4 ms·
The content industries should have been the ones to invent LLMs, but their head is so stuck in the past and in regressive thinking about how they protect their
by rpdillon 1y ago
The content industries should have been the ones to invent LLMs, but their head is so stuck in the past and in regressive thinking about how they protect their revenue streams that they're incapable of innovating. Publishing houses should have been the ones to have researchers looking into how to computationally leverage their enormous corpus of data. But instead, they put zero dollars into actual research and development and paid the lawyers instead. And so it leads to attitudes like this.
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 1y ago“The content industries.” Why would people invest in destroying what they love?
- rpdillon 1y agoThere is no destruction.
- sam_lowry_ 1y agoHe meant, the stream of free money from unsuspecting monkeys.
- gruez 1y agoThat's always been the case, eg. how they were latecomers to streaming.
- cubefox 1y agoStreaming had to compete with digital music piracy. As a result, Spotify is impossibly cheap compared to buying individual albums or singles in the past. So musicians hardly receive any money from recorded music anymore. Nowadays they basically have only concerts left as a means to earn money.
- ghssds 1y agoThe only people seeing themselves as "content creators" are people giving social media stuff so their users get something they can doom scroll. Other people see themselves as artists, entertainers, musicians, authors, etc.
- rpdillon 1y agoI'm referring to the rent seekers sitting in between the artists and the public.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> The content industries should have been the ones to invent LLMs While exclusively-controlled LLMs would be mildly useful to them, the technology existing is dangerous to them, and they already have a surplus supply of content at low cost that they monetize by controlling discovery, gatekeeping, and promotion, so I don't think it makes sense for them to put energy into LLMs even if they had the technical acumen to recognize the possibilities (much the same way that Google, despite leading in developing the underlying technology, had vvery little incentive to productize it since it was disruptive to their established business, until someone else already did and the choice was to compete on that or lose entirely.)
- rpdillon 1y agoYou have to get ahead of the disruption that will destroy you. At least, if you care about longevity of your company. I realize this isn't always the case.