In less than 24 hours, there will be (conservatively) 100 different people independently saying this very point at different corners of the internet. It all mos

In less than 24 hours, there will be (conservatively) 100 different people independently saying this very point at different corners of the internet. It all mostly redundant. Don't get tricked by the past decade or so's focus on the idea of "content"! This was all mostly a ploy by YouTube et al to get people to make more channels so they could sell more ads. There is no real value to your sense of individuality in an economic sense, you shouldn't worry about it being exploited. Don't confuse the (beautiful) experience of your own interiority with a commodity. But regardless of all that, I feel like this is an incredibly weird way to intepret what he is saying. Its not about the rising value of human generated datasets, its about the fact that there is still necessary well of labor that all this stuff must pull from in order to eliminate other forms of labor. That is why he says "not everyone can use AI." Not "proprietary data will become more valuable." If it will be valuable, who will own this value? Probably not the same people generating and curating it, and those are precisely the people who can't use AI. (And there are at least 1000 people making my very point this very moment..)