| ▲ | yellow_lead 2 days ago |
| Adding something to the "Risks" section of your company's financial report reads more like CYA ("Cover Your Ass") than "We're afraid of AI!" behavior. |
|
| ▲ | steveklabnik a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes, the risks part of a 10-K is usually pretty comprehensive, and includes all kinds of things that may or may not be an issue: that's why they're risks, and not problems or showstoppers or something. Many of the 10-Ks I've read enumerate tons of things that have a very low chance of happening. I'd be curious about the position of these segments in the 10-Ks, like, if they're suddenly all at the top, that's much more interesting than being tacked on to the end. |
| |
| ▲ | dmurray a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure the position is significant. It's free to put any bad thing in the risks section of your 10-K; investors aren't going to shun your company over it. If you fail to put the risk in, the bad thing happens, and your company loses value, on the other hand, you may get sued for securities fraud - and courts have been oddly receptive to these suits. It's like any other clause that gets added to any other mostly-boilerplate legal document over time: one firm adds it, pretty soon everyone copies their work and it's a standard term. It's viral. How fast this spreads among company filings is a matter of epidemiology, not something that actually tells you the companies' outlook. | | |
| ▲ | steveklabnik a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure it is either, I don't read enough 10-Ks to make a strong claim here, it's just always felt like the ones I've read have been vaguely ordered by importance, and I wonder if that's actually true or not. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pyuser583 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Facebook once listed "adoption of mobile devices" in the "Risks" section of their reports. |
| |
| ▲ | arcticfox a day ago | parent [-] | | I mean, this was absolutely a risk to them. They could have easily lost during the transition. | | |
| ▲ | omneity a day ago | parent [-] | | They did and then spent $5B purchasing Instagram and Whatsapp to recover. | | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I thought they spent $17B on Whatsapp. | |
| ▲ | tsunamifury a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | 19 billion buying WhatsApp. Instagram was moments before ipo. Also the FB html5 play at the time was a decent bridge to the app play which did of course explode growth. So let’s be fair they didn’t fail but they acquired to grow even more. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | echelon a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Here are some S&P 500 companies that are doomed: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interpublic_Group_of_Compa... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnicom_Group - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Discovery - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Corporation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Global I'm sure there are a lot more. |
| |
| ▲ | andsoitis a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Why do you think Warner Bros, Fox, and Paramount are doomed? | | |
| ▲ | bitmasher9 a day ago | parent [-] | | The most around content creation is eroding. We’re seeing many small AI videos become viral, and the length of some of them are reaching 5-10min. What happens when anyone can write a script and have a feature length movie or 12 episode season. | | |
| ▲ | manmal a day ago | parent [-] | | Vibing a movie will be possible, but people also won’t pay money for watching that. It will be great for script writers to be able to make an MVP of their movie first, and someone will still need to produce this into an actual movie. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would I pay money for a movie when I can just create my own from a few prompts, perhaps at the cost of watching a few ads? | | |
| ▲ | SketchySeaBeast a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You know, I can't see myself doing that with a movie. That would be the ultimate expression of the mindless action flick, and those have stopped appealing to me. I think about all the movies I've really enjoyed that had some friction in viewing - either because it was a genre I didn't normally like or I just didn't have any interest in viewing. All that would be gone. But ooooh boy, would porn change. Maybe that would be the end of pornography, the perfect wish fulfillment making it no longer enjoyably. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Vibing a movie will be possible, people also won’t pay money for watching that Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok all beg to differ. AI slop farms are making bank over there, especially on short form content aimed at little kids. They get hundreds of millions of views, earning more than what Disney/WB makes on some of their high budget garbage movies in cinema. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > especially on short form content aimed at little kids. They get hundreds of millions of views, earning more than what Disney/WB makes on some high budget garbage movies in cinema. What is one specific example? | | | |
| ▲ | manmal a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh I meant pay money as in, pay per view or cinema. | | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner a day ago | parent [-] | | If you're a business trying to making money at all costs, and the money comes from advertisers instead of directly from viewers, will your wallet complain? | | |
| ▲ | SketchySeaBeast a day ago | parent [-] | | But it doesn't change the consumer's spending power. I haven't changed my movie consumption habit just because I watch youtube videos. It's free content. | | |
| ▲ | j-bos a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Datapoint of one more: I have my fiction consumptions has been trending down ever since I got YT premium. | | | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >But it doesn't change the consumer's spending power. I haven't changed my movie consumption habit just because I watch youtube videos. I think you're misunderstanding. Consumers don't need to spend money directly, for AI slop farms on Youtube or TikTok to make money, since advertisers pay for the views they get on their videos, not you. IT's not all about YOU, YOU are probably not the targe audience, but they do make money even if YOU don't watch that stuff. | | |
| ▲ | SketchySeaBeast a day ago | parent [-] | | No, I understand that. So how do AI slop farms filling Youtube lead to Warner Bros, Fox, and Paramount being doomed? The argument seems to be that they are doomed because the AI farms are making money, but, as you're saying here, consumers don't pay that. So I don't understand the argument. | | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner a day ago | parent [-] | | >So how do AI slop farms filling Youtube lead to Warner Bros, Fox, and Paramount being doomed? Where did I say they'll be doomed? I said they're monetizing short form content on YouTube/Tiktok using AI slop, and that can make more money than some crap cinema movies at the box office. | | |
| ▲ | SketchySeaBeast a day ago | parent [-] | | Ah, I assumed it was a follow-up to the argument around Warner Bros, Fox, and Paramount being doomed, which is what kicked that discussion off. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | HWR_14 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Disney/WB regularly make hundreds of millions of USD on their high budget movies. A view is worth less than $1. How are the AI slop farms making all that money? | | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Disney/WB regularly make hundreds of millions of USD on their high budget movies. Not when they loose hundreds of millions. Snow White just lost Disney about 150 million. >A view is worth less than $1. Yes, and they get hundreds of million of views and failures don't cast anything since they don't need to keep cinemas open. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
