Apple and Salesforce AI training datasets co-opt MrBeast, Marques Brownlee videos | Mashable.
Apple and Salesforce AI training datasets co-opt MrBeast, Marques Brownlee videos
 |
| Credit: Roy Rochlin/Getty Images |
A new investigation claims that tech companies used subtitles from more than 48,000 YouTube channels — including from top creators like MrBeast and Marques Brownlee and higher learning institutions like MIT and Harvard — to train their AI models, even though YouTube prohibits the harvesting of platform content without permission.
The investigation, conducted by Proof News and published in conjunction with Wired, found that companies like Anthropic, Nvidia, Apple, and Salesforce used a dataset of 173,536 YouTube videos including those from Khan Academy, MIT, Harvard, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, the BBC and late night shows like The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, and Jimmy Kimmel Live.
Marques Brownlee posted an Instagram Reel noting that, in his opinion, "the real story is Apple and a whole bunch of other tech companies are training their AI models using data that they buy from third party data scraping companies some of which get their data in slightly illegal ways... Apple can technically say they're not at fault for this."
Wired says that representatives for the non-profit AI research lab that scraped and disseminated the YouTube dataset, EleutherAI, did not respond to the publication's requests for comment. The dataset is part of a compilation the nonprofit calls The Pile, which also includes material from the European Parliament, English Wikipedia, and emails from the employees of the Enron Corporation released during the federal investigation into the company in the early 2000s.
Prime Day deals you can shop right now
iRobot Roomba Essential Vac Q011 Robot Vacuum Cleaner — $159.99 (List Price $249.99)
Samsung Galaxy Tab A9+ 10.9" 64GB Wi-Fi Tablet — $142.49 (List Price $219.99)
Apple AirPods Pro 2nd Gen With MagSafe USB-C Charging Case — $168.99 (List Price $249.00)
Fitbit Charge 6 Fitness Tracker With 6-Months Membership — $99.95 (List Price $159.95)
Apple Watch Series 9 (GPS, 41mm, Midnight, S/M, Sports Band) — $279.99 (List Price $399.00)
Wired reports that most of the collections that make up The Pile are accessible to "anyone on the internet with enough space and computing power to access them." These include Apple, Nvidia, Salesforce, Bloomberg and Databricks, all of which have publicly acknowledged their use of The Pile to train AI models.
Jennifer Martinez, a spokesperson for AI startup Anthropic, said in a statement that while the company had used The Pile to train its generative AI assistant, "YouTube’s terms cover direct use of its platform, which is distinct from use of the Pile dataset. On the point about potential violations of YouTube’s terms of service, we’d have to refer you to the Pile authors."
In his Instagram Reel, Brownlee added, "The double whammy is that I actually pay for more accurate manual transcriptions on every video that we put out... so that means the stolen transcriptions specifically are paid content that's being stolen more than once."
His concerns echo those of creators across the world who are concerned that their work will be consumed or exploited by AI without compensation or permission. Many are currently suing tech companies for unapproved use of their work.
Wired reports that The Pile is still available on file-sharing services but has been removed from its official download site. Proof News has created a tool to search for creators in the YouTube AI training dataset.
Topics Artificial Intelligence
Nobody cares.
ReplyDeleteThey're training on public data to learn new things, like machine learning has done for decades.
These are also people with multimillion dollar networths. I'm not worried about someone generating fair use material from their content.
A lot of people make a living from videos, music, art or other content online without becoming rich from it. So that there are a handful of individuals making many millions of dollars per year is no excuse for copyright infringement.
DeleteThat said, I am not convinced that letting AI train or “learn from” copyrighted material should be considered a violation of copyright. Some people do insist that should be the case, but as far as I can see, a copyright violation really only occurs if the AI duplicates any part of the training material, something they usually are programmed not to do.
The headline mentions stephen colbert, mr beast, and marques brownlee, all of which are multimillionares.
DeleteIt's asking us to care about them because it makes a catchier headline to put celebrities up there. Same reason it equates learning with theft.
Yeah, sure but for each one of those rich content makers there are thousands who are just making a decent living on creating content.
DeleteI can see the arguments on both sides regarding whether AI training in copyrighted data is “theft”, but I just don’t think it’s a great idea to stifle the development of AI by limiting its training data… if the U.S. and EU would implement new laws to stop AI training on copyrighted data, we would just be handing over the leadership within AI to China and other countries that would not care about such laws. Not a particularly great idea.
AI steals copies and repackages other people’s work
ReplyDeleteCreators get no compensation or day-so
Why is this ok?
Who cares? 🤷🏻♂️
ReplyDeletehttps://giphy.com/gifs/SuBYa2XO3aVH8Qt8IK
ReplyDeleteLol terms of service, they mean nothing.
ReplyDelete"Apple technically avoids 'fault' here because they're not the ones scraping" - @MKBHD
ReplyDeleteWhy proactively excuse Apple here?
Shouldn't we argue that Apple - and every other company - has a duty to ensure the things they're using (whether physical materials or digital assets) are ethically sourced and not stolen or otherwise illicitly acquired? Since when is "I only bought the stolen goods, I didn't steal them myself" an acceptable defense?
It's not as though the conversation around the ethics of "AI" training data is just coming out after WWDC. Apple had to have known that there would be conversations around this, so "we didn't think to look into where the data came from" is no excuse.
Now this really begs the question of how Apple trained its image generating features...
Here’s the problem what if it’s Google violating YouTube’s TOS?
ReplyDeleteCan you steal from yourself?
DeleteI honestly don’t know, is YouTube and Google supposed to be separate or are they intertwined?
DeleteI'm sure the TOS says something like "unless otherwise authorized". And no doubt at some point, somebody at YouTube authorized it. Especially since Google's AI teams probably plugged directly into Youtube's underlying datasets, rather than building custom scrapers to painstakingly pull data from individual videos via their web interface. That access would have required an approval which almost certainly satisfies the TOS.
Deletehttps://media2.giphy.com/media/AaQYP9zh24UFi/giphy.mp4?cid=917c0c67eequx9y1t55wuudkpwm6d91ks4fp5yba21j0ttrd&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy.mp4&ct=g
ReplyDelete*Beeper makes an imessage client*
ReplyDeleteApple: imessage on Android goes against our ToS, it's theft.
*Also, when they are the ones taking stuff*
Apple:😇
So why is nothing at fucking all being done about this when it's the same companies that scream about copyright infringement constantly?
ReplyDeletebecause when they do it, it's fine... it's just when little guys do it against them it's not fine...
DeleteWhich companies? Certainly not Google and Apple.
DeleteWhich same companies are you talking about?
DeleteDo we need to seek consent before we read/listen to/watch any freely and publicly available content?
ReplyDeleteyou are given consent to use content in terms of service, in this case youtube terms tell you how you can use youtube website and its content on site. Content itself is almost always also copyrighted restricting use of content outside of just viewing it on youtube
DeleteCopyright only concerns your right to copy and reproduce. You are not entitled to control what people do with content outside of that.
DeleteIf you uploaded your contents on YouTube, you retain all of your ownership rights to and videos you upload, but when you use the site you grant a limited licence to YouTube and other users. That licence is a "worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that Content in connection with the provision of the Service and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Service and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels".
DeleteThe licence extends to YouTube's affiliates. When you leave YouTube it retains the right to keep copies of your content on its servers.
Are you using it in commercial products? "Publicly available" does not mean free to use for any purpose.
DeleteBut the original content is not being reproduced verbatim. It’s being used as a source of information to inform a response.
DeleteIs reproducing content verbatim is the issue, then Google Search is a bigger problem here…
Companies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeleteBut they’re not reproducing the materials verbatim are they? They’re using the information and content to inform and generate new content.
DeleteIt’s like doing your homework and using the content from Wikipedia to inform your writing (rather than reproducing the content verbatim).
Downloading the subtitles enmasse is harvesting materials
DeleteYouTube‘s rules don’t allow it. They broke the rules.
Delete"They broke the rules."
DeleteThat’s for the courts to decide. It’s not as straightforward as you think.
Wouldn’t it defeat the point if they had to create a bunch of new content to train the models on? I’m not saying what they did is ok but if they had to create the amount of content from scratch to train their models it would nearly defeat the purpose of the AI to begin with.
ReplyDeleteThey vould also pay for a license.
DeleteIt's a YouTube video, it's publicly available, you literally publish it specifically so ANYONE can see it, that includes AI. You gave consent for this the second you hit "Publish".
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't. Uploader retains rights to video. Youtube channels and especially music labels send copyright claims everyday to other videos using their content on youtube for example. They only give license to youtube. Youtube terms also do not allow downloading or harvesting content of youtube without approval
DeleteHow does that disprove their point?
DeleteCompanies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeleteDidn't this idiot go on the record and vouched for apple intelligence being the real groundbreaker? Now he is complaining about what he already accepted and praised?
ReplyDeleteWhat does he even want? This only seems like a cashgrab and pr stunt.
Bro, stop reading headlines and creating the story in your mind, nothing you said happened, wth
DeleteHaha yea this sub is pretty trash, is there any reason why they always dick ride anything A.I related?
Deleteoh no, anyway
ReplyDeleteIt’s ok, they clicked the button that says I promise not to train my AI before they went and trained their AI. Brought to you by confirm your age checkboxes inc
ReplyDeleteIsn't youtube free?
ReplyDeleteFor non commercial purposes, yes.
DeleteTo use YouTube's content for financial gain then you need to license it like you would for any other content in pretty much any industry.
I am no fan of Google or any of these AI companies really and am not endorsing one or the other, I'm just pointing out that licensing isn't a new concept so please don't crucify me
AI companies are making money from the data they are taking from youtube. Its a commercial enterprise, these AI corporations are making money without having to actually pay the artists making their stuff with licenses. Its a legal form of digital plagiarism
DeleteMost content on youtube is copyrighted by uploader or other parties. there is no free use unless given permission or if use is within fairuse (note that plenty of youtube content claims to be fairuse when it is not).
DeleteAnd then regarding harvesting: youtube terms do not allow harvesting videos and their content freely. Even using downloader sites to download videos is breach of terms
From terms:
You are not allowed to:
access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holder
circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
access the Service using any automated means (such as robots, botnets or scrapers) except (a) in the case of public search engines, in accordance with YouTube’s robots.txt file; or (b) with YouTube’s prior written permission;
collect or harvest any information that might identify a person (for example, usernames or faces), unless permitted by that person or allowed under section (3) above
MKBHD is Apple’s “fanboy”, he won’t get mad on them anyway.
ReplyDeleteHe literally criticizes them all the time. Why is this subreddit filled with half-knowledge germs.
DeleteWhy are you dumb?
DeleteWatch this video and speak after that.
https://youtu.be/Z0DF-MOkotA?si=w27fBtyBDRr3tBVz
Guys, I didn't kill him. I just told a 3rd party to get "rid" of him.
ReplyDeleteI feel like it could be hard for the major YouTubers to go out against this because YouTube controls their business essentially.
ReplyDeleteIt's about time the majority of people see these tech giants and those who run them as the monsters they are.
ReplyDeleteNext up, the sky blue!! Over to you Sandra
ReplyDeleteOh no! Anyways.
ReplyDeleteI told an ai to make art in the style of basquiat and it gave me ai art of basquiat in his style. Which was weird.
ReplyDeleteWill MKBHD bite the hand that feeds though?
ReplyDeleteIs there a law that says exactly what they’re doing is illegal? I’m not sure if laws are there yet
ReplyDeleteApple sucks.
ReplyDeleteMKBHD is overrated shill for Apple
ReplyDeleteWhat's the problem?
ReplyDeleteHow is this in principle different than a human being learning and developing their own style and skills through reviewing other people's content?
Companies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeleteMaybe google can say, you can train using youtube as much as you want as long as we can be your main search engine across all your devices
ReplyDeleteWhy? MKBHD is already in their pocket.
ReplyDeleteDo the creators have to give their consent or just YouTube?
ReplyDeleteWhy is it especially important to the headline that MKBHD content was included?
ReplyDeleteSo it used ad block?
ReplyDeleteSo what actually happens here? I doubt the model actually gets thrown out, I'm pretty sure they just get away with this right?
ReplyDeleteApple stealing from people, they've certainly never done that before.
ReplyDeleteI wish they chose the lock picking lawyer and Jerry right everything as well 😂
ReplyDeleteClick bait. Many many companies do this and apple wasn't the first.
ReplyDeleteDo they really need consent, when the images, texts or videos are public freely available?
ReplyDeleteI mean, Reddit for example, all the comments, it's all public available and all of us know and use that.
Unless you hide your images, texts or videos behind a paywall/closed forum....then its fair game, no?
Posting something online doesn’t make it public domain.
DeleteNope. However, you grant the website a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence (with the right to sublicense) "to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute" your content. The licence allows apps or website to make content available "to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with the apps or website for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services".
DeleteI do know that YouTube has their own terms of service. As do most services one may utilise. I simply responded to the previous commenter to clarify that data being publicly available does not automatically make said data public domain :)
DeleteNot necessarily. YouTube has Terms of Service as to what they allow you to do.
DeleteBreaking news: humans trained on YouTube videos without consent and then used what they learnt to produce value and make money without paying the video providers. (Exactly the same as AI models doing it)
ReplyDeleteThe difference being that LLMs can output quite a bit more data than any one human could ever do in their lifetime therefore possibly drowning out any one humans output?
DeleteIt’s shit.
ReplyDeleteBut if the average joe’s data and work is getting used to trained Ai models then why would content creators thing their work isn’t being used?
I remember reading on a thread before that apple was more respectful of user data then other big companies (Google, Microsoft, Samsung, etc) and any point to the contrary was met with criticism.
ReplyDeleteSorry to say they're the same as anyone else.
We gonna get a terminator or I robot situation.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this the same as filming in a public space, like a government office or library? You don't need their consent...the Internet is a public place.
ReplyDeleteSomething being available publicly doesn’t mean that the content in question is public domain.
DeleteIf you post or broadcast yourself on the internet, there's an expectation that it's public, period.
DeleteI never said it wasn’t public. Publicly available is not the same as public domain.
DeleteThis is very interesting.
ReplyDeleteajahahahah and then he proceeds to shill them
ReplyDeleteWhat did people think drove "the algorithm"?
ReplyDeleteDo sue the people who made the ai... They broke the law
ReplyDeleteDon’t make me want to get a flip phone more than I already do.
ReplyDeleteTHEY ALL DID
ReplyDeleteFear is used daily to entice change. Nothing new and leadership uses it to its advantage
ReplyDeleteFirst off, yeah, that IS wrong. Second off. Why hasn't he been pushing back against this practice for a long time? Like did he not think this would happen to him because of who he is?
ReplyDeleteGimme a break. If anyone can see them any one can look and analyze it
ReplyDeleteCompanies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeleteAi art does the same thing
ReplyDeleteAll these YouTubers are typing in those video transcripts by hand right? They're for sure paying a real human to do that work if they're not doing it themselves right? They're definitely not using some kind of free transcription service they didn't read the terms and conditions of right?
ReplyDeleteCompanies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you need constant to consume public photos and videos. Do I need content to watch a freely available video or look at a picture posted online?
ReplyDeleteCompanies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeleteDoes YouTube own your personal memory in your neural network of a video posted by someone else?
ReplyDeleteConsent is not required
ReplyDeleteNo one ever complains about the AD.Revenue checks they get from google.
ReplyDeleteI’m not a huge fan of AI, and I don’t like huge companies stealing or profiting off others work, but I don’t understand this argument. AI is training models in the same way human beings take inspiration from others. Filmmakers, YouTubers, writers, all take inspiration from one another. There’s absolutely people who take advantage and literally steal and copy ideas, which is wrong, but emulating someone else isn’t the same. Isn’t that what these AI models are doing?
ReplyDeleteIf someone made a tech channel that was inspired by MKBHD and reviewed tech, mkbhd wouldn’t need to give his consent. He doesn’t need to here, either.
Companies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeleteNot to be combative, truly just trying to understand the argument. But what’s the difference between this and me telling an employee “watch a bunch of these videos for inspiration “. AI reading captions of videos vs watching - I guess I don’t get the argument. That said, I’m terrified of AI taking jobs and eliminating the needs for creatives — it’s just his argument I struggle with
DeleteWhat is the effect of this employee having gained inspiration vs the effect of an AI now being trained? What can they both achieve? And who earns the money with the things they can achieve?
DeleteTo answer your questions, the corporations earn the money. It’s shitty. I hate corporations. But I don’t see it being copyright infringement is my point. Ai learning off materials that are public doesn’t seem illegal to me. If they’re making an identical video from which they learned from, that’s a problem. But they’re not, they’re creating something new.
DeleteAI learning and a human learning has different outcomes regarding the things that both of the entities can achieve. A human is not capable of delivering the same output as the AI, he can only sell and earn money for what his output is capable of. An AI can serve billions of people at the same time forever and make money of them. In that regard it’s a huge difference. Do you want to let some people make a huge amount of money without having to pay all the other people they desperately needed to make money in the first place? That’s the question. Is that fair? For the AI training material is like needing electricity. I am pretty sure the companies have to pay for that electricity.
DeleteYou’re making a different argument. The question is can a corporation use YouTube videos to train AI models. Absolutely, AI has a different output than a human. I was making an analogy when it comes to copyright infringement when referencing humans watching YouTube videos for inspiration — I’m not arguing for artificial intelligence.
DeleteYou’re asking, do I want rich people to make more money by taking from materials that others have created without compensation? I’m saying no. Is it legal? Absolutely. Ideas aren’t copyrighted. Publications/works are. The AI training is using public works for training— until they break copyright law I just don’t see the argument.
But ultimately, we probably are aligned that corporations controlling AI is scary and likely needs regulation. I hope it’s seriously regulated immediately.
Right now it is not clear if it is legal that corporations can take somebodies work to create their products with. The cases are still st the court.
DeleteAnd? We don't need your consent. You put it on YouTube. We don't need consent.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteELI5: What's the issue here? They put their content out and someone "watched it" to train their models, I'm just curious what the issue here is?
Is it because these companies are profiting off these models that used their content to learn?
When an AI trains off YouTube content, what's it specifically doing with that? Does it count as a view? Are these videos being downloaded illegally so it can go on a private server?
Honestly just trying to understand
Using publicly available content for any sort of training is definitely a gray area, I wouldn't condemn anyone for it since social media companies use YT videos for free personnel training all the time.
ReplyDeleteWait. So if I join YouTube like I had planned, my content will get stolen? :(
ReplyDeleteSo what is the difference between some guy watching all these videos and an AI doing it? It's not like it reproduced the content 1:1 so cannot really copyright it.
ReplyDelete“Some guy” cannot watch all of these videos within his lifetime. Not really comparable if you ask me. New laws would be needed to regulate this space.
DeleteBut what if he could? What if i invented a brain link that could process all the videos and put them directly in my brain?
DeleteMy point is that i do not see any issue training AI using publicly available information and content that anyone could look up without.
Hence why I wrote that new laws would be needed to regulate this space :)
DeleteSure, but the laws would need to be made so that the content is no longer public. Which would also such for everyone else.
DeleteAren’t YouTube video publicly available data ? We trained so many audio or visual or text from wiki , YouTube etc.
ReplyDeletePeople don’t complain when someone learns from them. Kind of weird to be mad at an AI for the same thing
ReplyDeleteOn no someone used what is essentially public information to train a model. Maybe they should have read the YouTube terms of service because youtube owns the video since it was uploaded to the platform and content creators aren't all that protected.
ReplyDeleteAre people completely ignorant of the fact that this happens all the time? Even small research labs do this all the time.
ReplyDeleteIf the data is public (open source) why would you need consent? If you're not going to claim it as your own data.
ReplyDeleteBut seems more paywall will be the way to go for content
Public does not equal open source my dude.
DeleteNo way!! What a shocker!!! Who would have predicted this?!
ReplyDeletei’m just shocked i tell you
ReplyDeleteYeah no shit
ReplyDeletewith the public on their side too... and its multiple of creators.... holy shit, huge lawsuit incoming.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who watches YouTube videos is trained on the content.
ReplyDeleteAI needing consent implies what? That no one is allowed to learn anything from a YouTube video without writing the creator of that video and asking if it’s OK if they use the video to learn?
ReplyDeleteThere are fair use laws for a reason. Does a band doing a cover of another band’s song need consent too?
Unless AI is making a carbon copy of something that another creator did and trying to pass it off as genuine then I don’t see their argument for being owed something.
When somebody first said, angrily, to me: well, these language models are just reading and looking at all of the data they are fed and mashing, morphing and editing them together in different ways. And I thought . . . "wait, isn't that what we do?"
ReplyDeleteIs everyone forgetting that we all learn by “training off people’s content without their consent”?
ReplyDeleteAI is learning the exact same way we do.
Why would they need consent to have the AI watch YouTube?
ReplyDeleteCompanies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeletePaste this answer a few more times
DeleteYea read the article i can only say. The discussion are in the wrong direction. The question would be, was Apple and co allowed to break YouTube‘s rules?
DeleteWhat do you mean without consent. You put it up on the fucking YouTube. That’s for anybody to watch. “You all can watch - but not you robots! Robots can’t watch us !!! “
ReplyDeleteCompanies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeletePermission from who? YouTube? AFAIK once a video is uploaded to YouTube, you don’t have exclusive rights to it anymore. That’s the trade off to using a free service to push your “content”.
DeletePermission from YouTube, correct. When you are using YouTube you accept certain terms of usage.
DeleteIt’s on a public forum. It is not using the videos to misrepresent. It is using for training AI models which, I don’t know what is the problem? Should I assume the problem is that it was done without consent? In that case we circle back to “it’s on a public forum”.
ReplyDeleteCompanies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeleteThey don't need consent you publish the video for everyone to see
ReplyDeleteCompanies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeleteThings you put on Internet belong to Internet. *big surprised face *
ReplyDeleteTry reuploading a nintendo trailer to your youtube channel and see how allowed you are to upload other people's stuff on the internet as if its yours
Deletehttps://youtu.be/Sh0l78KD7mA?si=0qV_FQ4UUSlIBn0_
DeleteCompanies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission.
DeleteWe have become a society which prioritizes ownership over productivity. It's extremely stupid & a bad idea.
ReplyDeletePeople expect compensation because we live in a society that people Need Money to live and eat
DeleteRight, but they're not getting that from the creators, they're getting the licensing from people who also stole it from the creators. It's turtles all the way down & a pretty good example of why capitalism isn't a modern system.
DeleteMKBHD is an Apple shill. I don’t think he minds.
ReplyDeleteHe dailies a Samsung. I don’t even remember the last time he had an iPhone as his main phone
Deletelol, which is funny actually... because "galaxy ai" is partially just google ai stuff... and google is the one that actually funded eleuther ai's work on pile...
DeleteDoesn't mean he isn't a shill.
DeleteI don't know why you're being downvoted, he bought the 50k Mac Pro which even at its release was outperformed by a 5k prebuilt PC, and he even justified buying the 500 or 1k wheels for it. He bought the monitor and justified the 1k monitor stand, etc. There have been many cases of him blindly buying apple dogshit and pretending it was great.
Delete