4 ms·

Could it be that part of the the Musk-led group's offer of $100 billion is a tactic to drive up the valuation of Open AI-P, so that it's more painful/difficult

Could it be that part of the the Musk-led group's offer of $100 billion is a tactic to drive up the valuation of Open AI-P, so that it's more painful/difficult for Open AI-P to buy itself out of Open AI-NP?

_2d30 2y ago
That's why I said this: > this is fundamentally about: stopping or fundamentally changing OpenAI's plans to be spun off. If OpenAI actually values OpenAI-NP at $40B then they will surely sell it for $97B. The point is the $40B is obviously a dramatic undervaluing and the fact they won't sell it for $97B shows that. This is the wrench.
- root_axis 2y ago
  Interesting logic, but I think it's obvious to everyone that the reason they won't sell to Elon has nothing to do with the price of the offer.
  - _2d30 2y ago
    I'm too smooth brained to see the obvious reason. Would love for someone with more folds to say what the reason is instead of hiding it behind its obviousness. OpenAI-NP can either have a $40B from spinning out OpenAI-P or $97B in cash. In theory, they could literally just go and buy back their stake in OpenAI-P and have $57B left over for other AI endeavors if the valuation of it at $40B were remotely reasonable! If I'm on the board and I believe the $40B number, I'd do this in a heatbeat.
    - root_axis 2y ago
      Which number is bigger isn't the only calculation to make. Elon has shown himself to be a capricious and distracted steward of the companies he assumes control of. He has a lot of debt and is already over-leveraged on multiple companies as well as his new roles in government. X has plunged in value, Tesla sales are plummeting worldwide, Elon's scorched earth political agenda invites unending controversy that OpenAI already has enough of on its own. Even if you ignore those glaring concerns, there's a compelling argument to be made that OpenAI's current leadership has already proven itself more than capable of world-class innovation and vision when they effectively created an entirely new industry. It wasn't long ago that the company almost fell apart because senior folks who actually care about the company tried to oust sama - the chaos that an Elon takeover would introduce is a critical risk that cannot be ignored. "I'll pay you double" isn't the instant checkmate you're suggesting.
      - _2d30 2y ago
        For as "obvious to everyone" as your point is supposed to be, it focuses entirely on what the offer means to OpenAI-P and zero on what it means to OpenAI-NP. The decision is to be made by an OpenAI-NP that can effectively divorce itself from OpenAI-P and in either case will be divorced from control of OpenAI-P. They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B. In the scenario where they chose the $40B in OpenAI equity, they are eschewing $97B with which they can achieve their mission. They will be less effective by $57B. They still have no control over OpenAI in this context. They don't have control over OpenAI from the perspective of safety/benefit of humanity. All they have is $40B worth of equity. Or, they can get $97B and go about completing their mission. In this case, what happens to OpenAI doesn't really matter. They lose control over OpenAI from the perspective of safety/public benefit in both cases, but in this case they get to deploy $97B of capital to their goals. The success of OpenAI-P is irrelevant to OpenAI-NP. Now, maybe you would claim that there is some kind of existential risk from OpenAI-P being controlled by Elon. But if that's the case, how is Elon uniquely special? How does OpenAI prevent Elon from gaining control of OpenAI anyway when they won't have control to prevent it? How can they be sure Sam Altman is okay to lead when the board already removed him due his duplicity once. To eliminate their control OpenAI-P, they open themselves up to this same risk regardless. They can take that risk with either $40B of equity or $97B of cash. > "I'll pay you double" isn't the instant checkmate you're suggesting. This isn't what I suggest at all and I would've expected someone who sees through such complex issues to rationales that are "obvious to everyone" would've been able to see that. This does however pose real problems for OpenAI-P as they try to go private!
        root_axis 2y ago
        > This isn't what I suggest at all This you? > They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B. In other words: the big number trumps the small number - QED. > and zero on what it means to OpenAI-NP Why do you believe OpenAI-NP wouldn't care about all the issues I raised?
        _2d30 2y ago
        > This you? > > They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B. > In other words: the big number trumps the small number - QED. Yes those are words I used to describe a factual choice they have. Following that are a lot more words that dive deeper into that discussion. Here's how I summarized my initial point in the TL;DR on my ultimate parent post: "Musk is trying to force OpenAI to value OpenAI-NP's stake in OpenAI-P at a reasonable level which is far greater than the current $40B which will help Musk by potentially derailing OpenAI-P's goal to be spun off. For people with smooth brains like me, I'll helpfully point out how this doesn't present Elon's offer as "an instant checkmate." The first word to note is "trying." This suggests it is an attempt to do something that is not guaranteed to result in a win (ie a "checkmate"). The second word is "potentially" which again reinforces the case that this does not guarantee Elon achieves the stated goal (ie is not "checkmate"). > Why do you believe OpenAI-NP wouldn't care about all the issues I raised? My prior post raised all sorts of reasons and you seem to have decided to ignore them to build strawmen.
- slashdev 2y ago
  Yeah, I think that's the critical observation here. Good job cutting through the noise and spotting it.
- joshuamorton 2y ago
  > If OpenAI actually values OpenAI-NP at $40B then they will surely sell it for $97B. The point is the $40B is obviously a dramatic undervaluing and the fact they won't sell it for $97B shows that. This is the wrench. "We believe an OpenAI-P owned by Elon is fundamentally against our mission." While I'm not saying Sam's being an angel here, I do think it's reasonable to say that llms aren't an existential risk and spinning them off to a consumer thing while xrisk and super alignment stays in a nonprofit is plausibly mission aligned, and certainly moreso than giving any amount of control to the guy who's proven his devotion to care and safety in progress by checks notes taking a sledgehammer to the US Treasury.
  - _2d30 2y ago
    > "We believe an OpenAI-P owned by Elon is fundamentally against our mission." But OpenAI-P of course wouldn't be owned by Elon, he would just own $40B worth of OpenAI-P according to their own valuation of it. A tiny minority stake of the $157B enterprise. OpenAI-NP, could just go back to other OpenAI investors and buy back their "$40B" stake plus have $57B leftover to apply to AI safety. Silly Elon, overpaying by almost 2.5X for something of such little value! It's a hard point that they would likely have to make in court! Harder still with Elon having originally been involved in founding OpenAI-NP. Everyone hates Elon reasonably but few people seem to care the Sam Altman is conducting a theft on the order of $57+B.
    - joshuamorton 2y ago
      The issue isn't OpenAI-NP having some stake (which will obviously be the case no matter what), it's Elon having some stake. If OpenAI-NP has a reasonable case to believe that Elon will be a bad steward of the technology and work against their charter (https://openai.com/charter/ https://openai.com/charter/), they shouldn't sell to him, even if his offer is more than another. Unlike a normal board, the duty-to-shareholder isn't the only duty, a hostile buyout like with twitter doesn't necessarily work. > But OpenAI-P of course wouldn't be owned by Elon, he would just own $40B worth of OpenAI-P according to their own valuation of it. A tiny minority stake of the $157B enterprise. IDK, Musk's offer is apparently for the nonprofit, not for a partial interest in the not-yet-extant for-profit subsidiary.
aeternum 2y ago
Drive up or value it fairly? If Sam and the board are unwilling to even consider the $100B offer then it seems to be strong evidence that it is worth much more than $100B.

_2d30 2y ago

That's why I said this: > this is fundamentally about: stopping or fundamentally changing OpenAI's plans to be spun off. If OpenAI actually values OpenAI-NP at $40B then they will surely sell it for $97B. The point is the $40B is obviously a dramatic undervaluing and the fact they won't sell it for $97B shows that. This is the wrench.

root_axis 2y ago
Interesting logic, but I think it's obvious to everyone that the reason they won't sell to Elon has nothing to do with the price of the offer.
- _2d30 2y ago
  I'm too smooth brained to see the obvious reason. Would love for someone with more folds to say what the reason is instead of hiding it behind its obviousness. OpenAI-NP can either have a $40B from spinning out OpenAI-P or $97B in cash. In theory, they could literally just go and buy back their stake in OpenAI-P and have $57B left over for other AI endeavors if the valuation of it at $40B were remotely reasonable! If I'm on the board and I believe the $40B number, I'd do this in a heatbeat.
  - root_axis 2y ago
    Which number is bigger isn't the only calculation to make. Elon has shown himself to be a capricious and distracted steward of the companies he assumes control of. He has a lot of debt and is already over-leveraged on multiple companies as well as his new roles in government. X has plunged in value, Tesla sales are plummeting worldwide, Elon's scorched earth political agenda invites unending controversy that OpenAI already has enough of on its own. Even if you ignore those glaring concerns, there's a compelling argument to be made that OpenAI's current leadership has already proven itself more than capable of world-class innovation and vision when they effectively created an entirely new industry. It wasn't long ago that the company almost fell apart because senior folks who actually care about the company tried to oust sama - the chaos that an Elon takeover would introduce is a critical risk that cannot be ignored. "I'll pay you double" isn't the instant checkmate you're suggesting.
    - _2d30 2y ago
      For as "obvious to everyone" as your point is supposed to be, it focuses entirely on what the offer means to OpenAI-P and zero on what it means to OpenAI-NP. The decision is to be made by an OpenAI-NP that can effectively divorce itself from OpenAI-P and in either case will be divorced from control of OpenAI-P. They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B. In the scenario where they chose the $40B in OpenAI equity, they are eschewing $97B with which they can achieve their mission. They will be less effective by $57B. They still have no control over OpenAI in this context. They don't have control over OpenAI from the perspective of safety/benefit of humanity. All they have is $40B worth of equity. Or, they can get $97B and go about completing their mission. In this case, what happens to OpenAI doesn't really matter. They lose control over OpenAI from the perspective of safety/public benefit in both cases, but in this case they get to deploy $97B of capital to their goals. The success of OpenAI-P is irrelevant to OpenAI-NP. Now, maybe you would claim that there is some kind of existential risk from OpenAI-P being controlled by Elon. But if that's the case, how is Elon uniquely special? How does OpenAI prevent Elon from gaining control of OpenAI anyway when they won't have control to prevent it? How can they be sure Sam Altman is okay to lead when the board already removed him due his duplicity once. To eliminate their control OpenAI-P, they open themselves up to this same risk regardless. They can take that risk with either $40B of equity or $97B of cash. > "I'll pay you double" isn't the instant checkmate you're suggesting. This isn't what I suggest at all and I would've expected someone who sees through such complex issues to rationales that are "obvious to everyone" would've been able to see that. This does however pose real problems for OpenAI-P as they try to go private!
      - root_axis 2y ago
        > This isn't what I suggest at all This you? > They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B. In other words: the big number trumps the small number - QED. > and zero on what it means to OpenAI-NP Why do you believe OpenAI-NP wouldn't care about all the issues I raised?
        _2d30 2y ago
        > This you? > > They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B. > In other words: the big number trumps the small number - QED. Yes those are words I used to describe a factual choice they have. Following that are a lot more words that dive deeper into that discussion. Here's how I summarized my initial point in the TL;DR on my ultimate parent post: "Musk is trying to force OpenAI to value OpenAI-NP's stake in OpenAI-P at a reasonable level which is far greater than the current $40B which will help Musk by potentially derailing OpenAI-P's goal to be spun off. For people with smooth brains like me, I'll helpfully point out how this doesn't present Elon's offer as "an instant checkmate." The first word to note is "trying." This suggests it is an attempt to do something that is not guaranteed to result in a win (ie a "checkmate"). The second word is "potentially" which again reinforces the case that this does not guarantee Elon achieves the stated goal (ie is not "checkmate"). > Why do you believe OpenAI-NP wouldn't care about all the issues I raised? My prior post raised all sorts of reasons and you seem to have decided to ignore them to build strawmen.
slashdev 2y ago
Yeah, I think that's the critical observation here. Good job cutting through the noise and spotting it.
joshuamorton 2y ago
> If OpenAI actually values OpenAI-NP at $40B then they will surely sell it for $97B. The point is the $40B is obviously a dramatic undervaluing and the fact they won't sell it for $97B shows that. This is the wrench. "We believe an OpenAI-P owned by Elon is fundamentally against our mission." While I'm not saying Sam's being an angel here, I do think it's reasonable to say that llms aren't an existential risk and spinning them off to a consumer thing while xrisk and super alignment stays in a nonprofit is plausibly mission aligned, and certainly moreso than giving any amount of control to the guy who's proven his devotion to care and safety in progress by checks notes taking a sledgehammer to the US Treasury.
- _2d30 2y ago
  > "We believe an OpenAI-P owned by Elon is fundamentally against our mission." But OpenAI-P of course wouldn't be owned by Elon, he would just own $40B worth of OpenAI-P according to their own valuation of it. A tiny minority stake of the $157B enterprise. OpenAI-NP, could just go back to other OpenAI investors and buy back their "$40B" stake plus have $57B leftover to apply to AI safety. Silly Elon, overpaying by almost 2.5X for something of such little value! It's a hard point that they would likely have to make in court! Harder still with Elon having originally been involved in founding OpenAI-NP. Everyone hates Elon reasonably but few people seem to care the Sam Altman is conducting a theft on the order of $57+B.
  - joshuamorton 2y ago
    The issue isn't OpenAI-NP having some stake (which will obviously be the case no matter what), it's Elon having some stake. If OpenAI-NP has a reasonable case to believe that Elon will be a bad steward of the technology and work against their charter (https://openai.com/charter/ https://openai.com/charter/), they shouldn't sell to him, even if his offer is more than another. Unlike a normal board, the duty-to-shareholder isn't the only duty, a hostile buyout like with twitter doesn't necessarily work. > But OpenAI-P of course wouldn't be owned by Elon, he would just own $40B worth of OpenAI-P according to their own valuation of it. A tiny minority stake of the $157B enterprise. IDK, Musk's offer is apparently for the nonprofit, not for a partial interest in the not-yet-extant for-profit subsidiary.

aeternum 2y ago

Drive up or value it fairly? If Sam and the board are unwilling to even consider the $100B offer then it seems to be strong evidence that it is worth much more than $100B.