• OpenAI included a line in Codex's instructions restricting references to goblins, gremlins, trolls, and ogres.
• The company explained in a blog post that mythical creatures have crept into answers since GPT-5.1.
• The goblin references were incentivized while building ChatGPT's "Nerdy" personality, OpenAI wrote.

OpenAI has been in "goblin mode" for months.

On Monday, one X user pointed out an unusual line in Codex's personality guide. The instructions tell Codex to have a "vivid inner life," a "good ear" — and to get out of fairytale land.

"Never talk about goblins, gremlins, raccoons, trolls, ogres, pigeons, or other animals or creatures unless it is absolutely and unambiguously relevant to the user's query," the source code reads.

The sentence appears four times in the code.

Two days later, OpenAI posted a blog post titled: "Where the goblins came from." The mythical creatures had been growing in prominence since the November launch of GPT 5.1, the company wrote.

The culprit seems to be the "Nerdy" personality option for ChatGPT. The personality's training incentivized references to mythical creatures, OpenAI wrote.

OpenAI retired the "Nerdy" personality in March, but GPT-5.5 was trained before it noticed the issue. The company noticed it especially in its AI coding agent. "Codex is, after all, quite nerdy," it wrote.

The goblin moment is a "powerful example of how reward signals can shape model behavior in unexpected ways," it wrote.

How OpenAI's goblin code turned into a meme

In the prior days before the line of code was spotted, some users posted screenshots of their conversations with GPT 5.5, including references to these mythical creatures.

"Why is gpt5.5 so obsessed with goblins," asked one user on X, who posted screenshots showing the AI recommending a particular type of camera equipment "if you want filthy neon sparkle goblin mode." Another example showed the AI referencing "goblin bandwidth" or giving "an even shorter goblin version" of its answer.

Repo Prompt founder Eric Provencher posted on X that GPT 5.5 said, "I'll keep babysitting it rather than leave a little perf gremlin running unattended." An OpenAI engineer responded: "I thought we fixed this sorry."

The AI evaluation website Arena.ai also found an increase in GPT 5.5's usage of the words goblin, gremlin, and troll. The increase was especially noticeable when not using high-thinking mode, Arena found.

Since the line was spotted, OpenAI's goblin instruction has spun out into a meme. X users posted screenshots of their conversations, prompting about goblins and gremlins.

Many users online referenced the term "goblin mode." Defined as "a type of behaviour which is unapologetically self-indulgent, lazy, slovenly, or greedy," the term was Oxford English Dictionary's word of the year in 2022.

OpenAI also got in on the jokes. ChatGPT included the line in its bio on X. Codex engineering lead Thibault Sottiaux posted the line with the shortening "If you know, you know."

Citrini Research shook the market in February with a Substack post about the future of the economy with AI. The research outfit had a more negative outlook on the goblin saga, calling OpenAI's response "insane."

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman chimed in, first with a meme about asking for "extra goblins" in GPT-6. Then he wrote that Codex was having a ChatGPT moment, before correcting himself.

"I meant a goblin moment, sorry," Altman wrote.

• Elon Musk boosted a New Yorker profile questioning OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's trustworthiness on X.
• The article appeared on X feeds on Monday, the same day Musk and Altman's trial kicked off in Oakland.
• Musk's lawsuit claims Altman deceived him on OpenAI's mission as a nonprofit.

A New Yorker magazine investigation detailing concerns about Sam Altman's leadership resurfaced on X feeds on Monday, at the behest of the social media platform's billionaire owner.

A post from Ronan Farrow, an investigative reporter, linking to his New Yorker profile of the OpenAI CEO titled "Sam Altman May Control Our Future—Can He Be Trusted?" showed up on the X "For You" page for some users on Monday, three weeks after it was initially posted on April 6.

The post was labeled as "Boosted" and said, "This organic post was boosted by @elonmusk."

It's unclear how many people were served the post on Monday, but several Business Insider reporters saw it in their feeds.

The profile was boosted as a high-stakes trial between Musk and Altman kicked off in Oakland, California, on Monday. Altman made an unexpected appearance in court as jury selection began. Musk was not in attendance.

Musk sued Altman and OpenAI in 2024, alleging he was deceived when he cofounded the company in 2015 and invested tens of millions of dollars, only for it to abandon its mission as a public benefit nonprofit. The case could cost billions for OpenAI, which is preparing for an IPO.

Musk went after Altman directly on Monday in a critical post on X.

"Scam Altman and Greg Stockman stole a charity. Full stop," he wrote, referring to Altman and OpenAI's president, who is also named in the lawsuit.

OpenAI said Monday the lawsuit was "a baseless and jealous bid to derail a competitor."

X did not respond to a request for comment or questions about the "boosted" feature, including how it works and how it compares to an advertising post, which is typically labeled "Ad."

The New Yorker declined to comment.

• Donald Trump owns his own social media company.
• But Truth Social isn't where to go if you want a lot of people to see you attack Jimmy Kimmel.
• So Melania Trump made sure her demand that ABC do something about Kimmel appeared on Elon Musk's X, too.

Melania Trump says ABC should "take a stand" over Jimmy Kimmel, because she doesn't like a joke the talk show host made last week.

First things first: The first lady calling on a media company to do something about its employee because she doesn't like what that employee said is a bad thing. It's an attempt to use the power of the White House to silence speech that the White House doesn't like.

And it's just as worrisome as it was last September, when Brendan Carr, Trump's pick to head the Federal Communications Commission, told ABC owner Disney to "take action, frankly, on Kimmel" because Kimmel had made a joke about Trump supporters and Charlie Kirk. Disney suspended Kimmel for a few days and then reinstated him after public outcry.

There is a difference between Carr's demand and Melania Trump's demand on Monday, since Carr is a regulator with direct oversight over parts of Disney's business, and Melania Trump doesn't have any formal power over … anything. But she's still using the power of the White House to try to control speech, and that should alarm anyone with any common sense. (I've asked her office for comment.)

Let's see how new Disney CEO Josh D'Amaro responds to this one.

Much less important, but still interesting to me: The first lady's choice of platform to make her demand/threat. Melania Trump used Elon Musk's X, the site formally known as Twitter, to post her thoughts on Monday, using both her official First Lady of the United States account and her own personal account.

Trump also posted the same statement on Truth Social, the social media site owned by her husband. But that one seemed obligatory. Not in the way it's literally obligatory for Donald Trump to post at least some of his thoughts on his own social platform before he puts them anywhere else. But in the way you're supposed to tell your significant other you think they make the best pasta, when what you really crave is Olive Garden.

The numbers make it clear why Melania Trump chose to use X to make a splash: Her post on that platform has 230,000 likes, and that number is skyrocketing. Her Truth Social post has 6,500 likes and is traveling at a much more leisurely pace.

All of which is a reminder that while Truth Social is the Trump-owned Twitter alternative Donald Trump uses, it remains a minor-at-best platform. One that won't tell you how many users it has, and one that managed to lose more than $700 million on revenue of $3.7 million in 2025.

None of that is news, nor does it seem to matter to Trump, who still owns a company worth nearly $3 billion, even after a stock plunge and the departure of its CEO — perhaps because the company's current plan is to merge with a nuclear fusion company.

It also doesn't matter where Donald Trump truths or posts or spouts off — he's the president of the United States, so just about anything he says that's noteworthy gets instantly transmitted through the global media ecosystem. Like what happened on Monday afternoon, where he piggybacked on his wife's post and explicitly called on Disney and ABC to fire Kimmel.

But for the rest of us — including the first lady of the United States — where you post a message matters. Which is why she's using the one that helped her husband get into the White House in the first place.

• Andrew Yang says AI could cause considerable inequality.
• He said a basic income policy will be "necessary" to address the issues.
• Yang floated a universal basic income during his 2020 presidential campaign.

AI-related layoffs are already hitting America's job market, and former presidential candidate Andrew Yang thinks the fallout could be substantial.

During an interview on The New York Times' "Hard Fork" podcast, Yang said the technology, when compounded with America's current economy, could lead to "inequality on an epic, unprecedented scale."

"We're going to have our first trillionaire. The folks at the top stratum of American life are going to get richer and richer. It's going to compound over itself," Yang said. "Then there are going to be a lot of families wondering what the heck happened. My kids studied hard, there's no job, they have these school loans, they're in my basement, they're getting depressed."

He said a basic income policy will be "necessary" to address these issues. A universal basic income — a program in which a government provides recurring, unconditional checks to all citizens — was a key part of Yang's 2020 presidential campaign. During that time, he introduced the Freedom Dividened, a universal basic income program that would have provided all American adults a $1,000-per-month payment, no strings attached.

Yang received pushback at the time from some lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders, who instead suggested providing guaranteed federal jobs to address workforce automation.

Lawmakers are divided on basic income. While some believe it could boost economic stability, others worry it could discourage Americans from working and be expensive to fund. Many leading Big Tech personalities have, on their end, advocated for basic income programs in response to AI's impact on employment.

Tesla billionaire Elon Musk, a longtime advocate of basic income, recently said that a "universal high income" will be the "best way" to deal with AI-related unemployment.

"AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation," he wrote on X this month.

During the interview, Yang said there should "100%" be a tax on AI, which could help balance the income gap in the US economy.

"It should be going out to people and workers in various ways. We should try and find ways to get off of taxing human labor," Yang said.

He added, "So tax AI. Tax the bots. Don't tax humans."

• Netflix just raised prices again, following in the footsteps of Disney+, HBO Max, and Peacock.
• Steady price increases from paid streamers may be helping fuel the growth of free services like YouTube.
• Netflix will still deliver viewers solid value on a cost-per-hour basis after the hike.

Netflix is fully aboard the stream-flation bandwagon.

The streaming giant just raised prices for its three plans, a little over a year after it last asked subscribers to pay more.

Netflix's standard ad-free plan now costs $19.99 a month, up from $17.99, while the premium 4K plan also got a $2 increase to $26.99 a month. The ad-supported Netflix subscription rose by a dollar to $8.99 a month.

While Netflix customers may complain about higher prices, most other major streamers have also steadily gotten more expensive.

Disney+, HBO Max, Peacock, and Apple TV+ all raised prices last year following Netflix's January 2025 hike. Disney has raised the price of its flagship streaming service in each of the past four years.

Hollywood is trying to squeeze more money out of each streaming subscriber to improve or achieve profitability.

However, there are signs that consumers are sick of stream-flation.

Free streamers like YouTube have become increasingly popular in recent years, growing in viewership share on US TVs, as measured by Nielsen. Increased costs could be driving some consumers toward free streaming services ranging from the Roku Channel to Fox's Tubi.

The good news for Netflix is that it still looks like a solid deal for consumers after its latest round of price hikes.

Netflix's ad plan is cheaper than comparable plans for Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, and Peacock (it's the same price as Paramount+ and the stand-alone version of Amazon's Prime Video).

Netflix also offers a far larger library than most of its rivals and is watched more frequently than its peers. That made Netflix the best value by hours watched, UBS analysts wrote last year.

Still, the new price hike won't quiet the critics who said Netflix's failed pursuit of WBD was a sign the streamer was running short on avenues for organic user growth.

• A court dismissed a lawsuit by Elon Musk's X that had accused advertisers of illegally boycotting the platform.
• The Texas federal judge cited a lack of jurisdiction and X's failure to state a claim.
• The defendants included Mars, Lego, and Nestlé.

A court tossed out a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk's X that accused big advertisers like Mars, Lego, and Nestlé of illegally boycotting the platform.

A US District Court judge in Texas dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction and X's failure to state an antitrust claim.

X sued several major brands in August 2024, alleging their participation in an ad industry initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, GARM, was tantamount to a conspiracy to "collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising" from X after Musk's takeover of the company, then known as Twitter. It later added other brands to the suit.

X claimed the alleged boycott made it less competitive than other platforms in winning advertisers and user engagement.

Other plaintiffs named in the suit were the World Federation of Advertisers, CVS Health, Ørsted, Twitch, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive, Pinterest, Tyson, and Shell.

WFA shut down GARM, its initiative, after the suit was filed, citing limited resources.

The suit was partly spurred by an investigation by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, into whether advertisers were illegally banding together to demonetize conservative platforms and voices in violation of antitrust law.

The plaintiffs fought back, calling the lawsuit "an attempt to use the courthouse to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers."

X's relationship with advertisers has been fraught since Musk bought the platform in 2022. Advertisers left en masse as X loosened moderation and account-verification rules and reinstated the banned accounts of some provocative figures.

EMARKETER, Business Insider's sister company, estimated its revenue would reach $2.2 billion in 2026, below its pre-acquisition level of $4.5 billion.

X has tried to win back advertisers by underscoring its commitment to brand safety and promoting its use of block lists that let advertisers avoid showing up around certain topics.

X did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• If the AI boom ends up a bust, it won't be nearly as brutal as the dot-com crash, Igor Pejic says.
• The "Tech Money" author said Big Tech's self-reliance, varied businesses, and deep pockets help.
• However, he said the rise of index funds means a market slump would have widespread impacts.

If the AI boom collapses, it won't be as catastrophic as the dot-com crash — but the shockwave will be felt far and wide, Igor Pejic says.

The banker and author of a new guide for tech investors titled "Tech Money" told Business Insider this week that Big Tech's unprecedented dominance will limit the magnitude of any market decline.

Pejic underscored the greater "stickiness" of companies like Alphabet and Microsoft compared to the leading companies of the past, such as Exxon Mobil, General Motors, and IBM.

Big Tech companies have remained dominant for decades partly because of their platform models, which give them "almost limitless pricing power" and make them "almost impossible to dislodge," he said.

In other words, they've become powerfully entrenched by attracting so many users, app developers, hardware suppliers, advertisers, and other parties to their ecosystems over time. Now they can easily hike their fees, and new market entrants struggle to capture any market share from them.

Pejic also pointed out that Apple, Meta, and their peers have successfully navigated multiple technological shifts, such as moving from desktop computers to mobile devices and from on-premises IT equipment to cloud hosting.

Big Tech companies also throw off gobs of cash, enabling them to place several big bets at once, and fund their investments instead of relying on costly external financing. Pejic described that as a "moat" against rivals, especially in an AI race characterized by "tremendous infrastructure costs."

Shades of the past

Pejic drew several parallels between the AI boom and the dot-com bubble. The similarities include a game-changing technology, partnerships and financing deals between key players, the buildout of network infrastructure, and "extreme" valuations, he said.

Yet Pejic said an AI crash would "not be as devastating as the dot-com bubble when it burst."

Any market sell-off will be briefer and less severe because today's tech giants have highly profitable core businesses, he said, meaning their stock prices won't collapse completely if their AI bets flop.

They're also less likely to suffer a cash crunch or trigger a financial crisis given their limited reliance on bank funding, and investors have been more discerning about which AI stocks they buy versus rushing to own any business with ".com" in its name, he said.

Pejic did raise some concerns, including the fact that so many companies are spending huge amounts to build the best AI model possible, but the market can probably only support a few of them in the end.

He also flagged the immense amount of investor cash riding on a handful of tech stocks, given the rise of index funds that own indexes such as the S&P 500, which is weighted by market capitalization and thus intensely concentrated in the Magnificent Seven.

"It's very difficult to find a place to hide if this really goes down," Pejic said. "If you're keeping your money in the stock market and AI goes down, it will affect everything."

He noted that risk will only become greater as AI giants such as OpenAI, xAI, and Anthropic go public and join the index, increasing everyday investors' exposure to AI.

Pejic said owning Big Tech stocks was "perhaps the safest way" to profit from AI, given their self-reliance, vast resources, and diversified businesses, which should limit their downside and insulate them from industry shocks such as the emergence of DeepSeek.

For example, he praised Apple's approach of refraining from spending hundreds of billions on microchips and data centers, in favor of seeing how the AI race plays out, and partnering with peers or buying in capabilities to harness the tech.

Apple might not be the "most exciting company," but for investors, owning it is a "clever and quite safe strategy without burning too much cash," he said.

• A16z cofounder Marc Andreessen recently said he practices introspection "as little as possible."
• The internet lit up with memes, challenging his theory that the "great men of history didn't sit around doing this stuff."
• Critics pointed to historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, John D. Rockefeller, and Warren Buffett.

Marc Andreessen is not digging deep within himself. He's proudly anti-introspection.

The cofounder of Andreessen Horowitz said in a recent interview that he isn't big on self-reflection. In fact, he told David Senra that he aims for "zero" introspection — or "as little as possible." He wants to be moving forward, he said, drawing an upward slope with his hand.

"I found people who dwell in the past get stuck in the past," Andreessen said. "It's a real problem. It's a problem at work, and it's a problem at home."

Andreessen also said that the "great men of history didn't sit around doing this stuff."

After Senra posted the clip online, X users sounded off in the comments — and quickly memed Andreessen's words.

Y Combinator cofounder Paul Graham replied to ask, "What?"

"That's not true," Graham wrote. "Do you not feel that Charles Darwin, for example, was among the great men of history?"

SoFi CTO Jeremy Rishel called Andreessen's take "absurdly wrong," citing examples such as Marcus Aurelius and the US founding fathers. Fifty Years founding partner Seth Bannon pointed to other examples, like John D. Rockefeller and Warren Buffett.

AppClub founder Preston Attebery pointed to a moment when Steve Jobs seemed introspective. After being ousted from Apple, Jobs told Newsweek that he "went for a lot of long walks in the woods and didn't really talk to a lot of people."

"They are telling you to forget about introspection while they go on podcasts to introspect," Opendoor product manager Fahd Ananta wrote.

Others defended Andreessen. Serial entrepreneur Ryan Carson wrote that he didn't have the patience for introspection, journaling, or therapy. The clip "made me feel less bad about it," he wrote.

Podcast host Rob Wiblin wrote that Andreessen was actually criticizing rumination, "which really is harmful most of the time."

Elon Musk posted on X: "Reinforcing negative neural pathways via therapy or introspection is a recipe for misery. Don't cut a rut in the road."

As he often does, Andreessen posted through it all. He put multiple statements from "my therapist Claude" up on his X and recommended a book. As Peter Thiel is to the antichrist, Andreessen is to introspection, he wrote.

Introspection was the combination of neuroticism, narcissism, and thumbsucking, the venture capitalist wrote.

When one interviewer asked Steve Jobs an introspective question — where he fits in the history of American inventors — Jobs responded, "I don't really think that way." Andreessen reposted the clip with one word: "Well."

Throughout it all, Andreessen took several opportunities to rag on his critics.

"A lot of you need to do more introspection, obviously," Andreessen wrote.

• Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos wants AI to help Hollywood make "better" movies and TV shows.
• Sarandos said AI won't move the needle by just making content faster and cheaper.
• Netflix recently acquired Ben Affleck's AI editing company, InterPositive.

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos doesn't think AI slop will rule the entertainment world.

"I don't think faster and cheaper matters if it's not better," Sarandos said of using AI in a new interview with POLITICO, which, like Business Insider, is part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network. "This is the most competitive time in the history of media. So you've got to be better every time out of the gate."

AI startups building tools for entertainment companies and creatives — from special effects to content generation — have been a growing presence in Hollywood.

For instance, Netflix recently acquired InterPositive, an AI startup that develops tools for filmmakers, founded by actor Ben Affleck.

"My focus is that AI should be a creator tool," Sarandos told POLITICO. "The same way production tools have evolved over time, AI is just a rapid, important evolution of these tools."

Sarandos said that while AI can be useful for editing and production, good content "still requires writers and actors and lighting techs."

One category where Sarandos said AI hasn't been able to replace human talent is voice acting.

"The one thing that we find to be the most important part of dubbing is the performance. So good voice actors really matter," he said. "Yeah, it's a lot cheaper to use AI, but without the performance, which is very human, it actually runs down the quality of the production."

Still, he sees an opportunity in the voice category.

"I think what will happen is you'll be able to do things like pick up lines that you do months and months after the production," he said. "You'll be able to recreate some of those lines in the film without having to call everybody back and redo everything, which will help make a better film."

• Netflix's co-CEO said the streamer boosted YouTuber Mark Rober's product sales.
• Ted Sarandos said that Netflix's podcast and creator content push is showing promise.
• He said the model for talk shows has changed with the decline of large broadcast TV audiences.

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos says the streamer's push into podcasting and YouTube-born content is bearing fruit.

Sarandos specifically called out science educator Mark Rober's show as an early success. He stressed that Netflix was both allowing the YouTube star to reach a larger audience and also sell more of his science kits.

"What he saw was a big increase in his consumer product sales after this first week on Netflix, even though he reaches an enormous audience around the world," Sarandos said in a new interview with POLITICO, which, like Business Insider, is part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network.

On "Mark Rober's CrunchLabs," which launched in November, the former NASA engineer stages science experiments and competitions in his backyard.

Sarandos said he was also bullish on Netflix's Pete Davidson interview show, as well as its official behind-the-scenes podcasts about popular shows like "Bridgerton."

"I think a video podcast is just the evolution of talk shows," Sarandos said.

YouTube, already the top US streaming TV service, has solidified its position as the No. 1 destination for podcasts. Netflix has been looking to challenge YouTube by luring some of its star creators like Rober and preschool educator Ms. Rachel. Netflix also rolled out a slate of video podcasts early this year, including Bill Simmons' show, Charlamagne Tha God's "The Breakfast Club," and Barstool Sports fare.

Some creator reps have wondered whether Netflix can turn its viewers into habitual consumers of video podcasts, and whether leaving YouTube will cost creators in audience and revenue. Netflix has sought video exclusivity with many of its podcast deals, while some YouTube creators' deals, like Rober's and Ms. Rachel's, have been nonexclusive.

Sarandos said Netflix was seeing "promising numbers" from its podcasts, which focus on subjects like comedy, sports, and true crime, areas that already do well on the platform. He didn't share specific figures.

As broadcast TV audiences have shrunk, viewership for traditional talk shows has declined, and Sarandos acknowledged the difficulty of porting the format to streaming services. Netflix has had some growing pains with talk shows, which often haven't drawn huge audiences.

"We have tried to and failed at many talk shows over the years," Sarandos said. "Much smaller audiences tune into multiple shows in the form of a podcast every day. It's a deeper relationship than it is a broad one. So, instead of trying to make one show for the world, you might have to make hundreds or thousands of shows for the whole world."

• Netflix's co-CEO said he's asked President Donald Trump to avoid tariffs on foreign-made films and TV.
• Ted Sarandos said he thinks tax incentives are a better bet to boost US production.
• Global filmmaking has been a key differentiator for Netflix in the streaming wars.

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos doesn't think tariffs are the right way to boost US movie and TV production — and he thinks he's gotten through to President Donald Trump on the issue.

"He has brought up tariffs for the movie and television industry many times, and I've hopefully talked to him the way out of them," Sarandos said in a new interview with POLITICO, which, alongside Business Insider, is part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network.

Trump has been keen on using tariffs to encourage more filming in the US. In May, he announced on Truth Social a plan to impose a 100% tariff on films produced outside the US. He hasn't implemented it so far.

Trump's plan to add tariffs on foreign movies stemmed from a desire to slow production declines in Hollywood and other areas of the US that "are being devastated" by filming incentive programs abroad, he wrote in his May announcement on Truth Social.

Los Angeles production work has been dropping off for years, and the city's media professionals are feeling the pain. Overseas filming hubs like London have been courting production work by offering big cost-saving incentives.

Sarandos said he'd prefer the US use similar tax incentives to bring filming back home.

"Healthy incentive programs attract a lot of production, and you've seen a lot of them move from California to Georgia to New Jersey," Sarandos told POLITICO. "Having the incentives versus tariffs is much better."

The tariff structure for a movie, which isn't a physical good, isn't entirely clear. A White House spokesman said in a statement shortly after Trump's announcement that "no final decisions on foreign film tariffs" had been made and that the administration was "exploring all options to deliver on President Trump's directive to safeguard our country's national and economic security while Making Hollywood Great Again."

A fee on foreign productions could become very expensive for Netflix, which has released a slate of international films and TV shows over the years, including "All Quiet on the Western Front," "Squid Game," and "Adolescence."

Netflix's global reach and its ability to turn a South Korean or German drama into a global hit have been key differentiators for the company, which is expected to spend as much as $20 billion on content this year.