4 ms·
I can easily see it happening. "Content" is at least as big business as "tech", and the people in it are politically better connected.
by jltsiren 3y ago
I can easily see it happening. "Content" is at least as big business as "tech", and the people in it are politically better connected.
- sumedh 3y ago> and the people in it are politically better connected. reply Tech companies have more money to throw at politicians.
- midasuni 3y agoApple could buy most of the NYT, RIAA and MPAA companies combined with petty cash. The big ones are Disney and Sony with a combined market cap about 250b. Microsoft alone is worth over 10 times that.
- prasadjoglekar 3y agoThen they should. The first transaction will appropriately value content and then WaPo, WSJ and others will see their values to up.
- captn3m0 3y agoWould be cheaper to license textbooks and find a way to provide attribution to accommodate Wikipedia etc.
- CM30 3y agoHonestly I've always wondered what would happen (and how much the entertainment world would change) if a company like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc did just that. Or heck, if it turns out you need the rights to train LLMs and its easier to do that with public domain stuff, they just flat out bought half the entertainment industry and assigned everything to the public domain. Every Disney work every for example.
- jprete 3y agoNo-one is going to buy a major media company and then throw the rights into the public domain. What they would do is buy the rights and then sue all competitors in the GenAI space.
- JohnFen 3y ago> and assigned everything to the public domain In the US, this isn't possible. There is no legal mechanism for putting things into the public domain outside of the expiration of the term of copyright. The best you can do is to promise not to enforce your copyright.
- anticensor 3y agoMPAA and RIAA are not joint-stock companies, they are specialised trade unions to enforce intellectual property. They have no shares to acquire. If you mean acquiring the individual members, that would encounter an enforcement from your favourite antitrust enforcement commission.
- meindnoch 3y agoDeveloping AGI is a matter of national security. "Content" isn't.
- sanderjd 3y agoI'm curious: Have you seen indications that major militaries and politicians believe AGI, rather than special purpose ML for military purposes, is important for national security? I'm really not sure whether this is true, or whether military and political leaders think it's true.
- AlexAndScripts 3y agoThey will once people start talking about an AI gap with China.
- sanderjd 3y agoI mean, people already talk about this. What it seems to me from the milieu of everything I've read and heard (that is: I can't cite examples, this is an aggregate developed from hundreds of articles and podcasts etc.) is that there is already an "AI" arms race underway, but that it has more to do with specialized ML systems than with consumer LLMs. But I'm not really in the loop, and maybe OpenAI really is more important to the US DoD than Disney (as a stand-in for big copyright-based businesses generally) is to the politicians they donate to. But I dunno! That's why I asked the question :) I would be more intrigued by the national security angle of this if copyright holders were going after, say, Palantir. But I just don't know how important they see these language models as being, or how interested they are in OpenAI's mission to discover AGI.
- pixl97 3y agoIt mostly doesn't matter if the military wants specialist systems, in the long run generalist systems tend to win in power and adaptability. Some of this may be a misunderstanding of what modern militaries do, if they are shooting guns there's already been some level of failure. Massive amounts of war gaming, sentiment analysis, and propagandizing occur, see the RAND Corporation for more details on the military development of algorithms and artificial intelligence.