Speaker unverified: preference

Transcript context

…hing I'll say is I'm very optimistic about AI, assuming that the journalism we spend a ton, and games, and everything else we do spend a ton of money on and work really hard at through human beings... I believe it's going to be great as long as that doesn't all get misappropriated by the large language model makers. Can we ask you about the OpenAI lawsuit? You're suing OpenAI and Microsoft for training without permission on New York Times content. Why? Why? Well, why did you decide to file the lawsuit? Yeah, listen, the first thing to say is that these companies making large language models are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on compute, energy, and talent. We've seen lots of stories about that in recent days. And so we believe they should also be spending money that equates to fair value exchange on the content that they have built their models on. So that's one. We believe the law is on our side. And by the way, not just the side of journalism. This is not just an issue for news organizations, although that is a pretty important issue to society. This is an issue for anybody who makes creative work, anyone who makes IP. And I want to say that America having a flourishing community of creators, IP makers, is foundational to our competitiveness, and really important to how we show up in the world. This is a big, broad issue. We think the law is on our side, and we have a lawsuit, as you've just described. And we are also, you know, eager to partner with companies when the terms are right and make sense. And as we've done, we just did a partnership with Amazon, and we did that because we saw it as having sustainable, fair value exchange and giving The Times control over how its journalism and other content would be used. So there's a thing that a lot of people — probably especially in this audience — have in their mind that wasn't really a thing yet when we did our episode in 2021. Which is this perceived anti-tech bias or anti-business bias of The New York Times. When people bring that up to you, you would say what? First, I'm not sure a lot of people have that in mind. I'll challenge that premise. But I will say we don't. It's not a thing. The job of The New York Times is to pursue the truth wherever it may lead. And sometimes that's to uncomfortable places. And we do that job first and foremost by reporting. Reporting is we're going to unearth new facts that we think, and others think, matter in the world to a lot of people. And it's worth saying, because I do get asked about bias all the time on any topic, it's worth saying we put an enormous amount of effort and care and money and method into trying to reduce bias in every way we can. In the process, we have a giant standards operation that really says this is an okay source or this isn't. That really says, yes, these are verifiable facts or they aren't. Every story of The New York Times is edited by at least two people. I could go on and on about all the ways we hold ourselves to account. t really says, yes, these are verifiable facts or they aren't. Every story of The New York Times is edited by at least two people. I could go on and on about all the ways we hold ourselves to account. And on tech in particular, I want to say that many of the tech companies, the big tech companies that shape the information ecosystem, have a level of power and influence and the potential to drive profound change in people's lives in a way that governments or nations might. So we cover them accordingly. And by the way, we cover them really broadly. We did a package on AI and a view from today of what it's going to do in people's lives. And there was as much in there about all the great things AI is going to do. And I do think the more we expose people to reporting, which we do on The Daily and in lots of other formats, the more they trust us and the more they see the lengths that people like Andrew Ross Sorkin go to, to really help you understand what really is. I mean, just to underscore the shift that's happened in the last 15 years, since the financial crisis, where tech was one industry among many and now is responsible for the majority of the market cap in this country, in this world. Trillion dollars. It's a big reason why people listen to Acquired. So we feel it too. On that topic of media evolution—media close to home for us—you're home with some of the biggest podcasts in the world. Yeah, how either podcasting specifically or all the different media you're doing beyond the written word, how do you think about delivering journalism today? Yeah, I was once standing—I started the Times 12 years ago—and I was standing with Andrew Ross Sorkin in a green room. I think I was there as his handler. He must have been going to talk to an advertiser. And I grabbed him right before he walked on stage. And I said, "Don't talk about the paper. We're not just a paper company." And I would say that is how we think about and approach whatever the delivery mechanism is—if it's text, if it's video, if it's audio—we are just thinking, how do we bring our work and engage the widest possible audience? And podcasts, the thing that you do, have just been great for the Times in doing that. We've got lots of hit shows: The Daily, The Ezra Klein Show, our new show, which is the New Right's answer to The Ezra Klein Show; "Interesting Times with Ross Douthat," and "Hard Fork," which I think is similar to you. What are those shows doing for us? One, they are deepening the engagement we have with people who already love the Times. They're making many, many, many new people love the Times. And I think, really importantly, they're helping us build a different relationship with the people we're doing this coverage and making these products for. When I meet someone whose podcast I listen to, as I'm doing with you guys, I think you're my running partners, because I've spent hours on a run listening to the two of you talk. And I think it's just a different kind of relationship. Let me say this about The Daily: we figured this out early in its life, but it's still the case today. n a run listening to the two of you talk. And I think it's just a different kind of relationship. Let me say this about The Daily: we figured this out early in its life, but it's still the case today. When a reporter goes on The Daily and tells the story that they've just published on the homepage, in the paper, they're doing two things. They're telling you about the story in a more casual way, almost like a friend guiding you through the news. But they're also exposing you to how that story came to be. And that is fundamentally doing the thing I talked about before. It's trust building. It's showing the people listening the lengths we went to to present this topic in a fair and deeply reported way. Alright, can I say one more thing about podcasts? Please talk about podcasts all night. The banter is, as in many cases, I think this about you guys. I think this about "Hard Fork," which is our show about AI. It features New York Times reporter Kevin Roose and Platformer's Casey Newton. I learn. I'm running a company that has to contend with AI; I listen to every episode. And I love their banter. The banter is entertainment, and it makes me take in what they're saying about AI even better because it's entertaining me as it's instructing me. That's what y'all are doing. We love the banter too. Yeah. We think about it as conversational storytelling, where you can tell a narrative through two people talking. That's right. That's right. And the other thing podcasts did for the Times—and you see this now, if you go on our app and watch reporter video—I think it taught us how to break free of the tyranny of how a news article had to be presented in a newspaper. You can talk in a much more informal style. And I actually think that's how news articles are still incredibly important. But that has even spilled into the text news articles; the style of getting people information is much wider. Alright, so we have something that we've prepared, if you're open to it. Is Morgan coming back? I believe he's back in his seat. We can check. I wonder who you have there. I'm scared. We started this conversation talking about games. Yeah. Wordle has taken an enormous amount of my time. We would like to take some of your time, listeners. We asked the team at The New York Times to create a custom Wordle, themed around something specific to Acquired. Are you game? I'm game. I think I brought my glasses. I didn't know if it would be. I think this is the first live Wordle from Radio City. Yes. And I do want to say I would have rather played Connections. I'm so much better and faster at it—so much better. I'm not very good at Wordle. My. My mom smokes me on it every time I play. We'll give you a hint to get started. The word is very deeply related to a canonical Acquired episode. Okay. Alright. In other words, whatever your favorite starter word is, that's a good place to start. And can they see what I'm doing? I think so. I mean, yeah. Oh, pretty nifty camera back. There we go. Alright, alright, alright. I'm using the starter word I always use. Great. Which I'm sure two-thirds of the room uses. Alright. How'd you do? And that sucked. That really sucked. Sorry. Okay.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.