AI training data is the set of examples a machine learning model learns from: text, code, conversations, images, audio, video and records of tasks done well. Large language models are first pretrained on trillions of words of public web text, then fine-tuned on smaller sets of written instruction examples (SFT data) and human rankings of their answers (RLHF data), and checked against separate evaluation sets. Epoch AI estimates the stock of quality public text at about 300 trillion tokens and projects that it will be fully used between 2026 and 2032 if trends continue, so developers also pay for expert work and for real company records such as support tickets, work orders, chat archives and code. AI companies pay $20K to $5M for a company's records, depending on its size and history.
- Training data is any example a model learns from. The hardest kind to replace shows a real task, the steps taken and a checked outcome.
- Public web text is finite and increasingly restricted, so AI developers now license expert work and company records.
- Synthetic data adds to real data but does not replace it: models trained on generated data with the real data dropped get worse.
What is training data in AI?
AI developers now pay for real companies' records, such as support tickets, work orders, email and chat archives and code (public deals), as they hit the limits of public and synthetic data. If your company keeps records like these, a free valuation takes six questions about the business and no files.
Training data is the set of examples a machine learning model learns from. The EU AI Act defines it as data used for training an AI system through fitting its learnable parameters: the model adjusts its internal settings until its outputs match the examples. A chatbot learns from text, a speech model from audio paired with transcripts, and a robot from recordings of tasks being done.
Developers keep two other sets apart. Validation data is used to tune the training process, and testing data gives an independent check that the finished system performs as expected before it is released. A model that has already seen its test questions can score well without having learned the skill, so evaluation data must stay separate from training data.
Language models are trained in stages, and each stage uses a different kind of data:
- Pretraining: trillions of words of mostly public text and code, so the model learns language and facts. The most powerful language models are primarily trained on trillions of words of human-generated text from the internet, Epoch AI notes. Models count text in tokens; one token is about 0.8 English words on average.
- Supervised fine-tuning (SFT): prompts paired with good written responses, so the model learns to follow instructions.
- Preference training (RLHF, reinforcement learning from human feedback): people rank model answers, and the model is trained toward the ones they prefer.
- Reinforcement learning in environments: the model attempts tasks in a simulated workplace and an automatic grader scores each attempt. See what RL environments are.
- Evaluation: held-out tests with known answers that measure whether training worked.
Source: EU AI Act, Article 3: definitions of training, validation and testing data
Types of AI training data and what each one trains
Each type teaches a model something different. The public datasets in the last column show what each type looks like at scale. Company records can supply many of them.
For company footage, see selling company video for physical AI. For test sets, see licensing data for AI evaluation.
| Type | What it is | What it trains | Public example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretraining text | Large volumes of web pages, books and articles | General language, facts and reasoning | FineWeb: 15 trillion tokens drawn from 96 Common Crawl snapshots |
| Code | Source code, ideally with its commit history and issues | Writing, explaining and fixing software | The Stack: 3.1 TB of permissively licensed source code in 30 programming languages |
| Instruction or SFT data | Prompts paired with a good written response | Following instructions and answering in a useful format | A 2023 study fine-tuned a model on only 1,000 carefully curated prompts and responses |
| Preference or RLHF data | Human rankings or comparisons of model answers | Choosing helpful, accurate answers over poor ones | In a 2022 paper, labelers ranked model outputs; people then preferred a model trained this way to one with 100x more parameters |
| Expert or "human" data | Questions, answers, reviews and corrections written by people with domain expertise | Specialist work in fields such as law, medicine, finance and science | GPQA: 448 multiple-choice questions written by domain experts in biology, physics and chemistry |
| Conversation and support logs | Chats, emails, tickets and call transcripts, ideally with the outcome | Handling real requests and following company policy | The Action-Based Conversations Dataset: over 10,000 labeled customer service dialogues covering 55 intents |
| Agent trajectories and RL environments | Recorded step-by-step actions that complete a task, or a simulated workplace with a grader | Multi-step work in software: browsing, filing, updating records | Mind2Web: over 2,000 tasks on 137 websites with crowdsourced action sequences |
| Speech and audio | Recordings paired with transcripts or labels | Transcription, voice assistants and call analysis | A 2022 speech recognition study trained on 680,000 hours of audio with transcripts |
| Video and robotics data | Camera footage, sensor logs and robot demonstrations | Seeing, predicting and acting in the physical world | Ego4D: 3,670 hours of first-person video; Open X-Embodiment: data from 22 robots across 21 institutions |
| Evaluation sets | Held-out tasks with known correct answers | Nothing directly: they measure whether training worked | SWE-bench: 2,294 problems drawn from real issues and pull requests in 12 popular Python projects |
Where does AI get its training data?
Five sources supply nearly all of it. Developers rarely publish exactly what they used: for leading open models, very little is known about how their pretraining datasets were created, the FineWeb researchers note.
Demand for closed companies' data emerged suddenly in 2025, as AI training labs hit the limits of public and synthetic datasets, MIT Technology Review reported in October 2026.
| Source | How it works | Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Public web crawls | Crawlers copy public pages into archives. Common Crawl, a non-profit, holds over 300 billion pages, adds 3 to 5 billion a month and is free to anyone | Sites increasingly block AI use: in one year, 28%+ of the most critical sources in the C4 dataset became fully restricted (Consent in Crisis) |
| Licensed deals | Developers pay publishers, platforms and companies for the right to use their content or records | Most are private; the deals tracker lists the public ones |
| Human annotation and expert work | People write example answers, rank model outputs, label images and transcribe audio; experts write hard questions and check answers | Hard questions need real experts: on GPQA, people with or pursuing PhDs in the field scored 65% and skilled non-experts with web access 34% |
| Synthetic data | Models or simulators generate new examples, often checked automatically | Shown to reliably improve capabilities only in relatively narrow domains such as math and coding, Epoch AI wrote in 2024 |
| Company records | Businesses license de-identified copies of tickets, work orders, chat and email archives, code and recordings | Each company holds only its own records, and rights and personal information must be checked first |
Source: Common Crawl: a free, open repository of web crawl data
Synthetic data vs real data: why buyers still pay for real records
Synthetic data is generated rather than collected: a model writes example conversations, or a simulator produces images and sensor readings. It works best where an answer can be checked automatically. In 2024 Epoch AI found it had only been shown to reliably improve capabilities in relatively narrow domains like math and coding.
It does not replace real data. A 2024 Nature study found that indiscriminate training on model-generated content causes irreversible defects, as the rarer patterns in the original data disappear. The authors call this model collapse and expect data about genuine human interactions to become increasingly valuable. A follow-up study found that collapse follows when synthetic data replaces the real data, and is avoided when synthetic data is added alongside it. Either way, the real data has to stay in the mix.
For workplace AI, real records add what generated data tends to miss. Real archives avoid common errors in synthetic worlds, such as references to dates that don't exist, MIT Technology Review reported, and one buyer it interviewed seeks archives that show disagreements and tricky judgment calls. The same report is candid that the size of the gain is unclear: no company has yet released tests comparing training on real data with the alternatives.
If a buyer wants to generate synthetic data from your records, treat that as a separate right in the license. See what a data licensing agreement should include.
Source: Shumailov et al.: AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data (Nature, July 2024)
Why real company records are in demand
The public web is finite. Epoch AI estimates the stock of quality, human-generated public text at about 300 trillion tokens, and projects that if trends continue, language models will fully use it between 2026 and 2032, or earlier if models are intensely overtrained.
It is also closing. The Consent in Crisis audit of 14,000 web domains found that in a single year, 2023 to 2024, new restrictions made 5%+ of all tokens in the C4 dataset, and 28%+ of its most actively maintained, critical sources, fully restricted from use. Counting terms-of-service restrictions, 45% of C4 was restricted.
Private data is the obvious next source, but it is hard to use at scale: Epoch AI points to legal issues and to data being fragmented across platforms controlled by owners with competing interests. Licensed company records fill that gap. A company that owns its records, can show it may license them and removes personal information offers what scraping cannot. Buyers pay for data they cannot scrape, and pay more when rights are clear and documented, according to Origin's deals tracker.
The work AI is now asked to do points the same way. After math and coding, enterprise workflows such as filing an expense report, building a pivot table or updating customer records in a CRM are a major growth area for RL environments, Epoch AI found from 18 interviews. Tickets, work orders and CRM histories are records of exactly that work.
Spending may follow. Top AI labs have so far spent far more on computing power than on data, Epoch AI notes, and it expects that to reverse if data becomes the bottleneck.
Source: Epoch AI: Will we run out of data? Limits of LLM scaling based on human-generated data (June 2024)
What does licensed AI training data sell for?
There is no public price list. Most sales of company records are private, and buyers quote wildly different numbers because each values records by its own estimate of how many useful training tasks they will yield. The public deals below show the range; every figure is as reported in Origin's tracker.
- For an operating company, AI companies pay from $20K for a small company to $5M for a large one with a long history. Through Origin, nothing is sold outright: the company keeps its records and licenses a copy for a defined use.
- Buyer programs publish their own ranges. In Origin's study of buyer programs, the typical published range for a company was about $50K at the low end and $843K at the top. These are ceilings set by each program, not offers.
- Market researchers put the whole AI training dataset market at $3.2 billion in 2025, growing to $16.3 billion by 2033 (Grand View Research).
- For what moves the price of your records, see how much AI companies pay for company data.
| Data | Reported value | Type of deal |
|---|---|---|
| A bankrupt airline's internal emails and chats: about 100 million emails and 500 million Teams chats (Aug 2026) | $10M winning bid | Sale of company records in bankruptcy |
| Closed startups' internal Slack chats and email threads, used to build simulated workplaces for AI agents | Some deals reportedly reached six figures | Records sold as the company wound down |
| An aerial survey firm's existing 3D and LiDAR spatial datasets | A$1.07M combined | License of existing company data |
| 3,000 hours of real-world driving video | Six figures | Video license |
| An academic publisher's academic and professional books | $23M one-time deal | One-time license |
| A social platform's posts and comments | About $60M a year | Recurring license |
| A news publisher's archive and current reporting | More than $250M over five years | Multi-year license |
Source: Origin Data Partners: AI data licensing deals tracker, 2023 to 2026
What makes training data usable?
Volume alone does not make data usable. Buyers check these before they pay.
| Check | What it means | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Rights | Your company owns the records, and its contracts allow licensing them for AI training | Under the EU AI Act, providers of general-purpose AI models must have a copyright policy and publish a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training, so buyers need to know where every dataset came from |
| Consent and privacy promises | What staff and customers were told when the data was collected | For high-risk AI, the EU AI Act's data governance rules cover the origin of data and, for personal data, the original purpose of collection. See is it legal to sell company data for AI training |
| De-identification | Names, contact details and other personal information removed or replaced consistently | Suppliers of company archives scrub personally identifiable information and exclude HR records (MIT Technology Review). See how to de-identify company data |
| Deduplication | Repeated and near-identical records removed | In the C4 dataset, a single 61-word sentence was repeated over 60,000 times. Deduplicated data cut memorised text tenfold and needed fewer training steps (Lee et al.); near-deduplication boosted code models across all experiments (The Stack) |
| Labels and outcomes | Each record shows what happened: the ticket resolved, the job closed, the draft approved | Annotation and labelling are part of the data preparation the EU AI Act expects for high-risk AI. Outcomes turn records into examples with a known right answer |
| Separate evaluation data | A held-out set the buyer never trains on | Overlap between training and test data affected over 4% of the validation sets of standard datasets, the same deduplication study found, which makes evaluation less accurate |
Source: EU AI Act, Article 10: data and data governance for high-risk AI systems
Does your company have AI training data?
Many established companies do without calling it that. If your business has kept any of the records below for several years, they map onto one of the training data types above.
- Before you delete old systems or let a software subscription lapse, export and list what they hold. Cancelling a help desk, chat workspace or code host deletes the training data with it. Checking takes minutes: a free valuation asks six questions about the business and needs no files.
- Describe the records at company level first: the system, the years covered and the approximate volume. The data inventory template gives the columns, and what company data you can sell to AI compares each record type.
- If the company is closing or has closed, its records can still be licensed. See selling company data after closing.
| Business type | Records that can be training data | Type of training data | Read next |
|---|---|---|---|
| Software and SaaS | Support tickets with resolutions, code with commits and issues, product documentation | Code, conversation logs, evaluation sets, RL environments | Selling source code |
| IT services and MSPs | Service tickets, runbooks, incident reviews and scripts | Agent trajectories, RL environments | IT services and MSPs |
| Field service and trades | Work orders, technician notes, job photos and video | Expert data, video and robotics data | Field service records |
| Call centers and support teams | Call recordings, transcripts, chat logs and QA scores | Speech and audio, conversation logs, preference data | Call recordings |
| Accounting and finance | Reconciliations, reviewer corrections and workpapers | Expert data, evaluation sets | Accounting firms; check Section 7216 first |
| Law firms | Drafts with reviewer edits, research memos and templates | Expert data, preference data | Law firm ethics rules |
| Manufacturers and engineering firms | CAD files, inspection records, machine logs and quality reports | Expert data, video and robotics data | CAD and engineering data |
| Logistics and distribution | Dispatch logs, exception handling and delivery records | Agent trajectories, evaluation sets | Logistics companies |
| Healthcare providers | Clinical notes, imaging and scheduling records | Expert data, evaluation sets | Patient records |
| Any company | Slack, Teams and email archives | Conversation logs, RL environments | Slack and email archives |
For AI teams: sourcing licensed company data
If you build models or agents and need real workflow records for training or evaluation, start from the task: the workflow, the information available at the start, the expected action or answer and the way an expert would judge it. Origin can assess whether an introduction to a company with matching records is possible; the company owner must authorize any introduction, and both parties agree permitted use and commercial terms directly. Describe your requirements.
Next step
List the systems your company has used for several years and the records in each: tickets, work orders, chats, code, recordings. Match each one to a type in the table above. No export is needed to find out whether they are worth licensing.
Origin Data Partners is an independent data partner that helps companies get their data bought. It is free to the company that owns the data; a buyer may pay Origin when a deal closes. See what your data is worth.
Common questions
What is training data in AI?
The examples a machine learning model learns from. The EU AI Act defines training data as data used to train an AI system by fitting its learnable parameters. For a language model that means text, code and conversations; for a speech model, audio with transcripts; for a robot, recordings of tasks. Separate validation and testing data check the result.
Where does AI get its data?
From five main sources: public web crawls such as Common Crawl, which holds over 300 billion pages; licensed deals with publishers, platforms and companies; people paid to write, rank and label examples; synthetic data generated by models; and company records such as support tickets, work orders, chat archives and code, licensed with personal information removed.
What is the difference between synthetic data and real data?
Real data is collected from the world: text people wrote, calls they made, work they did. Synthetic data is generated by a model or a simulator. It helps most where answers can be checked, such as math and code. A study in Nature found that training indiscriminately on model-generated content degrades models, and a follow-up found that keeping the real data alongside synthetic data avoids this, so real data remains the base.
What is SFT data, and how is it different from RLHF data?
SFT (supervised fine-tuning) data is prompts paired with good written responses, used to teach a pretrained model to follow instructions; one study fine-tuned a model on only 1,000 carefully curated examples. RLHF (reinforcement learning from human feedback) data is human rankings of model answers, used to train the model toward the answers people prefer.
What is human data or expert data in AI?
Data written or judged by people for training, rather than scraped: example answers, rankings, labels and corrections. Expert data is the specialist version, written by people such as lawyers, doctors, engineers or accountants. It matters for hard tasks: on one benchmark of expert-written science questions, people with or pursuing PhDs scored 65% and skilled non-experts with web access 34%. Records experts make at work, such as reviewed drafts or resolved tickets, are a form of it.
What are some well-known public AI datasets?
For text, Common Crawl and datasets built from it, such as C4 and FineWeb (15 trillion tokens); for code, The Stack (3.1 TB); for video, Ego4D (3,670 hours of first-person video); for robotics, Open X-Embodiment (22 robots); for evaluation, SWE-bench (2,294 software problems). Developers license private data to cover what public datasets lack.
How big is the AI training data market?
Grand View Research values the AI training dataset market at $3.2 billion in 2025 and projects $16.3 billion by 2033, a compound annual growth rate of 22.6% from 2026 to 2033. Image and video data held the largest share, 41.9%, in 2025. For a single company's records, AI companies pay $20K to $5M, depending on the company's size and history.
Can my company sell its data for AI training?
Often, yes, if it owns the records, its contracts and privacy promises allow it, and personal information is removed first. Deals are usually licenses: the company keeps its data and grants a buyer defined rights to a copy. A free valuation from Origin takes six questions about the business and no files.
Sources and further reading
Origin Data Partners is independent and not affiliated with any buyer named on this page.
- Epoch AI: Will we run out of data? Limits of LLM scaling based on human-generated data (June 2024)
- Epoch AI: An FAQ on reinforcement learning environments (Jan 2026)
- Common Crawl: a free, open repository of web crawl data
- Penedo et al.: The FineWeb datasets, decanting the web for the finest text data at scale (arXiv, June 2024)
- Longpre et al.: Consent in Crisis, the rapid decline of the AI data commons (arXiv, July 2024)
- Shumailov et al.: AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data (Nature, July 2024)
- Gerstgrasser et al.: Is model collapse inevitable? Accumulating real and synthetic data (arXiv, April 2024)
- Ouyang et al.: Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (arXiv, March 2022)
- Zhou et al.: LIMA, less is more for alignment (arXiv, May 2023)
- Lee et al.: Deduplicating training data makes language models better (arXiv, July 2021)
- Kocetkov et al.: The Stack, 3 TB of permissively licensed source code (arXiv, Nov 2022)
- Chen et al.: Action-Based Conversations Dataset for customer service dialogue (arXiv, April 2021)
- Deng et al.: Mind2Web, towards a generalist agent for the web (arXiv, June 2023)
- Radford et al.: Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision (arXiv, Dec 2022)
- Grauman et al.: Ego4D, around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video (arXiv, Oct 2021)
- Open X-Embodiment Collaboration: robotic learning datasets and RT-X models (arXiv, Oct 2023)
- Jimenez et al.: SWE-bench, can language models resolve real-world GitHub issues? (arXiv, Oct 2023)
- Rein et al.: GPQA, a graduate-level Q&A benchmark written by domain experts (arXiv, Nov 2023)
- EU AI Act, Article 3: definitions of training, validation and testing data
- EU AI Act, Article 10: data and data governance for high-risk AI systems
- EU AI Act, Article 53: obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models
- MIT Technology Review: AI labs are buying data from dead startups to train their models (Oct 2026)
- Grand View Research: AI training dataset market size and forecast
- Origin Data Partners: AI data licensing deals tracker, 2023 to 2026
- Origin Data Partners: what AI buyers publish for company data, 8 programs compared (Oct 2026)
- Origin Data Partners: what AI companies pay for company records
