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.
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.
yes its a perfect setup for a payoff.
Ah shit so maybe not fraud but bribery.
yeah figure musk is a bit smarter so didn't need to get the loans he never pays back like trump.
To understand Musk/Trump investors, imagine the investment to be an NFT.
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.
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.
If I recall, fidelity wrote off most of its investment in twitter less than a year after the acquisition: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/09/30/elon-musks-x-is-now-worth-around-a-fifth-of-the-44-billion-he-paid-for-it-fidelity-says/
Wrote down not off.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/02/x-twitter-stock-falls-elon-musk
Debt is written off when deemed unrecoverable.
Assets can be written down when the value is lower than expected. Often this is due to more rapid depreciation of capital assets due to damage or impairments to goodwill (brand failure).
But none of that matters because private equity valuations are all bullshit and mean nothing anyways.
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/private-equity/private-equity-is-a-joke
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.
Are the authorities aware? It's very illegal to sell exctacy in the US.
So hell get taxed for exchange of speculative assets right?... Right?!
No because it's a loss, so he'll actually get 10bln in tax credit
What's the point? Is it some sort of tax scheme?
His juvenile enthusiasm for the letter X is so ten-year-old boy with sunglasses.
“X” is also 88 in ASCII. 88 is a Nazi reference to “heil hitler”. Big surprise.
Who did that‽ It's so beautiful, it should be posted all over Xitter lol
Just confirming Xitter is pronounced “shitter” right?
That's how I've been pronouncing it in my head when I read it.
I still say "Twitter" though because that and the gulf of Mexico are the only things I feel are okay to deadname.
Until the Gulf of Mexico becomes sentient and tells me it prefers to be called the Gulf of America, I will continue to call it what the rest of the world calls it.
For reference, he bought it for $44B.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk
YAAASSSS!! I love to think of him losing money without money his influence plummets
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.
We enter hostile takeover territory around $115
I love it when you talk dirty 🤪
using AI hype to finance X loans?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/