3 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.
  - _2d30 2y ago
    > 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 If the OpenAI-NP board sees such existential risk from a change in leadership of OpenAI-P, how can they in good faith eschew control of it? By removing themselves from control, they would see the exact same risk anyhow. Elon could make a tender offer for the private for-profit entity that its board would be bound to accept in its fiduciary duty to shareholders. Plus, they would have to make the case that both Elon is specifically bad AND that he's so bad that it's not worth having $57B more to deploy for their AI goals. What's more, you would have to consider whether or not preventing Elon from controlling OpenAI even prevents whatever risk you see from Elon as he is already building xAI in parallel. > IDK, Musk's offer is apparently for the nonprofit, not for a partial interest in the not-yet-extant for-profit subsidiary. You can't buy a non-profit. It's their assets he's trying to buy. If OpenAI-NP values their OpenAI-P claims at $40B then that's what Elon would own according to their own beliefs.
    - joshuamorton 2y ago
      > If the OpenAI-NP board sees such existential risk from a change in leadership of OpenAI-P, how can they in good faith eschew control of it? By removing themselves from control, they would see the exact same risk anyhow. Elon could make a tender offer for the private for-profit entity that its board would be bound to accept in its fiduciary duty to shareholders. They can make the argument that this offer is not in good faith and that Elon would not make an equivalent offer on an open market. That is, Elon's purpose in this offer is to prevent the sale of OpenAI, not to actually acquire it. Perhaps one could get around this if the cash were put in escrow, but also Elon likely doesn't have 100B in cash and it appears part of the valuation that Elon is putting up is x.ai, so it's quite reasonable to say that x is overvalued in this deal and that it isn't really 90B anyway. > You can't buy a non-profit. It's their assets he's trying to buy. If OpenAI-NP values their OpenAI-P claims at $40B then that's what Elon would own according to their own beliefs. From what I can gather you're just mistaken here, Elon seems to be offering 100B for the thing recently valued at 157B (per https://archive.is/59jZ5#selection-637.0-648.0 https://archive.is/59jZ5#selection-637.0-648.0), while what is being sold for 40B is not the entire $157B entity. Either that, or elon really is getting a controlling interest, and then the argument about Elon being a terrible steward still applies.
_2d30 2y ago
> 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 I think you added this after I replied. Even if this is the case, better to do so with $97B and no control in OpenAI than $40B and no control in OpenAI!

_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.
- _2d30 2y ago
  > 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 If the OpenAI-NP board sees such existential risk from a change in leadership of OpenAI-P, how can they in good faith eschew control of it? By removing themselves from control, they would see the exact same risk anyhow. Elon could make a tender offer for the private for-profit entity that its board would be bound to accept in its fiduciary duty to shareholders. Plus, they would have to make the case that both Elon is specifically bad AND that he's so bad that it's not worth having $57B more to deploy for their AI goals. What's more, you would have to consider whether or not preventing Elon from controlling OpenAI even prevents whatever risk you see from Elon as he is already building xAI in parallel. > IDK, Musk's offer is apparently for the nonprofit, not for a partial interest in the not-yet-extant for-profit subsidiary. You can't buy a non-profit. It's their assets he's trying to buy. If OpenAI-NP values their OpenAI-P claims at $40B then that's what Elon would own according to their own beliefs.
  - joshuamorton 2y ago
    > If the OpenAI-NP board sees such existential risk from a change in leadership of OpenAI-P, how can they in good faith eschew control of it? By removing themselves from control, they would see the exact same risk anyhow. Elon could make a tender offer for the private for-profit entity that its board would be bound to accept in its fiduciary duty to shareholders. They can make the argument that this offer is not in good faith and that Elon would not make an equivalent offer on an open market. That is, Elon's purpose in this offer is to prevent the sale of OpenAI, not to actually acquire it. Perhaps one could get around this if the cash were put in escrow, but also Elon likely doesn't have 100B in cash and it appears part of the valuation that Elon is putting up is x.ai, so it's quite reasonable to say that x is overvalued in this deal and that it isn't really 90B anyway. > You can't buy a non-profit. It's their assets he's trying to buy. If OpenAI-NP values their OpenAI-P claims at $40B then that's what Elon would own according to their own beliefs. From what I can gather you're just mistaken here, Elon seems to be offering 100B for the thing recently valued at 157B (per https://archive.is/59jZ5#selection-637.0-648.0 https://archive.is/59jZ5#selection-637.0-648.0), while what is being sold for 40B is not the entire $157B entity. Either that, or elon really is getting a controlling interest, and then the argument about Elon being a terrible steward still applies.

_2d30 2y ago

> 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 I think you added this after I replied. Even if this is the case, better to do so with $97B and no control in OpenAI than $40B and no control in OpenAI!