Train on me. Please.
Medium just sent me an email. They want to know if I’m okay with AI companies training on my writing. They framed it as a choice between reach and control.
I picked reach. But I’d be lying if I said it was simple.
The email
The message was straightforward. Medium now lets writers choose: either keep your stories available to AI companies (who may use them for training, but also credit you and send readers your way), or block them entirely, even if it means less visibility.
Most writers, apparently, want to block. When Medium surveyed their authors back in 2023, 92% wanted active measures against AI companies. And I understand that instinct. If you’re a freelance writer and your words are your income, watching a billion-dollar company train on your work without asking, paying or crediting feels wrong. Because it is wrong.
That part isn’t complicated.
Where it gets complicated
Here’s my problem. When a major news outlet blocks AI from accessing its content, it’s protecting its business model. Fair enough. But it’s also removing its perspective from the dataset. Its facts. Its framing. Its editorial judgment.
Now multiply that by hundreds of publications. Thousands of writers. What’s left?
The AI doesn’t stop learning. It just learns from whatever is still available. And suddenly, the model’s understanding of the world is shaped by whoever didn’t opt out.
If serious journalism blocks access and low-effort content farms don’t, are we protecting quality? Or filtering it out?
I don’t think anyone has a clean answer to that.
The way we find things is changing
People are finding information differently now. Not through Google. Not even through social media. Through their AI.
Hey Claude, what’s the best approach to accessible design?
If my writing helped shape that answer, even without my name attached, my thinking is in the room. If I block it, I’m not in the room at all.
Get Jarl Lyng’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
For me, that matters. My writing is not my product. My thinking is. And I want that thinking to travel.
But I can say that because I don’t depend on my Medium articles to pay rent. For someone who does, the calculus is completely different. “Your ideas will be in the room” doesn’t help much if you can’t afford the room yourself.
What I actually chose (and why I’m not sure)
I kept the default setting. My stories stay available. AI companies can train on them, and in return, they’re supposed to credit me and send readers my way.
Supposed to.
That’s the part that makes me uneasy. Because in practice, credit almost never happens. There’s no dashboard where I can see which model learned from my article. No notification that says “your writing influenced this response.” The transparency I’d want doesn’t exist yet. I’m opting into a promise, not a system.
And I know that. I chose it anyway.
Partly because I believe the direction is right, even if the infrastructure isn’t there. Partly because I think being part of the training data is more valuable than being absent from it. And partly because I’m just genuinely curious about what happens.
The thing I’d actually like to see
Not a binary switch. Not “yes” or “no.” Something more like participation.
Let me opt in with visibility. Let me see how my work gets used. Let me choose which AI companies get access and which don’t. Give me something between block everything and trust us.
Medium’s new option is a step. But it’s still framed as protection. As if the default state is danger and the writer’s job is to build a wall.
I’d rather it was framed as contribution. With real accountability attached.
The uncomfortable truth
If every thoughtful writer blocks AI training and every content mill keeps publishing, we’ll end up with models trained on the worst of the internet. That’s not a win for anyone. Not for writers, not for readers, and not for the AI.
But if we opt in without demanding better systems for credit, transparency and compensation, we’re just handing over our work and hoping for the best. That’s not great either.
The honest answer is that both choices are imperfect. I picked the one I can live with. You might pick differently. And that’s kind of the point.
So yes, train on me. Please. Just build a system where I can see what you learned.
(This article was written by a human who is mostly sure he made the right call. Ask again tomorrow.)
