[flagged]
Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
171–180 of 1001 posts
Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
#172Where's he getting that $94.7B, from the US Treasury?
the same fund that's going to buy tiktok
Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's certainly a part of me that wonders if Altman incorrectly assumes last year's rules still apply, when in fact he just ensured retribution from the man who counts all three branches of the United States government as his underlings.
Well, I certainly hope people like sama are still willing to push back, and don't just bend the knee immediately to President Musk. Surely there's at least one or two people out there in Silicon Valley that still have a backbone.
There's a difference between saying no and poking the bear. The reply was essentially a middle finger. A simple thanks but not at this time, or no reply at all, would probably have been a safer move. As CEO of a company, you should probably put said company's safety above pride. My .02.
Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bad analysis. There's clearly non-market forces at play for why Sam Altman doesn't want to give control to a group associated with Elon.
You can't take into account something like that when considering fiduciary duty.
This statement is one of the things that really boils my piss about almost all online discussions where valuations are mentioned: Fiduciary duty does not mean that you must simply maximise share price, and never has.
Fiduciary duty is specifically a moral imperative to do what is best for shareholders. Very often that is a large share valuation!
Sometimes, though, you work for a non-profit (who told their shareholders "we're not actually trying to make you any money, consider your buy in a donation, and your profit to be not being eaten alive by killer robots after AI gains sentience") your fiduciary duty to your shareholders is to continue to not allow an unhinged billionaire who doesn't appear to give two small fucks about any kind of safety to buy your company.
Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like petty internet arguments, I can't help appreciate him referring to it as Twitter.
I only call it Twitter because I’m not gonna say “X” it just sounds stupid.
It's like the ship of Theseus for me. If all of the parts are swapped out, is it the same ship? I don't know, that's interesting to think about. But if all of the parts are essentially the same but worse for wear, with a shittier captain, is it the same ship? Yes, it's still Twitter.
Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
#176mmmmh... chat-gpt 5 and their other models are so much a disappointment they want to sell fast?
That bleeding money went to nvidia(US) and the US electric grid, so its FINE from a US point of view (I don't think a lot went to TSMC(taiwan)).
Unless openai is transfering significant amount of money outside the US (directly or via some montage).
Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
#177It feels like Musk is single-handedly making a great case for why unlimited accumulation of wealth is a bad idea. It's pretty colorful language, but my mind immediately jumps to "financial terrorist". He's using his enormous amount of wealth and influence as a weapon to bludgeon anyone and anything in his way.
How much of it is tied up to a criminally overvalued Tesla stock though?
Sure, Tesla could go to zero and he'd still be a fabulously wealthy man, but with how things are moving - It wouldn't surprise me that he's about the fall down the ranks. Let's see how much power he has once the "richest man in the world" aura fades away.
Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
#178With first mover advantage disappearing for OpenAI and very good alternatives appearing, one wonders how long they can sustain a multi billion dollar per year loss[0]. The launch of ChatGPT was earth shaking, but what have they done since that impacts or excites the average consumer? Does their revenue even come from the average consumer, or primarily from API users that will lift and shift to a viable competitor? I…
Don't you think that the brand is huge though? It has become a household name and it's synonymous with artificial intelligence. They're also supposed to get grotesque amount of investments which is supposedly more than twice the value of what Musk offered(They have %40 stake in the project Stargate, which is supposedly $500B thing).
> Don't you think that the brand is huge though?
The world is littered with old once-great brands.
Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
#179"The bid is being backed by Musk's AI company xAI, which could merge with OpenAI following a deal, according to the Wall Street Journal which first reported Musk's offer earlier on Monday." xAI is not making any money - it's a money furnace, so what does it mean the bid is backed by xAI ? The leverage and 'creativity' in the US is off the charts. Dotcom bubble starts to look reasonable.
This is an underrated comment.
And the key point in this news that punctuates the ridiculous farce that is the nature of this offer.
Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bad analysis. There's clearly non-market forces at play for why Sam Altman doesn't want to give control to a group associated with Elon.
You can't take into account something like that when considering fiduciary duty.
It's a private entity. The duty is to investors, and they're welcome to file a lawsuit if they disagree - all depends on the agreement(s) they made.
Not accepting external offers to purchase startups is fairly normal. And "we don't like the new overlords" is also a fairly normal reason for refusing said offers.