I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and it really clicked after using AI more often for information gathering.
Before AI, if I wanted to understand a major event—like MH17, Yemen, or any international conflict—I’d intentionally look at completely different sources. I’d read Western outlets, local regional coverage, maybe Al Jazeera, maybe something translated from Vietnamese or Eastern European media. I wasn’t looking for “the truth” in a single outlet, I was comparing what opposing sides agreed on to figure out what likely happened. Everything outside that overlap was bias, narrative, or framing.
So when AI got good enough to summarize and translate, I thought: great—now it can do that cross-referencing for us. Pull from multiple regions, summarize differences, point out where coverage conflicts, etc.
But here’s where I ran into the brick wall:
Right now, AI models only work with freely accessible content—either open-web or licensed. That sounds harmless at first… until you realize how that skews everything.
Because in practice:
-
The outlets that can afford to publish everything “for free” tend to be funded by governments, billionaires, NGOs, or major corporate media.
-
Smaller local outlets, independent journalists, minority-language publications, regional newspapers—these all depend on subscriptions or paywalls to exist.
-
And the model doesn’t “see” any of those unless someone pastes the text in manually.
That means the AI’s worldview isn’t neutral—it’s economically filtered. Not by truth or quality, but by who can afford to give their content away.
And the worst part?
Users don’t even know what’s missing. There’s no warning like: “By the way, everything I just said excludes paywalled or regional sources that might disagree.”
Search engines at least show you headlines you can’t open. AI just omits them entirely, and the user can’t tell.
Why this actually matters
This isn’t a complaint about features—it’s a structural bias problem. I’m saying this as someone who values multiple viewpoints, not as someone who wants ChatGPT to spit out copyrighted text.
Because here’s what happens under the current model:
-
If a billionaire-funded media group decides to make everything open-access, their narrative gets amplified for free.
-
If a local outlet in a conflict zone keeps their reporting behind a paywall so they can survive, their voice effectively doesn’t exist to the AI.
-
Governments and rich organizations can sponsor “public” narratives. Independent ones vanish by default.
-
When a user asks a question, the AI sounds confident even when it only had access to half the picture.
And a lot of people just accept the output as balanced or fact-checked, when it’s actually economically filtered. Not intentionally—but absolutely predictably.
The solution doesn’t have to break copyright
I’m not suggesting AI should reproduce copyrighted or paywalled content.
I’m saying it should at least be legally allowed to reason over it privately and still:
-
Acknowledge when alternative views exist
-
Summarize disagreements without quoting
-
Warn users when a perspective is missing
-
Offer links or outlet names so users can check themselves
Something like:
“This answer is based on freely available sources. However, regional or subscription-based outlets report conflicting accounts. I can’t quote them directly—want a summary or links?”
No copyright breach.
No verbatim text.
Just transparency and context.
Why this matters for neutrality and quality
If AI is going to be trusted as an information tool (or integrated into other systems by developers), it needs to:
-
Reflect that paywalls exist
-
Avoid privileging media wealth as “truth”
-
Keep local journalism visible, even indirectly
-
Admit when part of the picture is missing
-
Avoid becoming an echo chamber for whoever can afford to be free
This isn’t a technical limitation—it’s a policy/design limitation. The models are capable. They’re just blocked from using that capability in a way that still respects copyright.
What I’d love feedback on
I’m not asking for copyrighted text output. I’m asking:
-
Is there already discussion within OpenAI about allowing private reasoning over restricted sources?
-
Are there legal obstacles to transparency about unseen viewpoints?
-
Could there be a system flag, API option, or user setting for “acknowledge paywalled perspectives”?
-
Would summarization without quoting fall under fair use if the model has licensed access?
Because right now, we’re sleepwalking into a situation where AI unintentionally reinforces the narratives of whoever can afford to make their content public—and erases the rest.
I’d really like to hear thoughts from others who build with or think about LLMs. Is anyone working on this problem? Is it even on the radar?