Wild Ass Guess: Everyone OpenAI is negotiating with is likely considering how much they can gain from potential future revenue. This typically leads them to demand high rates.

However, this move flips the question: instead of asking how much they can make, they must consider what happens if their competitors partner with OpenAI. The concern then shifts to what competitors can achieve in the market that could threaten not just their economic interests but potentially their entire business model and worldview.

Suddenly, the desire to be the one partnering with OpenAI isn't just about accessing a lucrative revenue stream; it becomes a strategic imperative to mitigate risks and maintain competitive parity.

If those brands do not follow, is there a risk that the nature of most of News Corps content and its volume will skew the behavior of OpenAI’s models? They either don’t consider the former a risk, don’t consider the latter a risk, or just don’t care about skew (which would sadden me).

Well, they’re getting sued by the NYT. Perhaps they decided to get in bed with everyone else before they could, too?

> What’s the real strategy here by OpenAI?

PaaS: Propaganda as a service. You give us the story, we give you propaganda.