Synthetic training data has recently emerged as the quick fix to two different problems: the lack of high-quality training data, and the need to avoid using personal data in training to stay within the boundaries of privacy legislation. Gartner predicts that by 2026 75% of all enterprises will use generative AI to create synthetic training data, a huge increase from less than 5% in 2023.1 Moreover, Gartner predicts that by 2035, solutions that use synthetic data for training will grab three quarters of all end-user spending on enterprise AI software.2 Training data that only a few years ago was the subject of several research papers is now carrying the weight of huge enterprise systems.
Emerging Tech: Navigating the Risks and Opportunities of Synthetic Data for AI Solutions
Gartner Research on Emerging Tech: Navigating the Risks and Opportunities of Synthetic Data for AI Solutions
Firms like Meta and A16z admit having to pay billions for training data would ruin their generative-AI plans as they fight new copyright rules
Meta, Google, Microsoft, and Andreessen Horowitz are trying to keep AI developers from having to pay for copyrighted material used in AI training.
Synthetic Data Statistics 2026: Market Size, Adoption Rates & Industry Trends - Axis Intelligence
Synthetic data market hits ~$750M in 2026. We tracked CAGR, adoption rates, regional share, and industry breakdowns across 10+ primary sources. Synthetic Data Statistics 2026 Update.
Japan relaxes privacy laws to make AI development easy
: Opting out of personal data use won't be an option because Minister says that's a 'very big obstacle' to AI adoption
Where does the rigor go? Research software and the future of trustworthy science.
Generative AI now makes it dramatically easier to produce something that looks like research: analysis code, figures, literature reviews, even whole pap…
AI and Doctrinal Collapse
Artificial intelligence runs on data. But the two legal regimes that govern data—information privacy law and copyright law—are under pressure. Formally, each re
Permissive-Washing in the Open AI Supply Chain: A Large-Scale Audit of License Integrity
Permissive licenses like MIT, Apache-2.0, and BSD-3-Clause dominate open-source AI, signaling that artifacts like models, datasets, and code can be freely used, modified, and redistributed. However, these licenses carry mandatory requirements: include the full license text, provide a copyright notice, and preserve upstream attribution, that remain unverified at scale. Failure to meet these conditions can place reuse outside the scope of the license, effectively leaving AI artifacts under default copyright for those uses and exposing downstream users to litigation. We call this phenomenon ``permissive washing'': labeling AI artifacts as free to use, while omitting the legal documentation required to make that label actionable. To assess how widespread permissive washing is in the AI supply chain, we empirically audit 124,278 dataset $\rightarrow$ model $\rightarrow$ application supply chains, spanning 3,338 datasets, 6,664 models, and 28,516 applications across Hugging Face and GitHub. We find that an astonishing 96.5\% of datasets and 95.8\% of models lack the required license text, only 2.3\% of datasets and 3.2\% of models satisfy both license text and copyright requirements, and even when upstream artifacts provide complete licensing evidence, attribution rarely propagates downstream: only 27.59\% of models preserve compliant dataset notices and only 5.75\% of applications preserve compliant model notices (with just 6.38\% preserving any linked upstream notice). Practitioners cannot assume permissive labels confer the rights they claim: license files and notices, not metadata, are the source of legal truth. To support future research, we release our full audit dataset and reproducible pipeline.
A large-scale audit of dataset licensing and attribution in AI
The race to train language models on vast, diverse and inconsistently documented datasets raises pressing legal and ethical concerns. To improve data transparency and understanding, we convene a multi-disciplinary effort between legal and machine learning experts to systematically audit and trace more than 1,800 text datasets. We develop tools and standards to trace the lineage of these datasets, including their source, creators, licences and subsequent use. Our landscape analysis highlights sharp divides in the composition and focus of data licenced for commercial use. Important categories including low-resource languages, creative tasks and new synthetic data all tend to be restrictively licenced. We observe frequent miscategorization of licences on popular dataset hosting sites, with licence omission rates of more than 70% and error rates of more than 50%. This highlights a crisis in misattribution and informed use of popular datasets driving many recent breakthroughs. Our analysis of data sources also explains the application of copyright law and fair use to finetuning data. As a contribution to continuing improvements in dataset transparency and responsible use, we release our audit, with an interactive user interface, the Data Provenance Explorer, to enable practitioners to trace and filter on data provenance for the most popular finetuning data collections: www.dataprovenance.org.
GDPR for AI Systems: 2026 Compliance Guide (with EU AI Act Updates)
How to make AI systems GDPR-compliant in 2026 — the practitioner roadmap covering EU AI Act overlap, EDPB Opinion 28/2024, DPIAs, data minimization, sub-processor cascades, and the technical controls lawyers don't explain.
The Doom Loop of Synthetic Data
Apparently AI systems will continue to improve forever — but is that even possible?
Promoting User Data Autonomy During the Dissolution of a Monopolistic Firm
The deployment of AI in consumer products is currently focused on the use of so-called foundation models, large neural networks pre-trained on massive corpora of digital records. This emphasis on scaling up datasets and pre-training computation raises the risk of further consolidating the industry, and enabling monopolistic (or oligopolistic) behavior. Judges and regulators seeking to improve market competition may employ various remedies. This paper explores dissolution -- the breaking up of a monopolistic entity into smaller firms -- as one such remedy, focusing in particular on the technical challenges and opportunities involved in the breaking up of large models and datasets. We show how the framework of Conscious Data Contribution can enable user autonomy during under dissolution. Through a simulation study, we explore how fine-tuning and the phenomenon of "catastrophic forgetting" could actually prove beneficial as a type of machine unlearning that allows users to specify which data they want used for what purposes.
Government to ease data consent rules for AI development | The Asahi Shimbun Asia & Japan Watch
To accelerate artificial intelligence development, the government plans to relax consent requirements for access to personal information while introducing tougher penalties for intentional misuse.
AI Companies Are Trying to Hide a Staggering Amount of Debt
AI companies are pouring tens of billions of dollars into enormous data centers. They're being built on top of a mountain of hidden debt.
User Privacy and Large Language Models: An Analysis of Frontier Developers' Privacy Policies
Hundreds of millions of people now regularly interact with large language models via chatbots. Model developers are eager to acquire new sources of high-quality training data as they race to improve model capabilities and win market share. This paper analyzes the privacy policies of six U.S. frontier AI developers to understand how they use their users' chats to train models. Drawing primarily on the California Consumer Privacy Act, we develop a novel qualitative coding schema that we apply to each developer's relevant privacy policies to compare data collection and use practices across the six companies. We find that all six developers appear to employ their users' chat data to train and improve their models by default, and that some retain this data indefinitely. Developers may collect and train on personal information disclosed in chats, including sensitive information such as biometric and health data, as well as files uploaded by users. Four of the six companies we examined appear to include children's chat data for model training, as well as customer data from other products. On the whole, developers' privacy policies often lack essential information about their practices, highlighting the need for greater transparency and accountability. We address the implications of users' lack of consent for the use of their chat data for model training, data security issues arising from indefinite chat data retention, and training on children's chat data. We conclude by providing recommendations to policymakers and developers to address the data privacy challenges posed by LLM-powered chatbots.
User Privacy and Large Language Models: An Analysis of Frontier Developers' Privacy Policies
Hundreds of millions of people now regularly interact with large language models via chatbots. Model developers are eager to acquire new sources of high-quality training data as they race to improve model capabilities and win market share. This paper analyzes the privacy policies of six U.S. frontier AI developers to understand how they use their users' chats to train models. Drawing primarily on the California Consumer Privacy Act, we develop a novel qualitative coding schema that we apply to each developer's relevant privacy policies to compare data collection and use practices across the six companies. We find that all six developers appear to employ their users' chat data to train and improve their models by default, and that some retain this data indefinitely. Developers may collect and train on personal information disclosed in chats, including sensitive information such as biometric and health data, as well as files uploaded by users. Four of the six companies we examined appear to include children's chat data for model training, as well as customer data from other products. On the whole, developers' privacy policies often lack essential information about their practices, highlighting the need for greater transparency and accountability. We address the implications of users' lack of consent for the use of their chat data for model training, data security issues arising from indefinite chat data retention, and training on children's chat data. We conclude by providing recommendations to policymakers and developers to address the data privacy challenges posed by LLM-powered chatbots.
‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says
Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products
