this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
67 points (88.5% liked)

Technology

62853 readers
3846 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wccrawford@lemmy.world 109 points 6 days ago

Ahh, financial blackmail. That makes a lot of sense for him.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 64 points 6 days ago (2 children)

For context:

This bid is an attempt at a threat because it overvalued the perceived value of the non profit side of openai.

Openai has a known perceived total value. (dont know how much exactly) Musk wants to lay the argument that by refusing his bid. Most of that value is in the non profits side and thus less in the for profit side.

This is a threat because the profit side is where openai partners, like Microsoft have their stake. So its lowering the perceived monopoly money of those shareholders.

Of course can be ignored. OpenAi has stated they can refuse on many other reasons unrelated to the bidding price.

Also OpenAi is a fascist collaborator just like musk.

Source: ai explained yt channel

[–] Bjornir@programming.dev 23 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Could they not refuse because they simply don't want to sell?

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 20 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Shareholders can sue if the board doesn't do the thing that will maximize shareholder value. Probably the basic underlying problem with companies that sell stock.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

What shareholders?

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 19 points 6 days ago

In a way they can but the rich live in a very weird world of pretend so depending on what their answer is there may be pretend consequences and altered perception of their worth.

Altman responded that simply their charter of "for benefit of all man kind" is enough reason to decline but he carefully mentioned that the actual bidding price would not matter to come to that decision. He is friends with fascists but not stupid.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

This is not how the US works. Your assets belong to me now.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Oh, okay... Can I visit them on the weekends?

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Only if you buy them, me, my SO and theirs lunch. And no cheap shit! Olive Garden minimum. Gods do I love breadsticks!

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

Yeah, pretty sure Sam Altman is an investor in Praxis which is another one of those projects to make a billion run fifedom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_(proposed_city)#values

[–] db2@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

Fuck Elon Musk

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 4 points 5 days ago

Grok not working out ok?

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 5 points 5 days ago

In a court filing on Wednesday, lawyers for Elon Musk said the billionaire will withdraw his $97.4 billion bid for OpenAI’s nonprofit if the ChatGPT maker’s board of directors “preserve the charity’s mission” and halt the company’s conversion to a for-profit.

How transparent can you be?