Elon Musk just offered to buy OpenAI for $97.4 billion
-
Genius mastermind shadow president plan:
- Buy company A for shit ton of money
- Ruin company A so it is worth 80% less
- Still have shit ton of money
- Repeat with company B
Ruin company A so it is worth 80% less
Ruin country USA so it is worth 80% less.
-
It isn’t racist enough, so he has to take over and train it on nazi propaganda.
Where is the "hide Musk/DOGE/Trump related posts" button ?
-
“It’s time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was,” Musk said in a statement provided by his lawyer Marc Toberoff to The Wall Street Journal. “We will make sure that happens.”
I'll believe that when I see it.
lol. Wasn’t grok built specifically without safety in mind?
-
i think this is old spice admitting that xAI is total bullshit
Well, to be 100% fair, it's all total bullshit.
I use a 16b reduction of deepseek-r1 on my pc at home and it's definitely not total bullshit. It's 10gb of local model that can solve mathematics and physics problems for you or program in python or bash. It doesn't hallucinate (or I haven't been able to elicit it), it's aware of the extents of its knowledge. It works incredibly fast on an old ryzen 1600 with 6600xt. Having an open source reasoning AI that takes 10gb of SSD and about 13 gb of ram is so weird that the only thing weirder is seeing smart people dismiss it as bullshit out of hand.
-
Elon’s $97.4B hostile takeover bid for OpenAI is less about “safety” and more about a billionaire’s corporate tantrum. The offer reeks of desperation—a laughable lowball for a company valued at $340B, dressed as altruism.
Altman’s clapback—“buy Twitter for $9.74B”—is the perfect middle finger to Musk’s flailing empire. Remember when X became a $44B dumpster fire? Now he wants to drag OpenAI into his orbit of mismanaged toys.
This feud isn’t about AI ethics—it’s two tech oligarchs weaponizing legal battles and PR stunts. Musk’s “open-source” crusade is safety theater while his own xAI hoards code. The only winner here? Lawyers billing hourly as the world burns.
To be clear (and as far as I understand), it’s not a hostile takeover bid because it cannot be: OpenAI is not a public company and thus doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to thousands to millions of shareholders but instead to a handful of big investors who can decide for themselves whether they want that Elon’s money or not. So this isn’t similar to what Twitter had been through but more like Elon teasing Altman I believe.
-
https://anythingllm.com/ (run them locally)
How does it compare to ollama in your experience?
-
To be clear (and as far as I understand), it’s not a hostile takeover bid because it cannot be: OpenAI is not a public company and thus doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to thousands to millions of shareholders but instead to a handful of big investors who can decide for themselves whether they want that Elon’s money or not. So this isn’t similar to what Twitter had been through but more like Elon teasing Altman I believe.
The distinction you’re making is valid but misses the forest for the trees. Whether OpenAI is public or not, Musk’s bid is a textbook power play, not a genuine offer. The lack of fiduciary duty doesn’t erase the intent—it amplifies it. This isn’t about shareholder obligations; it’s about Musk leveraging his wealth to reshape AI governance in his image.
Comparing this to Altman’s jab at Twitter isn’t apples-to-apples. Altman’s point was rhetorical, highlighting Musk’s track record of overpromising and underdelivering. The “open-source” crusade Musk touts is hollow when xAI remains proprietary.
This isn’t about legality or structure—it’s about influence and control. Dressing it up as altruism insults anyone paying attention.
-
OK, what's the fediverse alternative for ChatGPT?
-
Where is the "hide Musk/DOGE/Trump related posts" button ?
Bro, I think you just wiped out your entire front page.
-
Ah so he's again going to pay twice the amount of what it's worth to then run of off a cliff and make it worth 20% of it's real value within a years time?
Seriously, why do people still believe anything this scammer says?
I mean, they believed everything Trump said because he was "a business man, not a politician" even though all he ever was was a failed business man. These people are functional at best - they ain't bright.
-
Bro, I think you just wiped out your entire front page.
They're also hiding their head in the sand, which might be a bigger issue.
-
Unfortunately, looks like buying Twitter was a very effective choice if you take profit off the priority list
Even if you don't take profit off the list, it could well be that he had more financial success in these other companies because he uses twitter as promotion and propaganda platform...
-
well...I guess I can use chatGPT to walk me through setting one up?! I can use a double 4090 RTX config instead of heating too.
(these are really fucked up times)Download LM Studio.
-
They're also hiding their head in the sand, which might be a bigger issue.
I'm still reading the old school press and listening to the radio.
I'm just not on lemmy to read about it AGAIN...
On top of that, it's mostly absurd and inaplicable announcements. They crave attention so much, it's painful to listen.
Look at Musk's video gaming scheme. Just pathetic... -
I'm still reading the old school press and listening to the radio.
I'm just not on lemmy to read about it AGAIN...
On top of that, it's mostly absurd and inaplicable announcements. They crave attention so much, it's painful to listen.
Look at Musk's video gaming scheme. Just pathetic...Ok, that's fair. It is very hard to tell these days who is paying attention but overwhelmed and who is saying "this is all bad news, so I'm going to ignore it because I don't like hearing about bad things." The latter is the dangerous attitude. I'm glad it isn't yours, but unfortunately Lemmy is not free of it.
-
To be clear (and as far as I understand), it’s not a hostile takeover bid because it cannot be: OpenAI is not a public company and thus doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to thousands to millions of shareholders but instead to a handful of big investors who can decide for themselves whether they want that Elon’s money or not. So this isn’t similar to what Twitter had been through but more like Elon teasing Altman I believe.
OpenAI is not a public company and thus doesn’t have a fiduciary duty
Public companies only have fiduciary duty to their sharehoders to the extent that their corporate charters say that they do. It's entirely possible to launch a corporation that promises nothing to its shareholders, though it might be difficult to find investors.
-
I'm still reading the old school press and listening to the radio.
I'm just not on lemmy to read about it AGAIN...
On top of that, it's mostly absurd and inaplicable announcements. They crave attention so much, it's painful to listen.
Look at Musk's video gaming scheme. Just pathetic...Not sure FlyingSquid is aware of life outside Lemmy. They’re addicted to the lotus flowers here.
-
not even one-third of the valuation openai thinks they're worth (up to 340b). and still below what investors thought in 2022 (157b). src
Open-source just turned its value to dog shit, I'd say the offer is far above is value.
-
They're also hiding their head in the sand, which might be a bigger issue.
There are two sides two this. There's yours, and then there is self-care and self-protection. Being constantly bombarded with this shit, these issues, problems and the world going down hill while you as an individual can't even begin to influence or have any kind of impact on them can and will wreck your mental health.
In the end it needs balance. Don't stick your head in the sand, but also don't drown in the never ending despair that is the flood of bad news in modern media.
-
The distinction you’re making is valid but misses the forest for the trees. Whether OpenAI is public or not, Musk’s bid is a textbook power play, not a genuine offer. The lack of fiduciary duty doesn’t erase the intent—it amplifies it. This isn’t about shareholder obligations; it’s about Musk leveraging his wealth to reshape AI governance in his image.
Comparing this to Altman’s jab at Twitter isn’t apples-to-apples. Altman’s point was rhetorical, highlighting Musk’s track record of overpromising and underdelivering. The “open-source” crusade Musk touts is hollow when xAI remains proprietary.
This isn’t about legality or structure—it’s about influence and control. Dressing it up as altruism insults anyone paying attention.
I read this on Hacker News, which I found particularly interesting:
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.
