_2d30

I would be interested to hear how expelling Hamas supporters from the United States is at all beneficial to France.

Maybe it’s downvoted because it’s an unsupported assumption you made and Americans are uniquely capable of recognizing that?

The article is pretty scant on details in terms of how the judgment would be made but using AI to process for an initial review followed by a final human review seems like a slam dunk choice imo

Where do they put the camera?

> trying to get a 2018 MBP working with Linux and found out ARM basically doesn't work.

Since the M series of ARM processors didn’t come out until 2020, that would make a lot of sense.

LMAO you literally just removed every word about the incentives around control of OpenAI-P and are claiming it's not a strawman to say that the only thing I say is 97 > 40.

> This you?

> > They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B.

> In other words: the big number trumps the small number - QED.

Yes those are words I used to describe a factual choice they have. Following that are a lot more words that dive deeper into that discussion. Here's how I summarized my initial point in the TL;DR on my ultimate parent post:

"Musk is trying to force OpenAI to value OpenAI-NP's stake in OpenAI-P at a reasonable level which is far greater than the current $40B which will help Musk by potentially derailing OpenAI-P's goal to be spun off.

For people with smooth brains like me, I'll helpfully point out how this doesn't present Elon's offer as "an instant checkmate." The first word to note is "trying." This suggests it is an attempt to do something that is not guaranteed to result in a win (ie a "checkmate"). The second word is "potentially" which again reinforces the case that this does not guarantee Elon achieves the stated goal (ie is not "checkmate").

> Why do you believe OpenAI-NP wouldn't care about all the issues I raised?

My prior post raised all sorts of reasons and you seem to have decided to ignore them to build strawmen.

> They can make the argument that this offer is not in good faith and that Elon would not make an equivalent offer on an open market.

Yes this an angle they could take. This would probably be a huge mistake. By doing this they would in part be conceding that it's a worthwhile offer to be made and Elon also is likely more than able to acquire the funds.

> From what I can gather you're just mistaken here,

I'm not. You and WaPo are. For one, it should be obvious that that's the case otherwise this offer would be worthless since it's less than the $157B most recent valuation. There would be no point in discussing any of this and everyone would be laughing at Elon. For another, here's the original reporting from the WSJ which is unsurprisingly much clearer: https://archive.is/stI0V

> If OpenAI-NP has a reasonable case to believe that Elon will be a bad steward of the technology and work against their charter (https://openai.com/charter/), they shouldn't sell to him, even if his offer is more than another. Unlike a normal board, the duty-to-shareholder isn't the only duty, a hostile buyout like with twitter doesn't necessarily work

If the OpenAI-NP board sees such existential risk from a change in leadership of OpenAI-P, how can they in good faith eschew control of it? By removing themselves from control, they would see the exact same risk anyhow. Elon could make a tender offer for the private for-profit entity that its board would be bound to accept in its fiduciary duty to shareholders. Plus, they would have to make the case that both Elon is specifically bad AND that he's so bad that it's not worth having $57B more to deploy for their AI goals. What's more, you would have to consider whether or not preventing Elon from controlling OpenAI even prevents whatever risk you see from Elon as he is already building xAI in parallel.

> IDK, Musk's offer is apparently for the nonprofit, not for a partial interest in the not-yet-extant for-profit subsidiary.

You can't buy a non-profit. It's their assets he's trying to buy. If OpenAI-NP values their OpenAI-P claims at $40B then that's what Elon would own according to their own beliefs.

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!

> I do think it's reasonable to say that llms aren't an existential risk and spinning them off to a consumer thing while xrisk and super alignment stays in a nonprofit is plausibly mission aligned

I think you added this after I replied. Even if this is the case, better to do so with $97B and no control in OpenAI than $40B and no control in OpenAI!

> "We believe an OpenAI-P owned by Elon is fundamentally against our mission."

But OpenAI-P of course wouldn't be owned by Elon, he would just own $40B worth of OpenAI-P according to their own valuation of it. A tiny minority stake of the $157B enterprise.

OpenAI-NP, could just go back to other OpenAI investors and buy back their "$40B" stake plus have $57B leftover to apply to AI safety. Silly Elon, overpaying by almost 2.5X for something of such little value!

It's a hard point that they would likely have to make in court! Harder still with Elon having originally been involved in founding OpenAI-NP.

Everyone hates Elon reasonably but few people seem to care the Sam Altman is conducting a theft on the order of $57+B.

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 I'm on the board and I believe the $40B number, I'd do this in a heatbeat.

He would probably also be happy to get OpenAI-NP for $97B! However, I don't think he believes this is likely at all. His goal is to force OpenAI's hand and stop the comical; undervaluing of OpenAI-NP by forcing OpenAI to value OpenAI-NP at >$97B.

I probably haven't explained this clearly enough in my original post which I wrote too quickly.

That's why I said this:

> this is fundamentally about: stopping or fundamentally changing OpenAI's plans to be spun off.

If OpenAI actually values OpenAI-NP at $40B then they will surely sell it for $97B. The point is the $40B is obviously a dramatic undervaluing and the fact they won't sell it for $97B shows that. This is the wrench.

> and he's simultaneously attempting to seize control of the AI company through an aggressive acquitision

Kind of, yes! If OpenAI actually believes that the true value of OpenAI-NP is $40B then surely they will sell it for $97B! But, they of course don't believe that the proper valuation of complete control over OpenAI-P is worth only $40B. That's the point of why this works.

I never said this was altruistic. The same goal can come from him trying to derail OpenAI-P.

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 (henceforth referred to as OpenAI-NP).

In order to do this, OpenAI-P must compensate OpenAI-NP for its ownership of OpenAI-P. Currently they are trying to value this at $40B. This is a swindling for numerous reasons. Firstly, OpenAI-NP has complete control over OpenAI-P. They OpenAI-NP board can do whatever it wants with OpenAI-P. OpenAI-P has some financial obligations to those who have purchased its PPU (its equity instrument) but ultimately OpenAI-NP controls OpenAI-P and could do whatever it wants with it (eg shut it down, fire Sam Altman on a whim, etc). Further, the cashflows that OpenAI-NP still has ownership of are, at least under the claims of people like Sam A, clearly worth dramatically more than the $40B valuation would imply.

In addition, the OpenAI-NP mission is "Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence—AI systems that are generally smarter than humans—benefits all of humanity". The control of the leading AI Lab is the only way that they can possibly live up to their mission. To abdicate control of OpenAI-P is to abdicate their mission. If the OpenAI-NP board follows their mission as they are obligated to, they cannot possibly be willing to abdicate this control and they must surely value it far beyond $40B.

EDIT TO ADD TL;DR - Musk is trying to force OpenAI to value OpenAI-NP's stake in OpenAI-P at a reasonable level which is far greater than the current $40B which will help Musk by potentially derailing OpenAI-P's goal to be spun off.

Pebble went bankrupt because no one bought their products. Their assets were acquired by Fitbit. Fitbit did not continue to produce the Pebble products for which there was very limited demand. Google then later acquired Fitbit.

The biggest question on such investment from my POV, is what do the Deepseek results mean about the usefulness/efficiency of this investment?

I've been meaning to read a relevant book to today's times called Engines That Move Markets. Will probably get it from the library.

If you want another angle beyond "massaging egos", look into the Trump <> Jeff Yass connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Yass

And the job of the executive branch is to enforce the laws passed by the legislative.

This is completely incorrect. Divestment in this context means the selling of an asset by an organization. You cannot "divest" in this sense from a government. That's nonsensical.

The equivalent in Facebook (Meta) terms would be China requiring Facebook, if it wished to continue operations in China, to sell the Chinese Facebook product to a Chinese or other, as to be defined by China, non-American entity. In some sense this is already the case.

Because there is no "TikTok" ban and never has been.

There is a "TikTok cannot be controlled by the CCP" law. TikTok is completely legal under the law as long as they divest it. However, in a great act of self-incrimination, Bytedance (de facto controlled by CCP) has decided to not divest and would rather shutdown instead.

Thanks for providing a definition of a commonly understood legal term that I used.

Here’s a screenshot of the accusations of bribery contained in the Hindenburg report: https://imgur.com/a/cta3zuj

If you take even a cursory glance at the report, the main issues are not accounting.

Adani Group which was charged in November by the SEC for bribery?

https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/adani-group-shares-p...

Can you say more about the Supermicro “hit job”? Last thing I saw was E&Y resigning as their auditor which certainly suggests some potential accounting issues.

Did they also teach you to give snappy little titles to little different sections of writing? I find it a very odd but specific style of writing that has only recently risen in prominence.

You write a lot like LLMs do. Would be interested to know where you developed your style.

> Well except for the fact that some specific people made a whole lot of money while letting it fall apart, and have paid for decades of media relations trying to convince everyone otherwise.

Who are some of these people?