• skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    This might have the opposite effect he wants, xAI investors no longer have a clean AI investment and are now linked to a failing social media platform.

    xAI is already losing bigtime vs other AI companies, this just makes it even less attractive.

  • Kwyjibo1@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 days ago

    Musk’s slight of hand shell game to keep from losing his shirt if his Tesla stock keeps dropping and his X financiers come looking for money.

  • merdaverse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 days ago

    The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion ($45B less $12B debt)

    Lol, he actually think the value of Shitter is still $45B, as when he bought it. That’s cute.

    • Laser@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      170
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Well, not really. Twitter was his own private property that he bought with borrowed money secured against his Tesla shares. xAI on the other hand is financed by investors whose money he used to bail himself out at a price he made up himself since Twitter is no longer publicly traded. So this is, in my opinion, misuse of investor funds; the picture would be true if xAI used how own money to do this, but no.

      On one hand,I think this is serious fraud. On the other, my understanding for anyone investing into his companies is very limited, there are so many red flags on so many levels.

      • gencha@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        To understand Musk/Trump investors, imagine the investment to be an NFT.

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 days ago

        The investors have a seat in the board of directors in xAI, and for a shareholder deal you must have board approval. So at least more than 50% of the directors support this, meanings he is legally in the clear.

      • sporkler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        I suspect the government(s) that represent the bulk of the funds behind xAI threw the money out to continue operating exactly as he has been.

        • klu9@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          They thought all they were getting was a piece of the latest hype. Now they’ve got leverage over the entire govt of the United Fucking States!

  • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    His juvenile enthusiasm for the letter X is so ten-year-old boy with sunglasses.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    3 days ago

    Is this so the loans secured with X stock can’t be called in, forcing Elon to sell the collateral to pay back the loan?

    Sure seems like a bullshit business move to retain control of Tesla.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      X is a private company, there’s no stock. It was secured with Tesla stock.

      • _stranger_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s almost better than losing money. He put up a certain amount of Tesla stock as collateral for the loan (essentially) to buy Twitter.

        So if Tesla’s stock tanks, those creditors will be able to claw more stock away from him. If it tanks enough, he’s in hostile takeover territory.

      • turnip@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        He did it to escape Tesla stock. Because car companies are heavily cyclical.

        He’s succeeding not failing, unfortunately.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Correct.

      It’s actually a smart move.

      The dumb money are those pouring hundreds of billions into the AI hype. This is .com bubble on steroids.

      And sure, AI obviously is becoming an important market, but it will not be the current leaders who will dominate the tech. Like the internet, it’s just too easy to catch up for competitors. Pouring $100B into AI today will only mean you lose out to the $1B startup in 2 years. The incumbents will go broke.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        3 days ago

        The incumbents will go broke.

        Can’t wait! Gonna stock up on some popcorn lmao

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I don’t understand how this gets him free of the loans. My understanding is that he financed $14B of the Twitter purchase with loans secured against Tesla stock. That $14B worth of twitter stock was then owned by Musk and he also had a loan.

        This was an all stock purchase, so xAI stock was exchanged for equivalent value of Twitter stock (keep the old name to keep it clear). Now Musk’s twitter stock that he bought with the $14B will become the equivalent value of xAI stock, and he still has the loan that bought it in the first place.

        Unless $14B of stock has been sold somewhere to repay the loans they still exist.

        Edit: just an addendum. Personally I think stock-for-stock trades should be illegal. Force the parties to move through cash. There’s too much smoke and mirrors hidden by skipping steps. In this case xAI should have had to raise the capital to purchase X. If it can do it through selling stock so be it, but it’s not a wholely internal affair.

        • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          To know how exactly it works, we’d need to know details that aren’t public.

          But just speculating, if the creditors value the combined xAI+X higher than just X, then there is room to transfer the loan to the new company and away from Tesla.

          But whatever the details are, Elon isn’t an idiot when it comes to money. He definitely has advisors who cooked up the optimal way to profit from the AI hype.

          And the essence of that is that Tesla shareholders will be left holding the bag, while Elon utiizes X/xAI to capitalize on the hype.

      • golli@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The incumbents will go broke.

        Who do you mean with that? Companies like OpenAI or Anthropic, or do you also include the likes of Google/Amazon/Microsoft?

        With the former I can see it, but the later also profit from providing the infrastructure (and have other profitable business), so imo those will be just fine.

        • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 days ago

          I definitely see Google/Amazon/Microsoft shedding a huge amount of market cap when the time comes to write-off the 100s of billions they invested the past two years.

          They just don’t have any feasible path to recouping those investments.

          Sure, they’ll never go fully broke, that’s just a nice word for emphasis.

          • golli@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            As i understand it most of the money they are investing goes into new datacenters. So when a model gets outdone by a new one they still have those, unlike e.g. OpenAI that use other companies resources (i think microsoft and oracle mostly?). In a way companies that use those external clouds to train their own models are financing the investments needed for the big players.

            AWS, GCP and Azure are all growing 30%+ yoy, are profitable and if anything supply constraint in that they can’t build more capacity fast enough to meet demand. So it seems to me that to some degree they are already recouping some of those investments. I don’t see a drop in demand for compute, and even if using/training ai would become less resource intensive, Jevons paradox would just lead to more demand.

            Of course they also burn a lot of money as anytime a new model gets trained and beats the older ones, it kind of renders the resources spend on the previous one worthless. But to me that seems like the cost of doing business.

            The current investments they can afford. What would actually lead to shedding huge amounts of marketcap is, if they’d let a rival establish themselves. Similar to how the movie studios didn’t get into streaming early (mostly to not hurt their cable business) and gave Netflix enough time to establish themselves.


            To comment on something you mentioned in another reply below:

            I just don’t see a world where most people are coughing up more than $10 a month for AI.

            I think the big money will be in the business world, where salaries for actual people are high enough that saving a person even a few hours/week or replacing a single employee saves so much money that even expensive subscriptions would easily be worth it.

            On the consumer side as you say running smaller models locally will likely be the norm. But that means it would be free for both the likes of Deepseek and Google. And then it’ll just come down to who has access to personal information and is better embedded, which would be likely be whoever also controls other aspects of a users life, such as Goole with Android, gmail etc. Money here will be made just as it is done with other free services.

            • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              You could have made this same analysis in 2000 and it would be equally valid.

              Yes, the business world is willing to pay big bucks to reduce labour costs and that business case is solid.

              But we already see that success is not determined by the size of the model, but by the data and providing and processing that data in a smart way to the AI. And the companies that are successful in this area are model agnostic. They can, and will, switch to cheaper to run models that are good enough for their purposes.

              So the dogma that whoever has the biggest model wins, just doesn’t apply. AI is already hitting diminishing returns.

              Once the investment money pumping the hype is gone, there will be a glut of capacity and a heavy price competition, which will drive down margins.

          • Kushan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 days ago

            I actually think Google is going to win this one, they’re the only ones making their own hardware to run their own models. Open ai are starting down that road but they’re years behind.

            When you look at the pricing of all the AI companies, Google’s is so much cheaper (orders of magnitude) and they’re not having to pay Nvidia billions to do it.

            • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              I actually agree with you, they definitely have the edge, but I still am skeptical that they will be able to maintain their valuation.

              I just don’t see a world where most people are coughing up more than $10 a month for AI.

              Most people will only use free AI and companies will mostly buy cheap AI.

              Running Deepseek locally is basically free. That’s the competition.

          • thejml@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            3 days ago

            So far I’ve seen/heard Elon:

            • Start shitty arguments
            • Be a fascist
            • Fire people they probably needed
            • Cut funding or drop useful projects
            • Spew senseless, poorly thought out catch phases
            • Censor people that were right but didn’t align with his narrative
            • Take credit for other people’s work
            • Pass the blame for failures

            Have yet to see him sign a check… it’s why they lost their boulder office, for instance.

          • TheFriar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            3 days ago

            He’s an egotist and a man child, while also being the richest man in the world. All he has to do is say he wants something and people have to do it. He doesn’t have to “do” anything to be fully influencing what happens. Look at Twitter, look at the federal government. Sycophants surround these assholes and basically have to bend the knee and do what they say. When capital equals power, this is what happens. Just like when blood line meant power, the kings didn’t “do” anything. But the people who took their orders from them did.

          • Arbiter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            Yeah, he yells at people to go faster and ignore industry best standards or be fired.

          • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            I mean, I think that’s their point, that Elon isn’t directly involved, and he’s constantly shitcanning important people who would prevent something like this happening.

  • SunshineJogger@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    3 days ago

    Very likely this will turn out to be a broken and bugged version of skynet, trained on X toxicity and the mental aptitude of a 12 year old.

    It will proceed to try to enslave humanity, then try to kill us all but accidentally spend all its money on gender affirming care, then start to self hate and destroy itsself.

    • dmtalon@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      Well, was skynet what Humans wanted? Or was it bugged and broken which led to the rebellion?

      My point is, is it just “skynet” (no additional adjectives required)