He could just give them money for it. I'm sure they'd love having a multibillion dollar customer.

It's very possible that his AI investments have yielded developments that we can't imagine. But it's hard to see the value of twitter's data over that of, say, the internet cache that gpt-3 uses.

I have no idea what the plan b he alluded to is.

Sure he could pay for it, but buying the company (and taking it private) is potentially a way to get paid for access. Web archives - like common crawl - are snap shots of the past, but twitter users react and discuss events in real time.

Reliably parsing and interpreting new, potentially unreliable data is part of that whole AI-complete thing.

I think he's more interested in the power of twitter as the public square. There's no doubt Trump won his presidency through that social media presence (and his non-stop rallying of course). That kind of power is more useful than say buying the Washington Post.

I would be more interested in him implementing certain features like a journalistic credibility score for outlets and individuals. Base it on number of retractions, mistakes, and outright lies. Surely a score like that might put certain fake news propagators in line.

This is something he pitched before although as a standalone website. Integrating into twitter seems more useful.

> I would be more interested in him implementing certain features like a journalistic credibility score for outlets and individuals. Base it on number of retractions, mistakes, and outright lies. Surely a score like that might put certain fake news propagators in line.

Which then raises the issue of who scores the scorer. You already have people throwing fits because the garbage they post gets labeled as misleading or not true. So how would this be any different besides you liking the person in charge of the scoring?

Could be done with ML perhaps, or via consensus. I did list retractions for that reason, as there is a point where even an outlet needs to admit they got something wrong, but burying it at the bottom of a year old article no one will ever see is a dirty move. Either way it's not my problem to solve, just something I would like to see.