6 ms·

You misunderstand Musk's motivation. This was never about money for him, but about control over a key technology. One of the main reasons he exited OpenAI was t

You misunderstand Musk's motivation. This was never about money for him, but about control over a key technology. One of the main reasons he exited OpenAI was the fact that the other co-founders wanted to create a structure where no one, Musk included, would be able to seize full control of the company. That was the thing that prompted him to leave, which tells you a lot about what he really wanted in the first place. But he also falsely assumed that OAI would die without his money. Yet, they managed to pull through, and Musk is now on the outside looking in with very little influence in the AI space. xAI is his desperate attempt to get back into the game. That is why he won't give up.

Gigachad 2mo ago
He needs to be able to skew the worlds AI towards racism and whatever else he believes at the moment.
nchmy 2mo ago
Doesn't saltman effectively have full control of the company?
- furyofantares 2mo ago
  no
  - beanjuiceII 2mo ago
    what do you mean they couldn't even get rid of him, then people left because of that
mandeepj 2mo ago
> This was never about money for him, but about control over a key technology It's very comforting to know for those reasons he'd never be able to become POTUS; although there's still a way, I hope he never gets to know about it. Otherwise, he'll make it a fascist land.
jimmygrapes 2mo ago
What happened to the rule about steelmanning? I know it's chic to post super hot takes about what we assume a persons intentions are, and I know there are plenty of "if you can't see how bad they are you're the problem" type justifications; I know the supposed goal of empathy is tossed aside at first hint of disagreement whether real or perceived, and I know there is "evidence" of justification for hatred/dismissal. Yet still there is self-righteous presumption bandied about in a negative way that violates that steelman rule. Justified of course by the idea that there are no negotiations with terrorists, no association with Nazis, no forgiveness or understanding given to the Other. I just don't get it, I'm sorry.
- brokencode 2mo ago
  What rule about steelmanning? We’re commenting online, not writing peer reviewed research. And yeah, some people lose the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, but actions have consequences. Elon doesn’t just get to kill hundreds of thousands of poor people by eliminating USAID and expect everyone to treat him the same way. He’s made enemies for life, and he deserves it.
  - xp84 2mo ago
    Wait, you think not giving additional aid = responsibility for whatever happens in the developing country? Does this blame go for the rest of the year, decade, or century? Does giving aid in the first place automatically trigger this? If I gave $500 to kids cancer research every year for 5 years, and then I don't give this year, do I have blood on my hands every time a kid dies of cancer from now on? And if you didn't ever donate, you don't? How does this work?
    - metabagel 2mo ago
      The issue is that only Congress had the authority to cut funding to a congressionally authorized program. What Elon did was illegal and also heinous.
    - Aurornis 2mo ago
      > Wait, you think not giving additional aid = responsibility for whatever happens in the developing country? This, and your $500 cancer donation, is an absurdist reduction of the problem. The USAID contributions weren’t anything like your $500 example. It was the entire infrastructure for medical care and immunizations that people relied on. The proper way to wind these programs down, if it was appropriate, was to give an off ramp so their governments and other organizations could minimize a plan to fill the void by a certain date. If you take responsibility for something medical on a large scale, doing a sudden rug pull has predictable consequences. Those predictable consequences cannot be separated from the person who made the decision. I think these terrible analogies about donating $500 indicate that you don’t understand the problem.
m463 2mo ago
> This was never about money for him, but about control over a key technology. I think he just wanted to have a sci-fi future, and because many other people think similarly he has tapped into that shared desire and has been succeeding. Looking at things from the other side, musk is good at making physical things, where other companies are weak. Grok in a tesla car is actually well integrated and kind of nice. You can ask the car about things to do, and it will drive you there.
- Zardoz84 2mo ago
  Musk itself doesn't make things. He only puts the money, and other people build the things. How many times, they need to work around him or fix his crazy ideas ? People must stop trying to compare it to Tesla or Tony Stark. He is more like the bad guy of Jurassic Park 2.
  - MagicMoonlight 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - aikinai 2mo ago
    Weird how other people can put up more money and not be able to make the same things as Musk’s companies.
    - hello4263 2mo ago
      The people with that level of money are very few.
      - aikinai 2mo ago
        Companies aren't funded by one person, even his. After their current round, Blue Origin will have raised more than three times as much capital as SpaceX, and SpaceX is obviously far more advanced and has already gone public. Rivian used ten times more capital to reach their first delivery and twenty times more before their IPO as compared to Tesla. It looks like it's not Musk's money making his companies successful.
piokoch 2mo ago
There is also a simpler explanation that does not make Musk looking like an evil wrongdoer - Musk is working on human-shape robots, for this he needs AI. BTW. Musk started electric cars revolution (which is supposed to help the planet?), he made space flights way cheaper and accessible, his Starlink/Starshield saved Ukraine from being defeated right away by Russia, but, because of his political views, he is considered an evil man.
- azinman2 2mo ago
  He didn’t start Tesla, he bought it. To his credit he probably saved it. But we also don’t have the counter factual. “Because of his political views” This is a beyond charitable take. He brought in a chainsaw to the US gov (literally and figuratively), after buying his way in with trump with his 250M donation to create a new part of gov that was not democratically assembled. This isn’t just him tweeting a perspective.
- monknomo 2mo ago
  "political actions" even! not to mention his current 'Tommy Robinson' political opinion spree is sufficient to have very serious objections to his political opinions. I'd no more associate with him than I would Henry Ford at the height of his Dearborn Independent stuff or Theodore Bilbo etc. Of course a person's views can be so bad that they take on a moral dimension, that seems very obvious.
imtringued 2mo ago
Honestly, this is exclusively about money. xAI and X were complete money pits, Tesla's brand was tarnished and SpaceX was the only remaining untainted brand but it has an obvious problem. Starship didn't turn out to be the obvious victory that Musk had in mind. He basically threw away the Falcon 9 mindset of incremental progress and is instead trying to use a completely different methodology on what amounts to be a vertically stacked shuttle. Just look at the first thing SpaceX did after selling more than $60 billion worth of shares during the IPO: They borrowed another $20 billion to turn the junk bonds (11% to 16%) from X and xAI into lower interest (5%) long duration (2030s to 2040s) debt. They're probably saving a billion USD per year just from the debt restructuring alone and the IPO lets Musk keep funding the endless money pit that Starship represents.
- dzhiurgis 2mo ago
  > They're probably saving a billion USD per year just from the debt restructuring Cool. Sounds like a wise financial management. Musk's early background is actually in finance. People call him software and physics but rarely remember he's a finance genius too. p.s. you probably wanna have a look how indebted legacy auto is compared with Tesla. That's why merger with SpaceXAI makes sense.
sieabahlpark 2mo ago
[dead]
estearum 2mo ago
> This was never about money for him, but about control over a key technology That's too flattering. It's about ego.
- vladmk 2mo ago
  Agreed - if you read any Elon books that’s a part of it. He always had someone to prove himself to from his dad to the world. It’s almost Michael Jordanesque except business wise.
  - halfmatthalfcat 2mo ago
    So just like Trump. Birds of a feather.
    - DustinBrett 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - vladmk 2mo ago
        Not true - I don’t hate him in fact I have a fucking poster of the guy lol I just read a few of his books and look at the facts - you’re not just a “regular guy” at that level he says so himself in the Walter Isaacson biography. Being compared to Michael Jordan isn’t an insult - but it’s not a big compliment either - the gift is also a curse.
      - Zardoz84 2mo ago
        His daughter is one of the few things good things that takes up from these family.
dmarcos 2mo ago
I’m a big fan of Musk. One of the few criticisms I have is how xAI is also inconsistent with original OpenAI mission. I had imagined xAI as en effort to correct and fully embody all original values of OpenAI and that Elon says they betrayed. That makes his criticism weaker and I understand why some can think it was all about control. In his words: "I'm the reason OpenAl exists. I came up with the name. The name OpenAl refers to open source... The intent was - what was the opposite of Google? It would be an open source non-profit." I sometimes feel xAI wants to live up to those open values so I always celebrate when they decide to engage in open source. They still don’t fully embrace it. Perhaps because they think is not practical or will make them less competitive?
- popalchemist 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - vanc_cefepime 2mo ago
    [flagged]
  - throwaway884367 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - halfmatthalfcat 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - throwaway884367 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        halfmatthalfcat 2mo ago
        You're missing my point, though it doesn't sound like you care.

Gigachad 2mo ago

He needs to be able to skew the worlds AI towards racism and whatever else he believes at the moment.

nchmy 2mo ago

Doesn't saltman effectively have full control of the company?

furyofantares 2mo ago
no
- beanjuiceII 2mo ago
  what do you mean they couldn't even get rid of him, then people left because of that

mandeepj 2mo ago

> This was never about money for him, but about control over a key technology It's very comforting to know for those reasons he'd never be able to become POTUS; although there's still a way, I hope he never gets to know about it. Otherwise, he'll make it a fascist land.

jimmygrapes 2mo ago

What happened to the rule about steelmanning? I know it's chic to post super hot takes about what we assume a persons intentions are, and I know there are plenty of "if you can't see how bad they are you're the problem" type justifications; I know the supposed goal of empathy is tossed aside at first hint of disagreement whether real or perceived, and I know there is "evidence" of justification for hatred/dismissal. Yet still there is self-righteous presumption bandied about in a negative way that violates that steelman rule. Justified of course by the idea that there are no negotiations with terrorists, no association with Nazis, no forgiveness or understanding given to the Other. I just don't get it, I'm sorry.

brokencode 2mo ago
What rule about steelmanning? We’re commenting online, not writing peer reviewed research. And yeah, some people lose the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, but actions have consequences. Elon doesn’t just get to kill hundreds of thousands of poor people by eliminating USAID and expect everyone to treat him the same way. He’s made enemies for life, and he deserves it.
- xp84 2mo ago
  Wait, you think not giving additional aid = responsibility for whatever happens in the developing country? Does this blame go for the rest of the year, decade, or century? Does giving aid in the first place automatically trigger this? If I gave $500 to kids cancer research every year for 5 years, and then I don't give this year, do I have blood on my hands every time a kid dies of cancer from now on? And if you didn't ever donate, you don't? How does this work?
  - metabagel 2mo ago
    The issue is that only Congress had the authority to cut funding to a congressionally authorized program. What Elon did was illegal and also heinous.
  - Aurornis 2mo ago
    > Wait, you think not giving additional aid = responsibility for whatever happens in the developing country? This, and your $500 cancer donation, is an absurdist reduction of the problem. The USAID contributions weren’t anything like your $500 example. It was the entire infrastructure for medical care and immunizations that people relied on. The proper way to wind these programs down, if it was appropriate, was to give an off ramp so their governments and other organizations could minimize a plan to fill the void by a certain date. If you take responsibility for something medical on a large scale, doing a sudden rug pull has predictable consequences. Those predictable consequences cannot be separated from the person who made the decision. I think these terrible analogies about donating $500 indicate that you don’t understand the problem.

m463 2mo ago

> This was never about money for him, but about control over a key technology. I think he just wanted to have a sci-fi future, and because many other people think similarly he has tapped into that shared desire and has been succeeding. Looking at things from the other side, musk is good at making physical things, where other companies are weak. Grok in a tesla car is actually well integrated and kind of nice. You can ask the car about things to do, and it will drive you there.

Zardoz84 2mo ago
Musk itself doesn't make things. He only puts the money, and other people build the things. How many times, they need to work around him or fix his crazy ideas ? People must stop trying to compare it to Tesla or Tony Stark. He is more like the bad guy of Jurassic Park 2.
- MagicMoonlight 2mo ago
  [dead]
- aikinai 2mo ago
  Weird how other people can put up more money and not be able to make the same things as Musk’s companies.
  - hello4263 2mo ago
    The people with that level of money are very few.
    - aikinai 2mo ago
      Companies aren't funded by one person, even his. After their current round, Blue Origin will have raised more than three times as much capital as SpaceX, and SpaceX is obviously far more advanced and has already gone public. Rivian used ten times more capital to reach their first delivery and twenty times more before their IPO as compared to Tesla. It looks like it's not Musk's money making his companies successful.

piokoch 2mo ago

There is also a simpler explanation that does not make Musk looking like an evil wrongdoer - Musk is working on human-shape robots, for this he needs AI. BTW. Musk started electric cars revolution (which is supposed to help the planet?), he made space flights way cheaper and accessible, his Starlink/Starshield saved Ukraine from being defeated right away by Russia, but, because of his political views, he is considered an evil man.

azinman2 2mo ago
He didn’t start Tesla, he bought it. To his credit he probably saved it. But we also don’t have the counter factual. “Because of his political views” This is a beyond charitable take. He brought in a chainsaw to the US gov (literally and figuratively), after buying his way in with trump with his 250M donation to create a new part of gov that was not democratically assembled. This isn’t just him tweeting a perspective.
monknomo 2mo ago
"political actions" even! not to mention his current 'Tommy Robinson' political opinion spree is sufficient to have very serious objections to his political opinions. I'd no more associate with him than I would Henry Ford at the height of his Dearborn Independent stuff or Theodore Bilbo etc. Of course a person's views can be so bad that they take on a moral dimension, that seems very obvious.

imtringued 2mo ago

Honestly, this is exclusively about money. xAI and X were complete money pits, Tesla's brand was tarnished and SpaceX was the only remaining untainted brand but it has an obvious problem. Starship didn't turn out to be the obvious victory that Musk had in mind. He basically threw away the Falcon 9 mindset of incremental progress and is instead trying to use a completely different methodology on what amounts to be a vertically stacked shuttle. Just look at the first thing SpaceX did after selling more than $60 billion worth of shares during the IPO: They borrowed another $20 billion to turn the junk bonds (11% to 16%) from X and xAI into lower interest (5%) long duration (2030s to 2040s) debt. They're probably saving a billion USD per year just from the debt restructuring alone and the IPO lets Musk keep funding the endless money pit that Starship represents.

dzhiurgis 2mo ago
> They're probably saving a billion USD per year just from the debt restructuring Cool. Sounds like a wise financial management. Musk's early background is actually in finance. People call him software and physics but rarely remember he's a finance genius too. p.s. you probably wanna have a look how indebted legacy auto is compared with Tesla. That's why merger with SpaceXAI makes sense.

sieabahlpark 2mo ago

[dead]

estearum 2mo ago

> This was never about money for him, but about control over a key technology That's too flattering. It's about ego.

vladmk 2mo ago
Agreed - if you read any Elon books that’s a part of it. He always had someone to prove himself to from his dad to the world. It’s almost Michael Jordanesque except business wise.
- halfmatthalfcat 2mo ago
  So just like Trump. Birds of a feather.
  - DustinBrett 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - vladmk 2mo ago
      Not true - I don’t hate him in fact I have a fucking poster of the guy lol I just read a few of his books and look at the facts - you’re not just a “regular guy” at that level he says so himself in the Walter Isaacson biography. Being compared to Michael Jordan isn’t an insult - but it’s not a big compliment either - the gift is also a curse.
    - Zardoz84 2mo ago
      His daughter is one of the few things good things that takes up from these family.

dmarcos 2mo ago

I’m a big fan of Musk. One of the few criticisms I have is how xAI is also inconsistent with original OpenAI mission. I had imagined xAI as en effort to correct and fully embody all original values of OpenAI and that Elon says they betrayed. That makes his criticism weaker and I understand why some can think it was all about control. In his words: "I'm the reason OpenAl exists. I came up with the name. The name OpenAl refers to open source... The intent was - what was the opposite of Google? It would be an open source non-profit." I sometimes feel xAI wants to live up to those open values so I always celebrate when they decide to engage in open source. They still don’t fully embrace it. Perhaps because they think is not practical or will make them less competitive?

popalchemist 2mo ago
[flagged]
- vanc_cefepime 2mo ago
  [flagged]
- throwaway884367 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - halfmatthalfcat 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - throwaway884367 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - halfmatthalfcat 2mo ago
        You're missing my point, though it doesn't sound like you care.