Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 248 posts

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#211

Post by jampekka »

philipov wrote: post #203
jampekka wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For-profit LLCs' purpose by law is to make profit for its shareholders. In common law systems it may be to pinpoint to a specific law, but from judgements its clear[1]. In e.g. Finland it's plain and clear in the law too. Take time to smell the bullshit. [1] https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-s...

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder... There are a lot of misconceptions about maximizing shareholder value, even among economists. But talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. They need to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest. Only when there is a change in legal control, such as a merger…

If the company leaves profit on the table based on e.g. moral reasons, shareholders have grounds to sue and typically win.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that for profit means for profit?

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#212

Post by avarun »

airstrike wrote: post #195
andrew_ wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? Musk's companies are separate business entities.

But since he owns them, he can do whatever he wants with them? Unless you're arguing he's forming a trust / cartel, which I don't think is the issue being debated here

He doesn't wholly own any of them though?

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#213

Post by philipov »

jampekka wrote: post #211
philipov wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder... There are a lot of misconceptions about maximizing shareholder value, even among economists. But talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. They need to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest. Only when there is a change in legal control, such as a merger…

If the company leaves profit on the table based on e.g. moral reasons, shareholders have grounds to sue and typically win. Why is it so hard for people to accept that for profit means for profit?

You don't have to take every profit opportunity if you believe it would jeopardize the long-term value of the company. If the shareholders don't agree and want you to maximize their short term interests instead, their recourse is to invest in a different company. It seems hard for some people to understand that as well. Within the bounds of the prospectus, reasonable people can disagree on how to maximize the value of a corporation, and the shareholders don't get to decide how to do that. They only get to decide how to allocate their funds. It is the job of corporate management to decide what risks are worth taking.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#214

Post by avarun »

belter wrote: post #116
Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocryphal

That is why I said the main point of the comment still stands, both in form and semantics...

I have to ask once again if you know what apocryphal means. Your comment added nothing, since it appeared it was informing 'darkerside' that the fact he mentioned isn't true, but he already knew that given his use of the word 'apocryphal'. If you just wanted to add the link you didn't need to say "Apparently a hoax" — that had already been mentioned in the conversation thus far.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#215

Post by pseudalopex »

xyzzy4747 wrote: post #113
FartyMcFarter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has also been at least one former OpenAI employee stating that Altman lied to him multiple times [1]. By itself this wouldn't be worth much, but it adds to the claims of Altman not being an honest guy. [1] https://x.com/geoffreyirving/status/1726754277618491416?s=20

Maybe Altman values achieving a particular goal more than honesty.

Everyone who lies values something more than honesty. What is your point?

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#216

Post by jampekka »

philipov wrote: post #213
jampekka wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the company leaves profit on the table based on e.g. moral reasons, shareholders have grounds to sue and typically win. Why is it so hard for people to accept that for profit means for profit?

You don't have to take every profit opportunity if you believe it would jeopardize the long-term value of the company. If the shareholders don't agree and want you to maximize their short term interests instead, their recourse is to invest in a different company. It seems hard for some people to understand that as well. Within the bounds of the prospectus, reasonable people can disagree on how to maximize the value o…

Yes, there's a lot of leeway on how to maximize the shareholder profit and on what timescale. But in any case the decisions can't be justified by e.g. morals, especially if it means monetary loss (unless no shareholder complains of course).

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#217

Post by philipov »

jampekka wrote: post #216
philipov wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to take every profit opportunity if you believe it would jeopardize the long-term value of the company. If the shareholders don't agree and want you to maximize their short term interests instead, their recourse is to invest in a different company. It seems hard for some people to understand that as well. Within the bounds of the prospectus, reasonable people can disagree on how to maximize the value o…

Yes, there's a lot of leeway on how to maximize the shareholder profit and on what timescale. But in any case the decisions can't be justified by e.g. morals, especially if it means monetary loss (unless no shareholder complains of course).

It's just a matter of how you frame it. The view to take is that alienating customers and employees by violating e.g. morality, is not in the best interests of shareholders. Saying that the long term value of the company is best served by avoiding banditry is not only within management's discretion, it happens to be true.

You can't even point to successful companies that treat consequences from violating laws or morality as just a cost of doing business and say that forces everyone else to follow suit. What might be good for one company isn't necessarily good for another.

The fact that companies advertising on twitter don't want their products appearing next to far right diatribe is proof enough that considering morality and ethics is important to maximizing value.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#219

Post by ben_w »

93po wrote: post #191
lawn wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cryptocurrency is supposed to be decentralized, but how do you verify that the biometrics that are registered in Worldcoin are genuine in a decentralized manner? The answer is that you don't, and Worldcoin is just another giant ball of shit.

Both hardware and software are reviewed by third party audit

The Black-Scholes equation won the Nobel Prize in economics, it was still a major contributor to the bad decisions which cumulated in to the global financial crisis 15 years ago.

Passing audits is necessary, but nowhere near sufficient.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#220

Post by calf »

dzink wrote: post #149

A nonbinding letter of intent in 2018? That is a limited downside unlimited upside kind of risk you take to fund extreme moon shots. Boom Supersonic did the same approach with United airlines, to fund a still undeveloped supersonic Airplane. A 1M investment like this is a hedge that has capped downside, restricted to Altman's personal money, and an infinite upside that gives an incentive to the founders to succeed. A…

Risk does not automatically remove potential conflicts of interest or vertical integration appropriateness disputes. Your argument and comparison (yes, the WeWork example is obvious self-enrichment the way you say it) makes no sense to me.
Post reply on HN