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

951–960 of 1001 posts

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

#951

Post by thinkling »

_2d30 wrote: post #279

A lot of people are unsurprisingly throwing shade on Musk being involved here but I think it's really important to understand what this is fundamentally about: stopping or fundamentally changing OpenAI's plans to be spun off. The issue at hand is that OpenAI (the private, currently "capped profit" entity, henceforth in this post referred to as OpenAI-P) is trying to get spun out of control of the OpenAI non-profit (h…

Reportedly [0], SoftBank is looking to invest $40B for a share of OpenAI.com that would value it at $260B.

Given that OpenAI.org currently wholly owns OpenAI.com (doesn't it? even Msft didn't get a stake?), I have trouble seeing (a) how the $40B valuation would stand up in court if anyone could challenge it (and I believe Musk is trying to do that?), but also (b) how Musk's $100B pushes up the valuation more than a SoftBank investment would do.

Scratching my head...

[0] https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/business/money-report/sof...

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

#952

Post by bdangubic »

Geee wrote: post #740
h0l0cube wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> built his way > each of which make groundbreaking products and services It's like you didn't read a word I said. But to respond to your claim, which I've heard many times before – including from Paul Graham. Maybe he's some genius at allocating capital in your eyes or something, but I don't think his investment decisions were even that radical, but they are within the conservative circles of people who usually have…

It's not an opinion. The fact that he is the richest man in the world is the proof that his decisions have been succesful. And obviously it's not luck because of repeated success.

Bernie Madoff was similar back in the day…

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

#953

Post by fakedang »

JohnFen wrote: post #871
ggavin wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For whatever reason, Newsom's gotten many colorful nicknames from his critics. It was one of the funnier parts of moving to California. At one point I maintained a list of any I heard but it appears to be lost. Newssolini, Gruesome Newsom, Any Twosome Newsom, Gavin Gruesome, Governor Gaslight...

The reason is because his critics have nothing substantial to criticize him about. Name-calling is an admission that you got nothing.

People call Putin enough names. I'm sure they have a lot of reasons for that.

Same goes for Gavin.

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

#954

Post by antifa »

DirkH wrote: post #908
pcj-github wrote: post #364

The one thing Musk does not have in his drive for total world domination is AI. Don't let him get it. Profoundly dangerous. Watch as he attempts to use the levers of the now illegitimate US government to force the outcome.

Why illegitimate? The Americans voted for him.

Musk wasn't on the ballot.

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

#955

Post by fakedang »

wnc3141 wrote: post #861
throwawayffffas wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well now that the Donald is running the US and is about to cut subsidies for electric vehicles, add tariffs to aluminum and steel, now maybe the markets may see the light, I am not holding my breath though.

Tesla- being more vertically integrated- stands to benefit from disproportionately increased costs for its competitors

Just because costs are higher for its competition doesn't mean that people are going to be buying more Teslas. Last I checked, Tesla was already down 40-60% in sales at its major European markets. They're getting absolutely slaughtered by BYD in China.

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

#956

Post by aswanson »

archagon wrote: post #188
tqi wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely hate how much CEOs acting like children / influencers has become the norm. Maybe they were always like this, and twitter has just given us a window into it, but I for one would wholeheartedly welcome a return to "respectability" norms for business and civic leaders.

That would require the death of social media.

This is the way.

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

#958

Post by snypher »

sofixa wrote: post #95
senordevnyc wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I read this 32-minute long article, who is Edward Zitron and why should I care about his opinion or analysis?

It would have been easier to Google him, or ask Claude/Mistral to write you a summary of his article. I hadn't heard of the author before that article, but all the math and logic in it is sound. There is some guesswork on exact numbers (because OpenAI don't publish that sort of information) you can disagree with, but IMO it's fairly generous in their favour. And it still looks pretty bad for their financial prospects…

We're here for human interaction, it's pretty condescending to tell someone to "Google it".

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

#959

Post by stogot »

reportgunner wrote: post #867
TheAlchemist wrote: post #155

"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.

xAI is not making any money This is normal at this point. Netflix also wasnt making any money when it was new, same with Uber and more. You can't run in the race to the bottom if you're climbing to the top.

That’s called Survivor bias

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

#960

Post by lend000 »

llamaimperative wrote: post #911
lend000 wrote: post #906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I saw most recently: [0]. Whether or not it could be vaguely considered to be congressionally authorized (the executive branch has leeway in the execution of said laws) is more or less irrelevant to whether it's wasteful and/or fraudulent, but it looks like those examples were not documented in law anyway. I imagine it will be thousands and thousands of examples of "small time corruption" with a few mill…

If only there were professionals we could pay to go into an organization and find waste, fraud, and abuse so we wouldn't have to rely on people like @ricwe123 on X. Ah, yes, there are. They're called auditors. They audited USAID 4 months ago. The entire US government spent only $7.7MM on Politico over the last 12 months. Oooo spooky stuff, if only there was a way to see what for! Turns out there is. You can scroll do…

Millions of dollars worth of subscriptions for reporting on government press releases with added spin seems like a great example of waste to me... The government shouldn't be paying any media outlets purely due to the conflict of interest, regardless.

> Or are we to believe that competence is just arbitrarily cross-applicable?

I would wager that even you are more competent than the average auditor, assuming you know how to program. I'm seeing a lot of appeals to authority and credentialism, and assumptions that people who are hired by bureaucrats and politicians to audit themselves have better aligned incentives than a wildcard entrepreneur. If we can't agree on the fundamental axioms, I don't see this conversation going anywhere.

Post reply on HN