4 ms·

I bet OpenAI genuinely believes they're using their money to help free media exist. And TBPN genuinely believes this is the right choice for economic freedom so

I bet OpenAI genuinely believes they're using their money to help free media exist. And TBPN genuinely believes this is the right choice for economic freedom so they can continue to operate. I bet they even had a convo such as "we'll never tell you what to say," and both sides genuinely believed it. But this never ends well. Even if there's never a conversation about it, directly, the implication is there. I don't care about TBPN, specifically. I just really, really wish we had a better way for media to fund itself independently. (And I say this as someone who pays for some media, but not nearly enough. I don't have $10/mo for every outlet that deserves it.) EDIT: sama basically said what I said he would: https://x.com/sama/status/2039773740586918137 https://x.com/sama/status/2039773740586918137

coloneltcb 7mo ago
say what you will about TBPN, but it was never objective journalism
- swyx 7mo ago
  (and the fact that they proudly wore it on their sleeve and shone a lamp on it is complete and absolute genius)
- grvdrm 7mo ago
  In a way it also looks like a16z buying their own marketing blog/news unit. Echo chamber. I happen to like listening to TBPN for discovery purposes.
  - MrSkelter 6mo ago
    It doesn’t work for that either. That’s the point. It’s akin to looking at a Texan middle grade schoolbook and then concluding everything significant was invented in America.
    - grvdrm 6mo ago
      Sorry - what doesn't work? Discovery? I think it's possible to listen and discover things (e.g. companies I don't know) without further succumbing to opinions or other comments about those companies.
unfitted2545 7mo ago
Obviously this will never happen, but what do you think about a system where there's a "media" fund from the government that gets distributed to several independent media outlets? The decision on who and how much to fund gets decided by a randomised group in the population, like jury duty, maybe every 2 years? I don't know if this could potentially make the media companies worse at reporting facts as they would try and raise money by appealing to people, but with enough competition it should sort its self out as long as there's no outside funding?
- gkoberger 7mo ago
  I mean, in theory I like this. But look what happened to NPR and PBS; it was ultimately at the behest of the president. They lost their revenue for not saying the "right" things.
  - toomuchtodo 7mo ago
    This was reversed upon judicial review. Checks and balances. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/31/nx-s1-5768399/npr-pbs-trump-federal-funding https://www.npr.org/2026/03/31/nx-s1-5768399/npr-pbs-trump-f...
    - postflopclarity 7mo ago
      the damage is already done.
      - toomuchtodo 7mo ago
        Damage is done constantly in human existence, all around us. This is no different. Failure is when you stop trying. If you’re tired, rest, don’t quit.
    - valleyer 7mo ago
      The CPB, the legal entity that the government actually funded (and which in turn supplied some of the funding for PBS/NPR and its stations) had its funding rescinded by Congress (under HR4 last year), and has since shuttered. It's not clear how, even under that recent ruling, that rescission will be undone.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
heliumtera 7mo ago
>I bet OpenAI genuinely believes they're using their money to help free media exist >TBPN genuinely believes this is the right choice for economic freedom Company literally sold to someone else, we now conclude they believe to achieve economic freedom. >Company genuinely believing anything. Yep, it is 2026 and words mean nothing in, we better ooga booga or something
tootie 7mo ago
Bezos said WaPo would retain independence and it did. For a while. Then he meddled to the point of ruin.
gos9 7mo ago
[flagged]
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
dist-epoch 7mo ago
> "we'll never tell you what to say," TBPN had almost all the big AI names in there, and they were extremely friendly. This would have been a problem anyway. They are not the "tough questions" kind of place.
- lobb-deep 7mo ago
  Fairly good encapsulation of chomskey's manufactured consent. TBPN was chosen precisely because they'll never have to tell them what to say.
jrflowers 7mo ago
I am sure that what you mentioned was said, but it is surprisingly difficult to have a conversation in a room full of these https://youtube.com/watch?v=_eWdX4qBUyQ3D https://youtube.com/watch?v=_eWdX4qBUyQ3D
vasco 7mo ago
There's no way a popular show like that needs money, they were probably millionaires already with sponsorships. Why are we pretending these people are poor or need help to survive?
KaiserPro 7mo ago
> I just really, really wish we had a better way for media to fund itself independently. I agree, but this is 100% not the right model. Altman is not the right person to be in control of a media organisation. He shows little willing to understand anything of how the world works currently, let alone something out of his wheel house.
- conorcleary 7mo ago
  Or, they know exactly what they wield when they take over.
  - tadfisher 7mo ago
    Right, it's simple mathematics. It costs X energy units to raise a human to adulthood, and Y energy units to train a frontier language model. What's so hard about this?
- kartika36363 7mo ago
  i am gonna miss the ad reads the segways to the ad reads are always one of their funniest bits
keiferski 7mo ago
You can unfortunately see this across the media spectrum. There seem to be basically two paths: 1. Cozy up to the big money in your industry, have them on for PR interviews with easy questions, and eventually get sponsored / acquired by them. I hesitate to even call this journalism, it’s more just sponsored entertainment. 2. Build a personal brand as someone known for being particularly critical / investigative / etc. This will undoubtedly make you far less money, and you’ll probably end up shilling ads for gold coins in between asking for Patreon supporters. I’ve always wondered if a government-funded (in a way that cannot be manipulated) organization whose sole purpose is to criticize everyone would ever work. It might even need to be run anonymously.
Rebuff5007 7mo ago
> I bet OpenAI genuinely believes What does this even mean? Who is being "genuine"? This is far to naive a take for a company thats burning through hundreds of millions of dollars, and constantly striving to set the tone of AI and their own supremacy.
- slumberlust 7mo ago
  Its conceding, or sidestepping, a common debate point yo focus on the crux or the issue.

coloneltcb 7mo ago

say what you will about TBPN, but it was never objective journalism

swyx 7mo ago
(and the fact that they proudly wore it on their sleeve and shone a lamp on it is complete and absolute genius)
grvdrm 7mo ago
In a way it also looks like a16z buying their own marketing blog/news unit. Echo chamber. I happen to like listening to TBPN for discovery purposes.
- MrSkelter 6mo ago
  It doesn’t work for that either. That’s the point. It’s akin to looking at a Texan middle grade schoolbook and then concluding everything significant was invented in America.
  - grvdrm 6mo ago
    Sorry - what doesn't work? Discovery? I think it's possible to listen and discover things (e.g. companies I don't know) without further succumbing to opinions or other comments about those companies.

unfitted2545 7mo ago

Obviously this will never happen, but what do you think about a system where there's a "media" fund from the government that gets distributed to several independent media outlets? The decision on who and how much to fund gets decided by a randomised group in the population, like jury duty, maybe every 2 years? I don't know if this could potentially make the media companies worse at reporting facts as they would try and raise money by appealing to people, but with enough competition it should sort its self out as long as there's no outside funding?

gkoberger 7mo ago
I mean, in theory I like this. But look what happened to NPR and PBS; it was ultimately at the behest of the president. They lost their revenue for not saying the "right" things.
- toomuchtodo 7mo ago
  This was reversed upon judicial review. Checks and balances. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/31/nx-s1-5768399/npr-pbs-trump-federal-funding https://www.npr.org/2026/03/31/nx-s1-5768399/npr-pbs-trump-f...
  - postflopclarity 7mo ago
    the damage is already done.
    - toomuchtodo 7mo ago
      Damage is done constantly in human existence, all around us. This is no different. Failure is when you stop trying. If you’re tired, rest, don’t quit.
  - valleyer 7mo ago
    The CPB, the legal entity that the government actually funded (and which in turn supplied some of the funding for PBS/NPR and its stations) had its funding rescinded by Congress (under HR4 last year), and has since shuttered. It's not clear how, even under that recent ruling, that rescission will be undone.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

heliumtera 7mo ago

>I bet OpenAI genuinely believes they're using their money to help free media exist >TBPN genuinely believes this is the right choice for economic freedom Company literally sold to someone else, we now conclude they believe to achieve economic freedom. >Company genuinely believing anything. Yep, it is 2026 and words mean nothing in, we better ooga booga or something

tootie 7mo ago

Bezos said WaPo would retain independence and it did. For a while. Then he meddled to the point of ruin.

gos9 7mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

dist-epoch 7mo ago

> "we'll never tell you what to say," TBPN had almost all the big AI names in there, and they were extremely friendly. This would have been a problem anyway. They are not the "tough questions" kind of place.

lobb-deep 7mo ago
Fairly good encapsulation of chomskey's manufactured consent. TBPN was chosen precisely because they'll never have to tell them what to say.

jrflowers 7mo ago

I am sure that what you mentioned was said, but it is surprisingly difficult to have a conversation in a room full of these https://youtube.com/watch?v=_eWdX4qBUyQ3D https://youtube.com/watch?v=_eWdX4qBUyQ3D

vasco 7mo ago

There's no way a popular show like that needs money, they were probably millionaires already with sponsorships. Why are we pretending these people are poor or need help to survive?

KaiserPro 7mo ago

> I just really, really wish we had a better way for media to fund itself independently. I agree, but this is 100% not the right model. Altman is not the right person to be in control of a media organisation. He shows little willing to understand anything of how the world works currently, let alone something out of his wheel house.

conorcleary 7mo ago
Or, they know exactly what they wield when they take over.
- tadfisher 7mo ago
  Right, it's simple mathematics. It costs X energy units to raise a human to adulthood, and Y energy units to train a frontier language model. What's so hard about this?
kartika36363 7mo ago
i am gonna miss the ad reads the segways to the ad reads are always one of their funniest bits

keiferski 7mo ago

You can unfortunately see this across the media spectrum. There seem to be basically two paths: 1. Cozy up to the big money in your industry, have them on for PR interviews with easy questions, and eventually get sponsored / acquired by them. I hesitate to even call this journalism, it’s more just sponsored entertainment. 2. Build a personal brand as someone known for being particularly critical / investigative / etc. This will undoubtedly make you far less money, and you’ll probably end up shilling ads for gold coins in between asking for Patreon supporters. I’ve always wondered if a government-funded (in a way that cannot be manipulated) organization whose sole purpose is to criticize everyone would ever work. It might even need to be run anonymously.

Rebuff5007 7mo ago

> I bet OpenAI genuinely believes What does this even mean? Who is being "genuine"? This is far to naive a take for a company thats burning through hundreds of millions of dollars, and constantly striving to set the tone of AI and their own supremacy.

slumberlust 7mo ago
Its conceding, or sidestepping, a common debate point yo focus on the crux or the issue.