Michael I. Jordan: recommendation

Transcript context

…Well, can we explore that? Because you gave the example of Spotify. So, you know, we were talking about this 3 layer thing before and and now we've got this weird incentive structure where Spotify are actually incentivized to generate the songs with with AI. Right? Yeah. They are. And I I'm a you know, I have a project. I'm a scientific adviser to something called United Masters, which is an alternative, which has musicians keep their their their their work and and United Masters connects them to brands and to other kind of opportunities, so that they're kind of more like a real artist, not just like that they their their song got streamed and they got a little bit of money. Because Spotify indeed is not it's close to perhaps a monopoly, but it's not incentivized to pay pay there's not a pricing. There's monopoly prices, if you will. And so 1 would hope that somehow the market will fix that, that enough young artists will say, I'm getting screwed here, I'm not making any money, and another service will emerge. But we are in an era where some of these services do become monopolies pretty quick. And that's, I leave to my economist friends to think that through and to look back at historical examples and think about, you know, is regulation needed or is or is there other market making mechanisms that will make this more healthy for human beings? I'm not against Spotify, but it should be part of an ecosystem that actually rewards the artist more. Right now, an artist is getting paid very very little on and I think I don't believe the prices are being set under competitive mechanisms. But I I think there's this broader macroeconomic view of what are these systems doing and what are they what's their role in society gonna be. And with the search engine, I was many of us were puzzled about how they would make money. It just didn't seem like, you know, there was a money made. And then the whole advertising thing was a bit of a surprise, at least to me, that it would become so huge. Of course, the underlying thing is that people expect things for free. Alright? And so Google couldn't kind of make payments, but I think they made a mistake at some point. I think, like with YouTube, when they acquired YouTube, YouTube is more than just pointing people to a website. YouTube is incentivizing creators to create things that people will watch. At that point, I think a socially responsible Google, to critique them a little bit, would have said, oh, we've created a market here. We've created a producer consumer relationship. We've got to make that market a little bit more valid and we could actually have that when someone's watching things, they can have a some sort of economic connection to the person who made it and then there can be incentives flowing that this person now incentivized to make more because here's my audience. Connect it directly. Instead, it was all going through Google and then Google was putting advertises next to make a ton of money for themselves. And then there's a modest incentive to give back a little bit of money. That to me was a huge mistake. And then Facebook made it even worse. So you've butted up against folks like Jeffrey Hinton and Stuart Russell at Berkeley, and these guys are painting a picture that this technology is recursively self improving, that it is agential, that it's not a cultural technology, it's a thing in of itself. And this seems a little bit science fiction on the first Very science fiction. What do you think?…

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