Simon<\/a>, one of the report\u2019s three authors. \u201cOur report identifies a clear and persistent \u2018comfort gap\u2019 between human- and AI-led news production. Across countries, only\u00a012%\u00a0of respondents are comfortable with news made entirely by AI, rising slightly to\u00a021%\u00a0if there is a \u2018human in the loop.\u2019 Comfort, however, jumps to\u00a043%\u00a0for news led by a human with some AI assistance and 62% for news produced entirely by a human journalist.<\/p>\n \u201cAmericans are not outliers here. Their comfort levels mirror these global averages, showing a deep-seated preference for human oversight and authorship,\u201d the report says. That preference alone will not preserve quality journalism in the AI age. Laws aimed at regulating the developers of AI models and compensating news organizations for use of their content will be required, in countries around the world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Chairman of The New York Times Company and Publisher of The New York Times A.G. Sulzberger gives a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":117623,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[59715,24,25,1133,59716],"class_list":["post-117622","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-ai","tag-a-g-sulzberger","tag-ai","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-journalism","tag-tech-giants-strip-mine-news-websites"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117622","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117622"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117622\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/117623"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}