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

Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#501

Post by protocolture »

slg wrote: post #338
scarface_74 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s impressive about Tesla? It’s already being outcompeted by companies in China, losing market share, and the other manufacturers are catching up. Besides that, he’s pissed off the demographics most likely to buy Teslas. It’s not like most Trump voters are buying EVs

>What’s impressive about Tesla? There is this weird revisionist history now that Musk is hated to dismiss all Tesla's accomplishments as meaningless. The traditional auto industry would have never embraced EVs to the extent they have if someone did not disrupt the market in a way like Tesla did. That is both impressive and huge net positive for humanity in a way that is an extremely rare achievement for any startup.

They arent meaningless, Tesla did some pretty cool shit. And then they shipped a very small quantity of cars that have poor maintenance and the kind of vendor lockin that we get shitty at John Deere for.

The issue isnt that Tesla did stuff. Its that its all historical stuff that doesnt justify its current market price.

If I was to invest in a car company I would want them shipping millions of cars, not a "net positive for humanity" and a couple hundred thousand janky cars.

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#502

Post by mullingitover »

rvnx wrote: post #138
minimaxir wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's large brand value, and then there's $300B brand value. Without a moat, it's hard to argue OpenAI's value is that high.

You can choose as an investor between: a) Coca-Cola (~$300B, profitable, stable, stock-listed, well-known addictive brand, accepted business model with steady growth) b) OpenAI (bleeding cash: $5B lost last year, tech that is not really novel anymore, weird corporate setup, competition that offers similar products). It's not that easy to support the idea that OpenAI will be the winner.

OpenAI is pre-revenue, they're a pure play.

It's not about how much you earn, it's about how much you're worth.

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#503

Post by threeseed »

jiggawatts wrote: post #380
gonzo41 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Australia. Musk drove everyone in BYD's arms.

The weak Aussie dollar and the low cost of BYD cars is what did that. Also, Tesla stopped selling the Model S here.

Model S stopped being sold here in 2023.

In 2024, Tesla reported a 17% drop in Australia despite EV market growing.

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#504

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

ak_111 wrote: post #458
alpha_squared wrote: post #102

It 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.

He single handedly also vindicated one of the most authoritarian regimes - China - in how it slapped Jack Ma as soon as he started entering politics and gaining influence beyond tech entrepreneurship.

I am pretty disturbed by how musk is silent on issues concerning China and the CCP. To me it is a big risk that Tesla depends on access to the Chinese market to justify their valuation. Musk clearly will not say anything even slightly negative about the CCP, even though he personally values free speech and other liberal values. So can he really be trusted with control of companies like SpaceX?

In fact, I am worried about whether that influence from China extends further. How else do you explain Trump delaying enforcement of the TikTok ban? If anything he should be going a lot harder against China.

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#505

Post by staticautomatic »

sangnoir wrote: post #221
orwin wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He always had it? Money give influence naturally. I've listened to a history podcast about the robber barons and how following the backlash and dismantlement of the Standard oil, industrialist started buying articles, sometime even newspapers to sell their stories, and in the US, it worked wonderfully. You still have the brand "Quaker" that was born at the time, and probably a dozen other, where they manipulated thei…

> He always had it? Money give influence naturally. Not as much as he has now: he was famously frustrated by the California state government's Covid lockdown mandates, and was pretty powerless against them. That frustration is probably what led him to buy influence in the Trump campaign,and later administration. Money can take you so far, political power will take you further for imposing your will on others. The "Sh…

Except there’s a line of cases basically saying you can’t do something unlawful and then quickly stop in order to make the legal controversy go away.

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#506

Post by sdenton4 »

labster wrote: post #494
margalabargala wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

September? It's early February. You really think it'll take 7 months?

To get to President Musk, longer than that. On the other hand, he was called Prime Minister Musk by a congressman all the way back in December. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/gonzales-elon-musk...

Nah, just has to convince Trump to replace Vance with him, and then do a regicide.

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#507

Post by _2d30 »

root_axis wrote: post #470
_2d30 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm too smooth brained to see the obvious reason. Would love for someone with more folds to say what the reason is instead of hiding it behind its obviousness. OpenAI-NP can either have a $40B from spinning out OpenAI-P or $97B in cash. In theory, they could literally just go and buy back their stake in OpenAI-P and have $57B left over for other AI endeavors if the valuation of it at $40B were remotely reasonable! If…

Which number is bigger isn't the only calculation to make. Elon has shown himself to be a capricious and distracted steward of the companies he assumes control of. He has a lot of debt and is already over-leveraged on multiple companies as well as his new roles in government. X has plunged in value, Tesla sales are plummeting worldwide, Elon's scorched earth political agenda invites unending controversy that OpenAI a…

For as "obvious to everyone" as your point is supposed to be, it focuses entirely on what the offer means to OpenAI-P and zero on what it means to OpenAI-NP. The decision is to be made by an OpenAI-NP that can effectively divorce itself from OpenAI-P and in either case will be divorced from control of OpenAI-P. They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B.

In the scenario where they chose the $40B in OpenAI equity, they are eschewing $97B with which they can achieve their mission. They will be less effective by $57B. They still have no control over OpenAI in this context. They don't have control over OpenAI from the perspective of safety/benefit of humanity. All they have is $40B worth of equity.

Or, they can get $97B and go about completing their mission. In this case, what happens to OpenAI doesn't really matter. They lose control over OpenAI from the perspective of safety/public benefit in both cases, but in this case they get to deploy $97B of capital to their goals. The success of OpenAI-P is irrelevant to OpenAI-NP.

Now, maybe you would claim that there is some kind of existential risk from OpenAI-P being controlled by Elon. But if that's the case, how is Elon uniquely special? How does OpenAI prevent Elon from gaining control of OpenAI anyway when they won't have control to prevent it? How can they be sure Sam Altman is okay to lead when the board already removed him due his duplicity once. To eliminate their control OpenAI-P, they open themselves up to this same risk regardless. They can take that risk with either $40B of equity or $97B of cash.

> "I'll pay you double" isn't the instant checkmate you're suggesting.

This isn't what I suggest at all and I would've expected someone who sees through such complex issues to rationales that are "obvious to everyone" would've been able to see that. This does however pose real problems for OpenAI-P as they try to go private!

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#508

Post by globalnode »

ben_w wrote: post #418
yodsanklai wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hope is that he'll eventually make some big mistakes that will send him to jail. Or does presidential grace give him total immunity?

Given Musk is currently pissing off foreign governments , there is a real danger that one of those governments will just send in a nice looking person with some tea to have a quiet chat with him. After which, he will look very tired, and suddenly stop being "turbulent", as per the meaning several judges have recently noted in Trump trials was once infamously said by a king of a priest. Then I will be sad, because I w…

Like that time he was summoned to Israel and "convinced" to tow the line? He looked like a school kid being told off by the principle.

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#509

Post by scarface_74 »

llm_nerd wrote: post #460
slg wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What’s impressive about Tesla? There is this weird revisionist history now that Musk is hated to dismiss all Tesla's accomplishments as meaningless. The traditional auto industry would have never embraced EVs to the extent they have if someone did not disrupt the market in a way like Tesla did. That is both impressive and huge net positive for humanity in a way that is an extremely rare achievement for any startup.

>The traditional auto industry would have never embraced EVs to the extent they have if someone did not disrupt the market in a way like Tesla did. Unless you have some sort of way to investigate alternate timelines, there is zero evidence of this claim, including the absurd "never" claim. Many of the innovations that made EVs possible -- for instance rapid advances in battery tech along with the computational improv…

That doesn’t explain Twitter or the fact that Tesla sells are decreasing and that its market share is declining. Its profits are a nothingburger.

Contrast that with Apple, outside of the US and a few other high income countries that is market share may be neglible. But at least it’s taking most of the profit and by far is the most profitable phone maker

Re: Musk-led group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI

#510

Post by gotoeleven »

lupusreal wrote: post #484
ak_111 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I am saying, Musk shenanigan so bad they EVEN vindicated CCP.

No. Musk being a shithead does not vindicate a regime that routinely practices mass murder in flagrant violation of their own Constitution (which presumably only exists as a sick joke to them.) Article 35 of their Constitution guarantees free speech, but they murder people who try it. Read the rest of their Constitution while you're at it. Even as a less than serious rhetorical argument, what you said is insane. Get…

No one in this thread knows what vindicated means.
Post reply on HN