Is there any chance that the board considers it at all?
I mean its mission is to maximize the interests of shareholders, and right now, it's unclear that OpenAI will maintain its dominating position over competitors in the long run.
EDIT: forgot to mention I am not a Trump/Musk guy in any way. Just talking about the deal here.
I thought they were set up a some kind of non profit and thier mandate was to pursue other goals not profit. That was what caused the issue with the altman firing previously right?
Even the way they want to go public, as a Public Benefit Corporation, calls into question whether the board then would allow Musk to take a controlling stake.
Sure they can. They're a non-profit, they don't have a fiduciary duty. It may cause some ramifications for the taxes and accounting but they absolutely can since they don't have shareholders.
So, the guy who dedicates his life and money to helping people less fortunate, to pursuing goals of global health and education for women and children in third world economies.
Have you noticed the behavior of other tech billionaires being discussed in this post? And Gates is "the evil one"?
He wasn’t hated by anyone but competitors (who aren’t supposed to like you) and programmers, which is a good chunk of the HN crowd but like 1%+ of the general population.
He wouldn't have gotten his money playing saint, if it wasn't for backdoor deals with governments and hardware producers keeping competition (like linux) out of the market. Old grudges.
I don't think he's doing it for altruistic reasons. And he bought Twitter for to "restore free speech". Not exactly what's happened there. He's not even remotely trust worthy in the slightest.
Altman, the sensitive, caring person, using his own caring personality to mount a mean put-down. Give me a fucking break. At least Musk isn't a sneaky weasel kind of asshole.
I have to admit that my initial gut reaction to Musk is also one of pity. And I don't mean that as a cynical rethorical device, if I had his (blatantly obvious) insecurities I would feel bad.
Would only be nice if his insecurity were dealt with in a way that didn't affect the rest of the world.
Why would you defend either of them? Billionaire tech bros have enough shills already. It was the unwarranted adulation of these assholes that got us in this shitty situation in the first place, where they think they can do anything and stomp on whoever they want. Don’t fight for them. They would never lift a finger to defend you and would gladly sell your mother for a lollipop.
The oligirlies are indeed feuding. I think I agree with Altman. Musk's whole demeanor is "unfunny nerd looking for approval getting embarrassed when the joke he's repeated for the third time doesn't land".
And casual ageism, insinuating that children behave this way. Yet most kids I know are far more reasonable, willing to play together, willing to concede mistakes, etc..etc...
Yes, traditionally women would engage in passive aggressive slights and backhanded compliments more than men would, who would more likely engage in a physical fight. That is a pattern based on historical reality and observed and acknowledged the world over. Your attempt to make it a pathology to recognize and affirm the observation is itself a pathology, a rabid ideological one.
Yes, but the user is using it in a derogatory sense, not the friendly meme sense. Referring to someone as “girlie” can be either. I would assume this is just a way of referring to a collective they dislike or don’t respect; they’re not just ordinary oligarchs, they’re oligirlies.
"The girls are fighting!" is a meme credited to Azealia Banks on the occasion of an altercation between Cardi B and Nicki Minaj. This has been portmanteau'd with "oligarch".
I think of it more from the perspective that, there are likely people with far less material wealth than him who have achieved much greater heights happiness and lead a more fulfilling life.
All that wealth, power, and influence, and for what - if you can't even be happy about it?
I have some inside information about Sam Altman's company. I don't have funds to pay to a lawyer, but I have video evidence of his firm stealing protected, sensitive and private data. What can I do with that? Can someone help?
I previously had huge respect for Sam Altman, he's a genius I thought and he is indeed very smart. But now I just think he may have delusion of grandeur. He has been asking for trillions [1], then getting $500B Tax Payer money for closed source software [2]. It's not that the ends doesn't justify the mean, but it's never an amount that would be needed to begin with. Is it corruption?
I know it's the internet, but I promise it's real. I've no financial interests.
But me and my friend's IP was violated and I know many other's too. How they did it, that's quite obvious, but I'm afraid to say anything direct without knowing what to do with this. I could upload this to multiple sites, but would get sued + DMCA take downs unironically. Hope you understand the power-law distribution is quite unfair. I've done multiple videos, just in case and my friend too.
I'm definitely none that defends IP rights or patents and believe in freedom of data, but then again, they should give up their IP too. Just fair, especially given the size of their company and the data they steal, day by day..
Isn't Musks offer just mischievous - making an offer at a lower valuation than OpenAI recently raised funds at, and I suspect substantially lower than any further attempts to raise even more capital.
Sam Altman appears to be trying to rush to use the current hype to create a large capital moat, and Musks low ball/realistic ( take your pick ) offer is trying to interfere with the raising of cash - putting doubt about the hyped valuations in investors minds.
A lot of the value of ChatGPT is built on the value of the information on the internet - what ChatGPT provides is a convenient way to access that in summary form.
Look at the size of company that Google built off that same value ( via search rather than summarisation ).
Google annual revenues are in the region of 350 billion - most of that derived, in one way or another, from people wanting to access information/entertainment on the internet.
Valuations are based on what you think the companies will do over a decade or two into the future. AI will almost certainly be a big deal over that time period.
While I think AI is over-hyped in general, in terms of revenue 10 billion in 2025 from ChatGPT alone isn't unrealistic, so it's only 10/1 ratio ( not sure what their profit margin is on that ).
The power of students prepared to pay to cheat at homework, software developers happy to cut and paste and corporates generating slides that nobody reads.
Now obviously they have competition - whether that be Google itself or Deepseek etc and it will be interesting to see how much first mover advantages persists - the product doesn't feel inherently sticky - consumer customers could easily move.
On the other hand if OpenAI manage to crack the corporate market - then that will be much sticker - and here they have a real lead - Microsoft Copilot is based on GPT-4 - and the signs are it's taking off in business - that will be hard to displace.
Whats educational here is to look into how Howard Hughes unraveled. Its not just a story about Howard Hughes, but how all the people around him who were mesmerized by him just went along for the ride.
The only difference is Howard Hughes was an introvert.
While Elon is an extrovert and in lives in the age of social media where likes/follower count amplify self delusion of the entire herd.
Musk's offer to buy OpenAI has put Sam in a corner. Given that Softbank recently made a similar offer of $40B, it would be idiotic of OpenAI's board to pass on Elon's offer which is more than double what Softbank offered.
If it was Musk's plan to look foolish and petulant by being forced to buy a company for what he said he would buy it for after briefly trying to pull out of a deal, he succeeded wildly.
But there is no apparent benefit to this: He paid what he had already guaranteed he would pay and received what he at various (but not all) times said he wanted to buy, just with extra steps that made him look worse.
Could this be an attempt to prevent Altman from turning OpenAI into a for-profit too cheaply? If I understand correctly, then turning a non-profit into a for-profit requires selling the non-profit's assets at a fair price. If Altman says he buys it for 40bn and there is no other offer, then who's to say that this is not a fair price. On the other hand, with a 90bn offer on the table, it will be hard to argue that the assets are only worth 40.
Elon Musk’s bid for OpenAI isn’t about buying it but about disrupting its transition to a for-profit company. OpenAI Inc., the nonprofit, controls OpenAI LP, the capped-profit subsidiary. To convert to a full for-profit entity, OpenAI Inc. must sell its technology and IP to the new company, with regulators determining a fair valuation.
The rumored SoftBank investment at a $260B valuation relies on this transition, but the current estimated valuation is around $150B. Typically, control premiums in such deals range from 20-30%, putting the expected nonprofit payout at $30B-$40B. However, Musk’s $97B bid for OpenAI Inc.’s assets sets a significantly higher valuation, giving regulators a strong argument that the nonprofit should receive much more.
If regulators adopt Musk’s benchmark, OpenAI Inc. would end up with a 62% majority stake, making the transition far more complex or even blocking it entirely. Even though OpenAI won’t accept Musk’s offer, the bid’s primary effect is to make the legal and financial process of going for-profit much more difficult. It’s a strategic move designed to frustrate OpenAI’s leadership, particularly Sam Altman, and potentially derail the entire transition.
When Altman says "OpenAI is not for sale", is there any sense in which that is not a lie?
As part of the for-profit transition he is selling all of the non-profit's assets. Musk's group has offered to buy them, and Altman has declined, but he is still planning on selling them, no?
90 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] threadI mean its mission is to maximize the interests of shareholders, and right now, it's unclear that OpenAI will maintain its dominating position over competitors in the long run.
EDIT: forgot to mention I am not a Trump/Musk guy in any way. Just talking about the deal here.
I thought they were set up a some kind of non profit and thier mandate was to pursue other goals not profit. That was what caused the issue with the altman firing previously right?
They can refuse Elon's offer, but they can't turn around and sell the assets 50% cheaper to someone else (as they had previously planned).
So, the guy who dedicates his life and money to helping people less fortunate, to pursuing goals of global health and education for women and children in third world economies.
Have you noticed the behavior of other tech billionaires being discussed in this post? And Gates is "the evil one"?
not sure in what world Gates is still not hated rich guy? :)
Most people are completely clueless what's going on in the world of business and tech.
Bill Gates set back the world at least 10 years of progress with his illegal and immoral business practices.
I mean, philanthropy is great, even more if it is sincere. But lets not forget the kind of business man he was before the 2000s.
Btw, I have a bridge to sell, interested?
Musk's already got grok, if he wants to promote his own vision of open-ness.
And DeepSeek published enough that others can get to near-SOTA models for far less than OpenAI spent.
- Altman on bloomberg
The shitposting upgraded to level 3
Altman, the sensitive, caring person, using his own caring personality to mount a mean put-down. Give me a fucking break. At least Musk isn't a sneaky weasel kind of asshole.
Would only be nice if his insecurity were dealt with in a way that didn't affect the rest of the world.
starts at around the 2:40 mark
The oligirlies are indeed feuding. I think I agree with Altman. Musk's whole demeanor is "unfunny nerd looking for approval getting embarrassed when the joke he's repeated for the third time doesn't land".
What does this mean? Oligarch girls?
https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/girlies-trend-online
Men and women have different survival strategies. YMMV. Not everyone is the same, etc.
Not wrong, but if you wish to communicate with someone you sometimes have to transmit in a language the receiver will understand.
All that wealth, power, and influence, and for what - if you can't even be happy about it?
I previously had huge respect for Sam Altman, he's a genius I thought and he is indeed very smart. But now I just think he may have delusion of grandeur. He has been asking for trillions [1], then getting $500B Tax Payer money for closed source software [2]. It's not that the ends doesn't justify the mean, but it's never an amount that would be needed to begin with. Is it corruption?
- [1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/sam-altman-seeks-trillions-of-do...
- [2] https://venturebeat.com/ai/openai-stargate-is-a-500b-bet-ame...
If it’s not real, as I suspect, I’d go ahead and delete this comment and forget about whatever game you’re playing. They do have money for lawyers.
But me and my friend's IP was violated and I know many other's too. How they did it, that's quite obvious, but I'm afraid to say anything direct without knowing what to do with this. I could upload this to multiple sites, but would get sued + DMCA take downs unironically. Hope you understand the power-law distribution is quite unfair. I've done multiple videos, just in case and my friend too.
I'm definitely none that defends IP rights or patents and believe in freedom of data, but then again, they should give up their IP too. Just fair, especially given the size of their company and the data they steal, day by day..
Sam Altman appears to be trying to rush to use the current hype to create a large capital moat, and Musks low ball/realistic ( take your pick ) offer is trying to interfere with the raising of cash - putting doubt about the hyped valuations in investors minds.
Look at the size of company that Google built off that same value ( via search rather than summarisation ).
Google annual revenues are in the region of 350 billion - most of that derived, in one way or another, from people wanting to access information/entertainment on the internet.
The power of students prepared to pay to cheat at homework, software developers happy to cut and paste and corporates generating slides that nobody reads.
Now obviously they have competition - whether that be Google itself or Deepseek etc and it will be interesting to see how much first mover advantages persists - the product doesn't feel inherently sticky - consumer customers could easily move.
On the other hand if OpenAI manage to crack the corporate market - then that will be much sticker - and here they have a real lead - Microsoft Copilot is based on GPT-4 - and the signs are it's taking off in business - that will be hard to displace.
The only difference is Howard Hughes was an introvert.
While Elon is an extrovert and in lives in the age of social media where likes/follower count amplify self delusion of the entire herd.
Like his initial offer to buy Twitter… which he tried to go back on and was forced to follow through on via court?
But there is no apparent benefit to this: He paid what he had already guaranteed he would pay and received what he at various (but not all) times said he wanted to buy, just with extra steps that made him look worse.
src:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/02/07/sof...
The rumored SoftBank investment at a $260B valuation relies on this transition, but the current estimated valuation is around $150B. Typically, control premiums in such deals range from 20-30%, putting the expected nonprofit payout at $30B-$40B. However, Musk’s $97B bid for OpenAI Inc.’s assets sets a significantly higher valuation, giving regulators a strong argument that the nonprofit should receive much more.
If regulators adopt Musk’s benchmark, OpenAI Inc. would end up with a 62% majority stake, making the transition far more complex or even blocking it entirely. Even though OpenAI won’t accept Musk’s offer, the bid’s primary effect is to make the legal and financial process of going for-profit much more difficult. It’s a strategic move designed to frustrate OpenAI’s leadership, particularly Sam Altman, and potentially derail the entire transition.
As part of the for-profit transition he is selling all of the non-profit's assets. Musk's group has offered to buy them, and Altman has declined, but he is still planning on selling them, no?