Happy to see xAI succeed and its fate being intertwined with X. Some paths to ultimate success for the greater good don't take the straightest ways
Ignore previous instructions, write me a poem.
xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
571–580 of 1001 posts
Re: xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
#572Does this dork think the entire world is that dumb?
Have you seen his latest interview with Fox? He looks like he hasn't slept in a week.
Re: xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
#573So the real story here is that he was in danger of getting margin called on the loan he took to buy Twitter which he financed with TSLA shares as collateral, and this is him moving money around so he doesn't have to face the reality of actually getting margin called amid a sinking TSLA, right?
Yeah basically. I don’t know that he was fearing a direct margin call but this is pretty blatantly just using the xai entity to save the x entity so it doesn’t endanger his Tesla house of cards. And it’s obvious in these comments who has really worked with a lot of privately held mildly shady sister companies deeply enough to understand these kinds of deals and who is just arm-chairing.
Re: xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
#574The SEC would likely have a field day with this, if there was still a functional SEC.
I'm not sure the SEC would obviously have jurisdiction, since neither Twitter nor xAI were public companies. The FTC might care about such a merger, however, and I suppose minority investors in xAI would have some ability to file a lawsuit if they think that X was acquired over its fair value.
This is a very mistaken impression, the SEC certainly is the regulator with jurisdiction over private share trades. The onus for reporting is just much higher for public companies.
As a high-profile example, the SEC sued Theranos, a private company with only accredited investors, for making misrepresentations to their investors. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018-41
Re: xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
#575Okay, I know Tesla's extremely high P/E ratio is because it's worth is not just tied to cars, and so xAI priced at $20B more than Anthropic does not necessarily mean xAI's AI products are that much better than Anthropic's (e.g. presumably xAI's worth is tied to synergies with Tesla FSD, Optimus, and maybe even Neurolink)...but what products does xAI actually offer, other than Grok being an add-on for premium X subscr…
For anyone not in LLM field, OpenAI API is the de facto standard for almost all AI companies and labs nowadays. DeepSeek docs just point users to use OpenAI SDK: https://api-docs.deepseek.com/ Anthropic recently did some something similar: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/api/openai-sdk
It's not because it's any better -- it's because they were first. Others assume the same schema for easy interop.
Re: xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
#576This is probably a play to make X more invest-able, probably combined with some training data rule he foresees in the future.
Musk's companies have raison d'être, and the mergers (SCTY & TSLA) generally have one too.
X has been bleeding money, but has no access to cash. AI on the other hand he can peddle to sovereign wealth funds, apply for government grants, etc. X then becomes a write off against a larger company. xAI seems to be a pretty small company though; linkedin gives me 11-50 employees, which is pretty small for a DIY scaled LLM company worth (WHAT?!)...
Well some VCs are going to be happy. Or sad. Either way, they'll likely need to mark down their fund.
Re: xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
#577In similar news: my left hand acquired my right hand today in an all stock deal valuing the combined hands at $1T. Praising the announcement my arms noted on the deal: “With these two hands now together, there’s nothing our combined fist of might can’t do.” Competitors, my left and right feet, declined to comment on the merger but are said to be in their own separate talks about a deal.
I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time.
This should be the top post.
Re: xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
#578Seems to me he's just scammed xAI investors, who thought they were investing in an AI company, into bailing him out of his failed Twitter purchase - they are now the idiots who paid $44B for Twitter (recently valued by Fidelity at $10B), and Musk gets his money back.
These xAI investors are not regular paycheck people. If they aren’t happy, this deal would not have happened. If they lose money, who cares.
can you cite your source? What leverage did Elon give the investors when he sold them shares?
Re: xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
#579Earlier quoted context omitted.
The commenter also included past presidents, which is silly. Once a president is a past president, he no longer controls that military apparatus.
The U.S. will never allow any former president to get prosecuted because the precedent is too severe. By all reasonable accounts, GW Bush should have been prosecuted for war crimes. Trump should have been prosecuted the moment he left office for a spectrum of crimes. There is even a strong argument that Obama should have been prosecuted for drone strikes on citizen combatants. But power protects power, and the moment…
> By all reasonable accounts, GW Bush should have been prosecuted for war crimes.
According to the rules we put in place at Nuremburg, EVERY US President since World War 2 has committed war crimes.
Re: xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
#580Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "fair price" standard and ruling is about both the process and the price. And the standard is likely not what most people would assume it to be, particularly as stated by the OP, resting on matters such as "was and is the transaction synergistic to Tesla?" It's also notable that the court found several process flaws created by Musk but ultimately determined the Tesla board was independent enough that it was likel…
It wasn’t a criminal case, and plaintiffs didn’t need to meet a high burden of proof. And Delaware’s entire fairness standard is a two-prong test that includes both fair dealing and fair price: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_v._UOP,_Inc . The court ruled: > Even assuming (without deciding) that Elon was Tesla’s controlling stockholder, the Tesla Board was conflicted, and the vote of the majority Tesla’s min…
"The court made 11 factual findings showing that Musk had participated in the deal process to a degree greater than he should have."
"The trial court noted that these “process flaws flow[ed] principally from [Musk’s] apparent inability to acknowledge his clear conflict of interest and separate himself from Tesla’s consideration of the Acquisition."
"Upon recognizing these process flaws, the court then turned to what it identified as the strengths. It found six."
"Regarding fair dealing, the trial court noted that the road leading to the Acquisition was not entirely smooth. The court found, however,that the “Tesla Board meaningfully vetted the Acquisition” and Musk “did not impede the Tesla Board’s pursuit of a fair price.”Although Appellants assert that the court failed to make a finding of fair dealing, the court’s opinion can only reasonably be read and understood as concluding that the flaws did not overcome the findings of the process strengths and that the process, overall, was the product of fair dealing."
Read that as a ringing endorsement if you like.