Seems like the Nigerian Prince bayesian model as analysed by Microsoft. Due to many false positives within the thousands of potential responders pool, they emit a signal that only a real easy victim would fall for to reduce the costs of their final filtering process.
“The company’s mission is to understand the true nature of the universe”
- There’s no way an LLM is going to get anywhere near understanding this. The true nature of the universe is unlikely to be captured in language.
Considering what’s at Tesla, I don’t think it makes sense to assume they’ll be constraining themselves to text/LLM.
But on the philosophical side, if an understanding can’t be communicated, does it exist? We humans only have various movements and vibrations of flesh, sensing those, text, and images to communicate.
> But on the philosophical side, if an understanding can’t be communicated, does it exist?
There are deep mathematical results about our limits to understand things simply because we communicate through finite series of symbols from finite dictionaries. Basically what we can express and prove is infinite but discrete, but there is much larger infinities than that that will be beyond our grasps forever. Things like theorems that are true but can not be proven to be true, or properties on individuals real numbers that exist but can not be expressed.
And there is no reason to believe the universe doesn't have the same kind of thing: it remains to be shown whether or not you can describe or understand the universe with a finite set of symbols.
Yep. Expanding on that; before AI everyone I knew would postulate on the fictional Library of Babel. The idea was a thought experiment, where you assume there exists a library with every possible combination of words and letters written down in one of it's books. There would be millions of issues that are filled with garbled and meaningless text; only a few would be legible, and fewer yet understandable.
It begs the question, if sifting through noise is a meaningful way to look for scientific progress. And of course, what if it's wrong? Both the Library of Babel and AI are fully capable of leading us down untested and nonsense rabbit-holes. The difference between Alice and Wonderland and Jabberwocky is unknown to us; we wouldn't know which books are worth reading and which are not.
On the one hand, you have people excited by this idea. Some people really do think that the world's answers are up on a bookshelf in the Library of Babel, somewhere. The philosophical angle runs deeper yet, though; what kind of cargo-cult society would we build relying on a useful AI? Are we guaranteed meaningful progress because an AI model can keep pressing the "randomize" button? Do we eventually hit a point where fiction and reality are indistinguishable? It's all hard to say.
" Considering what’s at Tesla, I don’t think it makes sense to assume they’ll be constraining themselves to text/LLM. " Tesla is losing money and cant fulfill its promises about AI. What do you mean?
And actually there is no need to go as far as “universe” to get to something that can’t be captured by language. Human existence is such an example.
For this reason I don’t think llms are going to be good film makers for instance. Sure an llm will be able to spit the scenario of the next action movie, those already seem to be automatically generated anyway. But making a film that resonates to humans takes a lot that can’t be formulated with language.
> And actually there is no need to go as far as “universe” to get to something that can’t be captured by language. Human existence is such an example.
I don't know what you mean by that.
If you mean qualia, then sure. Unsolved and undescribed. But other than that, I think everything has a linguistic form; perhaps inefficient, but it is possible.
Separately, transformers don't have to use what humans recognise as a langue, this means they can use things such as DNA sequences and pictures. They're definitely not the final answer to how to do AI, because they need so many more examples than us, but I don't have confidence that they can't do these things, only that they won't.
Is where we are any good? I think one of the more germane issues with generative AI art is that it is distinctly not creative. It can only regurgitate variations of what it has seen.
This is both extremely powerful and limiting.
An LLM is never going to give you some of the most famous films like "Star Wars" which bounced around before 20th Century Fox finally took a chance on it because they thought Lucas had talent. Is what we want? A society that just uses machines to produce variations of the same thing that already exist all the time? It's hard enough for novel creative projects to succeed.
> Is where we are any good? I think one of the more germane issues with generative AI art is that it is distinctly not creative. It can only regurgitate variations of what it has seen.
Yes, state of the art models like midjourney, sd3 are _really_ good. You are bounded only by your imagination.
The idea that generative AI is only derivative was never an empirical claim, its always been a cope.
Yes... I'm not sure what the archetype of intelligence is, but for practical purposes I'd say: Humans have some of it. And it's not clear to me that what humans have is very far from what AI is starting to have. The hallucinations are weird and wonderful, but so are some of the answers I saw from below-average students when I was in university. Can't tell whether the two weirdnesses are different or similar. Exciting times lie ahead.
> Can't tell whether the two weirdnesses are different or similar
Because you focus on how they are similar and not how they are different, to me it is extremely obvious they are very different. Students make mistakes and learn and then stop doing them soon after, when I taught students at college I saw that over and over. LLM however still does the same weird mistakes they did 4 years ago, they just hide it a bit better today, the core different in how they act compared to humans is still the same as in GPT-2 to me, because they are still completely unable to learn or understand their mistakes like almost every human can.
Without being able to understand your own mistakes you can never reach human intelligence, and I think that is a core limitation of current LLM architecture.
Edit: Note that many/most jobs doesn't require full human general intelligence. We used to have human calculators etc, same will happen in the future, but we will continue to use humans as long as we don't have generally intelligent computers that can understand their mistakes.
>“The company’s mission is to understand the true nature of the universe” - There’s no way an LLM is going to get anywhere near understanding this. The true nature of the universe is unlikely to be captured in language.
I disagree. The day is coming when some *BIG* problem is solved by AI just because someone jokingly asks about it.
I regularly try to ask them to give me fluid dynamics simulation code to see what level they are at. Right now, they can't do that kind of thing all by themselves, and I don't know enough to debug the code they give me.
But even without any questions about free will or consciousness or whatever, a sufficiently capable — not yet existing — transformative search engine (as it has been derided as) and a logical inference engine (which it isn't, but it can use) could have produced the Aclubiere metric with nothing newer than the Einstein field equations and someone asking the right question.
I do not expect transformer models to be good enough to do that given their training requirements, but I wouldn't rule it out either.
These people always exist. They pick up whatever is en vogue and sell it to investors. What happens later is of secondary importance, what matters is that money changed hands.
It kinda reminds me of James Bond Diamonds are Forever where the main scientist is convinced Blofeld is doing the right thing until the very bitter end.
Whether you agree that their work constitutes advances toward more general purpose AI, they're in an industry where that is ostensibly the goal, which makes their choice of mission statement appropriate.
X.ai was founded March 2023. That’s one year three months. Is general AI a good first goal? I think most uses, outside of LLM, will be very specialized AI, and unrelated to chat.
Assuming I can choose linked list implementation, that is trivial:
It's a doubly linked list where the head contains a pointer to the tail, and a flag that determines which pointer in the nodes is forward and which is backward.
This is a pretty blithe comment that assumes perfect labour mobility. Many of Twitter's remaining employees are on work visas that are tied to Twitter and can't easily be ported to another employer.
Huh, so these work visa employees can go back to their home countries. Surely they can get a great job with excellent perks. These people are not really escaping from war zones. The fact they are not leaving would just mean Twitter's crappy job is better than their other options.
I think SpaceX and Tesla do actually have a reputation for low pay compared to other major tech companies.
I think it might be similar to game companies where people are attracted to the work itself (whether it’s because they’re True Believers in Musk or because electric cars and space are cool, not sure, probably mostly the latter). This lets the company pay less for the same level of talent, since the work is in itself a form of compensation (as perceived by the people who accept the jobs for lower pay).
To play devil’s advocate, he lists “truthful” as a goal, which is emphatically missing from openai, google, microsoft, facebook. Google even removed don’t be evil. Elon is greedy and truthful (although obviously with plenty of self deceipt when conflict of interest…). But how far can you really go with truth, when no one wants the truth: not the west, not the east, and not the Middle East. And your allies and investors are in it for the greed part, but not the truth part so much. Trump tried the same thing with truth social… problem is all the greed and shadiness loses credibility with truth also.
Those are culturally biased questions. You could as well ask about the incident which drew America into Vietnam, or if the US deliberately bombed China and Russia during the Korean War and as equally accuse a system of being dishonest.
One has sent his car to a trans-Martian orbit, the other was unable to admit which inauguration had the most people present or how large his apartment is.
Don't get me wrong: Musk has and will continue to get into serious trouble for things he insists are true but nobody else believes (420 etc.), I'm just saying there's a huge gap between them.
We don’t give a s%#* about people wanting to use AI to write SEO spam, automate their customer support or generate content to keep the kids quiet. We want to use this tech as a tool to solve real world problems in a way that, looking back 500 years from now, people will see this as a time of innovation, rather than a time of decline.
Wether he’ll succeed is a different question, of course. But such a direction is clearly missing in the other players. They are just too eager to cater to the laziest segment of the economy of bits. They’re about changing pixels on other people’s screen.
This is probably the response Elon is looking for when he simply writes something vague that can elicit the imagination of any applicant’s specific worldview.
> xAI will continue on this steep trajectory of progress over the coming months, with multiple exciting technology updates and products soon to be announced.
There is a lot of potential for using AI in drug discovery and development, biotech more broadly and chemistry/material science. Pharma is investing heavily in this right now. If useful, the output here could potentially also support Neuralink and even SpaceX.
Coupled with the line about the "true nature of the universe", I guessed this was really about entering that space.
But when you look at the careers page [https://x.ai/careers#open-roles], they are only hiring AI engineers. No biochemists or MDs, material scientists or any other natural science domains. So, if natural science discovery is actually on the road map, either:
- it is in the long term future
- they have no idea what they are doing
More likely, they are not going for natural science and this is basically just a play to compete with openAI. And, in that case, I don't understand how they convinced investors to put 6 billion dollars into it.
The “true nature of the universe” bit is that Elon believes that competing LLMs are too neutered because they disallow certain terms etc. (his words are much more politically charged and I do not agree with his take on this and many other things)
Therefore he believes that Grok can be an LLM trained on the voices of the people using his alleged free speech platform:X.
Elon’s vision of free speech is a world where you can say anything you want as long as it isn’t mean towards Elon or Alt-right ideology. Which is actually pretty hilarious to think about in the context of a training dataset for a generative model…it’s literally gonna be a bullshit generator.
Is the assumption here is that we can somehow understand the nature of the universe if we stop censoring the common man and have an unmuzzled LLM that talks like him instead of the Bay Area AI elites? My uneducated guess is well learn more about the true nature of the common clay^w man.
I agree this appears to be Musk's opinion of LLMs in particular.
However, as Musk has already got AI in his cars and was interested in the topic well before LLMs (founding investor in OpenAI when they were doing reinforcement learning), I'd be extremely disappointed if he had forgotten all of that in the current LLM-gold-rush.
The thing about “figuring out the true nature of the universe” is that you *have to do experiments*. It’s non-negotiable. There’s no amount of really hard thinking or parameters or GPU’s that will let you know the secrets of the universe. It’s astonishing to me that both the AI-maximalists and the AI-doomers are both seemingly unaware of this basic, fundamental fact of science.
Szegedy and some others were working on science-related (math and natural science) projects at Google prior to leaving. This is probably just piggy backing on their prior work without any commitment going forward.
Of course they're not going to make any fundamental contributions to natural science or mathematics (or likely even LLM training/understanding).
The capacity of continuing the real world problem solving is very blurry. Boring is a joke. For Tesla he is not a founder, and they are mostly relying on a 10 year old product (new product is a joke) that'll only maybe saved with tariffs. It's mostly a meme stock company by now. SpaceX is a great success but his job was only providing money through government contracts and having the luck of finding Gwynne Shotwell, seems hard to replicate consistently. Add an ongoing mental breakdown and full on lies (FSD, humans on Mars, Hyperloop, ...) and it doesn't look that good (AI is a bit complex, hard to imagine someone in his state still having the intellectual capacity to really handle this). But yeah a new meme stock can still be a good bet for investors.
> For Tesla he is not a founder, and they are mostly relying on a 10 year old product (new product is a joke) that'll only maybe saved with tariffs.
This is both true and irrelevant. When Musk took over, the Tesla Death Watch was running strong because it had made 100-and-something individual vehicles in total and relied entirely on finding more investors to not go bankrupt.
What Tesla needed is exactly what Musk is: a salesman who can sell a dream to both investors and customers.
> Add an ongoing mental breakdown and full on lies (FSD, humans on Mars
Humans on Mars shouldn't be on that list, even if he's wrong about every specific — it's the point of everything else he does.
Tesla is still entirely supported by investors, government subsidies and hype. Nothing has changed. Without credits and customer subsidies they wouldn’t ever have made anything.
You forgot the 6010172 vehicles they sold — Musk is respons for at least 6010025 of those, his predecessors for at most 147.
This is a pretty big thing to overlook, regardless of subsidies, as it's at least in the low hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue.
Hype, sure, that's the lighting every company wishes it could bottle for their product launches. Even the metaphorical launches rather than Musk's more literal use of the word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster
Is "hype" a dirty word for you? Because my point is, that brought in actual sales, which they didn't meaningfully have before.
> Without credits and customer subsidies they wouldn’t ever have made anything
And? The sole purpose of those things is to convince the private sector to get something done. You're complaining that they worked.
Nothing. That’s just the money he needs to buy compute and staff in today’s market. He’s boasting about 100k GPUs. That’s 60k per unit including staff, power, racks, repair, upgrades, failures, development etc. It doesn’t even cover costs.
The Elon Musk Bubble, I really hope so. That’s so much capital and attention that could be spent on actual research instead of over-hyped and over-promised gimmicks
I wonder if the investors are just like crypto-bros and pyramid-schemers. Knowing it's bullshit, but hoping the next dumbass will come tomorrow, next week, etc, to buy it off them where they can make a profit...
Considering the price of e.g. BTC, maybe thinking "People with money can't be this dumb!" is the dumbass move...
That’s when SBF told Sequoia about the so-called super-app: “I want FTX to be a place where you can do anything you want with your next dollar. You can buy bitcoin. You can send money in whatever currency to any friend anywhere in the world. You can buy a banana. You can do anything you want with your money from inside FTX.”
Suddenly, the chat window on Sequoia’s side of the Zoom lights up with partners freaking out.
“I LOVE THIS FOUNDER,” typed one partner.
“I am a 10 out of 10,” pinged another.
“YES!!!” exclaimed a third.
What Sequoia was reacting to was the scale of SBF’s vision. It wasn’t a story about how we might use fintech in the future, or crypto, or a new kind of bank. It was a vision about the future of money itself—with a total addressable market of every person on the entire planet.
“I sit ten feet from him, and I walked over, thinking, Oh, shit, that was really good,” remembers Arora. “And it turns out that that fucker was playing League of Legends through the entire meeting.”
“We were incredibly impressed,” Bailhe says. “It was one of those your-hair-is-blown-back type of meetings.”
How is it that some people get 6B to understand the true nature of the universe? It’s not like they have a track record of doing anything other than absolutely devastating a previously successful company…
If I ask someone to give me 6B to understand the true nature of the universe they’d laugh in my face, but I sort of assume I’d have an even chance of doing better.
Yeah, surely a better group of people to understand the universe would be, I don’t know, a team of Astro physicists whom didn’t buy a social media company so they could push their unfiltered opinions onto the masses. Just a hunch.
Agreed, Elon has failed at everything he’s attempted and is basically broke these days, along with his companies teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. People need to stop giving him money because all he does is lose it
I mean, other than SpaceX, which created the world’s most reliable rocket, and delivers more mass to orbit than anyone else. Dunno how anyone could consider that a failure.
Yeah, but I dunno. I get the feeling that Elon is one of those people that's really good at finding the right suckers to do the job. If he leaves them alone, things go well. If he doesn't. Twitter.
I still dont understand why elmo is not being investigated for fraud for all these obscenely unreal claims and promises he has made over the years. this is a clear and cut definition of fraud, for which "female steve jobs" and another e-trucking clown CEO are doing their time. why not elmo?
OMG, Elon’s simps are so fucking delusional. No, being wrong about a deadline is not fraud. Selling something with a promised deadline attached to it, and being wrong about that deadline for 6+ years is fraud.
Well, Elon Musk is holding AI development ransom unless he's granted sufficient shares in Tesla to take his holdings above 25%. So I suppose they can give him billions to solve for self-driving the "easy" way, or the "hard" way.
How this is not a conflict of interest, I do not know; then again it may explain why Elon wants to reincorporate Tesla in Texas - away from Delaware courts
Unique data set. And Elon. And with Elon, comes a great set of talent. From https://x.ai/about
> Our team is led by Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX. Collectively our team contributed some of the most widely used methods in the field, in particular the Adam optimizer, Batch Normalization, Layer Normalization, and the discovery of adversarial examples. We further introduced innovative techniques and analyses such as Transformer-XL, Autoformalization, the Memorizing Transformer, Batch Size Scaling, μTransfer, and SimCLR. We have worked on and led the development of some of the largest breakthroughs in the field including AlphaStar, AlphaCode, Inception, Minerva, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4.
Does it, though? That was probably true pre-X™, but it seems like the primary selection metric has gone from “competence” to “doesn’t ever contradict Elon”
But we know from Google that unless you can definitively solve the "is this sentence real or a joke" datasets like Twitter, Reddit etc are going to be more trouble than they are worth.
And Elon's recent polarising nature and the callous nature with which he disbanded the Tesla Supercharger team means that truly talented people aren't going to be as attracted to him as in his early days. They are only going to be there for the money.
The datasets should not be used for knowledge but to train a language model.
Using it for knowledge is bonkers.
Why not buy some educational textbook company and use 99.9% correct data?
Oh and use RAG while you are at it so you can point to the origin of the information.
The real evolution still has to come though, we need to build a reasoning engine (Q*?) which will just use RAG for knowledge and language models to convert its thought into human language
You use formal verification for logic and rags for source data.
In other words - say you have a model that is semi-smart, often makes mistakes in logic, but sometimes gives valid answers. You use it to “brainstorm” physical equations and then use formal provers to weed out the correct answer.
Even if the llm is correct 0.001% of the time, it’s still better than the current algorithms which are essentially brute forcing.
I still fondly remember the story an OpenAI rep told about fine-tuning with company slack history. Given a question like "Can you do this and that please." the system answered (after being fine-tuned with said history) "Sure, I'll do it tomorrow." Teaches you to carefully select your training data.
It's 6B down the drain. Saying grok 1.5 is competitive is a joke, if it was any good it would be ranked well in chatbot arena (https://chat.lmsys.org/). Elon is a master in hyping underperforming things and this is no exception.
No, there is no ranking for Grok. It’s not participating.
It would be hard to judge rate of improvement at this point, since the company has only been around for 1.25 years, and grok 1.5 is yet to be released for general access.
You really think investors like sequoia and a16z are dumb enough to fall for Elon hyping things up? They know who he is and They’ve seen him operate at levels basically no other entrepreneur can snd are betting on that
> You really think investors like sequoia and a16z are dumb enough to fall for Elon hyping things up?
a16z invested $350 in Adam Neumann's real estate venture - after WeWork. VCs will absolutely knowingly invest on hype if they think it's going to last long enough for them to cash out with great returns.
I mean, he can try. The world already has a number of AI corporations headed up by totalitarian megalomaniacs though, the market may eventually reward some other course of action.
The real bull case - Elon doesn't kowtow to mentally ill basement nerds and the media/politicians trying to not lose power.
Can you image someone running in to tell Elon the fat nerds on HN are in a tizzy about Grok telling people to eat rocks?
Other bull case he's obviously silo-ing Twitter for unique training data. Reddit can only ask nicely you don't train off them.
Twitter with a good AI could become quite strong. I'm not as bullish on this, but... Twitter is all the cutting edge news. ChatGPT was happy to be years out of date.
No one cares Russia has finally manned up and launched a tactical nuke 24 hours after it happens, something new will be trending. This is Twitters strength, to the minute data. One of the AI's will have to specialize in this.
I would be asking the same question if another company formed in the past year raised $6B to train LLMs. For example, Mistral raised a significantly smaller round at a much lower valuation. Just trying to learn how others see this.
It's probably better for both companies that he isn't. Better for him to torch a $6b series B and Twitter than mess up spacex & tesla more than he already has
He’s been mostly too distracted with Twitter. His last one was the launch pad all his engineers told him would be a disaster that he insisted on doing anyway. That legitimately had the possibility to put them out of commission for years had the concrete seriously damaged any nearby residential properties.
Imagine hating someone so much you resort to making stuff up.
The engineers did not think it would be a disaster, they thought it would erode as it had in previous testing (which would've been fine since the water plate system was already being designed), but hadn't expected the concrete to shatter the way it did.
Nearby residential properties have already either been bought by SpaceX or are otherwise required to be evacuated before launches. Those evacuation notices are a big part of tracking when launches are actually about to happen.
Imagine being so emotionally invested in a billionaire who doesn't know who you are, that you think other people are as well.
I don't hate Elon because I don't think about Elon beyond commenting on the occasional article he happens to be referenced in and shaking my head when I see him do something stupid. I'm glad he put money towards both projects (Tesla/Space-X) and got them off the ground, and now I wish he would just leave them both alone and let adults run the show.
Yes, he literally took ownership of making the call for a concrete pad despite the engineers telling him it was going to fail.
>Elon was clear that the decision to fly in that configuration with no water or diverter was his call, and in this case it almost destroyed the pad, accelerated the rocket’s failure, and led to the program being grounded pending FAA review.
Just like he was the one who insisted on a yoke without progressive steering in the Model S that is absolute garbage and quite frankly dangerous, and any real engineer would have told him if he had cared to ask.
“You want to know how to paint a perfect painting? It's easy. Make yourself perfect and then just paint naturally.” - Robert M. Pirsig
The Musk reasoning here is stupid, but smart. If he makes a superhuman intelligence, he can only ask it "What is dark matter?" and it might figure out.
I have some big problems with this idea, but it isn't 100% stupid. Just 98% stupid.
Very few of the names stand out to me (being adjacently familiar with the space). However I did search based on your link… (Edit: with the exception of Chris Szegedy, thanks to the reply below for pointing that out)
Most of them seem to have been secondary/tertiary people on the projects listed. Definitely feels a bit like resume padding.
It’s also unfortunate that searching for the first person after Elon nets results for their domestic abuse arrest over any achievements in the space.
Further down, one of the only two women involved is a “creative AI writer/filmmaker”. Not a strong amount of diversity on their roster but also a weird role to highlight.
None of this is to diminish the work the people here do or have done, but it’s a startlingly high valuation for a company without high name recognition technical expertise in this domain.
Elon has traditionally relied on well known expert partners in the areas he’s expanded into, so this feels like an outlier.
Their founding team and first few after that are top top tier. Honestly some of the best engineers at DM. Unsurprising really given that he was offering ~$10M/year in comp.
There is at least one person there at the top of the Technical Team....I don't recognize from the scene, at least his name does not show as author or co-author in any ML papers I can remember reading...a certain Elon Musk.... :-)
Elon is a megalomaniac who fancies himself an engineer (yes he used to be one, but his with then is oft disparaged)
Even if he had the best names in the industry attached, he would always put himself first.
I don’t think it’s wrong he’d do so either , because he has a cult of personality that would make him the biggest feature (positive/negative) of any company he is involved with.
Hence why I specifically only ask for other people on note here.
Something surprising Sam Altman mentioned on the Lex Fridman podcast was that it only takes about 6 months to get a top physicist up to speed and productive researching AI.
So the team could largely be newbies to AI (with extremely good fundamental knowledge/skill), rather than folks we've all heard of from the AI scene.
Does Sam Altman have any relevant technical experience to make that assessment? Sounds like something someone would say that just lost their key technical team members.
For whatever it's worth, Scott Aaronson went from incisive skeptic to drooling fanboy in just about that long. Sam, likewise, seems prone to mistaking loyalty for expertise at this point in his career.
Jim Simmons that recently passed away did exactly this in finance decades ago. He didn't build a team of the brightest minds in finance.
He hired brilliant people that specifically did not work in finance. I think he even mentioned that astronomy was one of his favorite areas to hire from for finance.
I am sure we highly underestimate the indoctrination against new ideas that anyone at the top of a field has been subject to.
Humans love to turn everything into a high school prom king/queen popularity election though even when it is obvious the best people for the job didn't even go to the prom.
Structured finance is a math gig where the only constraint is legality. And as history shows, math nerds have no clue how to constrain the runaway damage their structured instruments can cause.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that AI development appears to be heading the same way.
> Our Series B funding round of $6 billion with participation from key investors including Valor Equity Partners, Vy Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, Fidelity Management & Research Company, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal and Kingdom Holding, amongst others.
I would bet money that this is not $6bn in cash that has been raised. It sounds like it is the raise at a $24bn valuation, but I'd bet this is less cash and more varied assets or financial instruments.
Whether it's calling Teslas cheap when accounting for your time spent filling up, taking on significant debt rather than selling company shares as Tesla/SpaceX, or leveraging his personal shares for debt, Musk is always pulling some trick to reach numbers like this. That's not to say these sorts of things aren't common among the ultra-rich, but I get the impression Musk does it at every opportunity.
All this to say that I don't think $6bn in cash changed hands for this, I'd expect there's credit lines secured on Musk's own valuation of the company, possibly service credits from compute providers (this can even be via VCs), or other clever tricks to inflate it.
Quite a few comments here in disbelief and hating on Musk.
For all the criticism of Elon, he has been foundational in Paypal, Tesla and SpaceX and OpenAI. Even if you think Tesla is troubled/overvalued, he has built multiple enormous companies, and one of a handful of people to have built a company into a $1T valuation (however fleeting).
So yes, the arithmetic for VCs is very straightforward: for better or for worse, Elon Musk is able to execute in the only way that matters to investors.
Foundational at Paypal and OpenAI? I've heard different. Also leaving out Twitter which has at least halved (if not more) it's valuation. I would say he's batting less than .500, so while still good, not a sure thing in the slightest and the trajectory seems to be on the down.
He was for OpenAI at least, he recruited key members and convinced them to go get big funding which they did seek from Microsoft instead of Elon himself. Likely OpenAI wouldn't have gotten anywhere without his involvement, they did break off from him since he wanted too much control not because he didn't help them.
First (from the title before reading), I thought - wow, I think I should retry using x.ai (Amy) for my Calendar. How much did they sold the domain for?
The former x.ai (scheduling) sold to an events company a few years ago and shut down. I imagine the domain was pricy, but not as much as for a company actively using it.
> We partner closely with X Corp to bring our technology to more than 500 million users of the X app.
Investors paid about $12 per X user/bot.
Interesting they are opting for a spinoff rather than doing this in house. Perhaps to capitalise on the hype and attract researchers who don't want the baggage of being associated with polarising brands?
Seeking investment is a sensible way to raise money and be more accountable IMO. And if investors are ready, why would anyone risk their own money? It's plain business sense.
The ones doing it on their own, are probably doing it privately. One of the reasons for us government asking to know, so atleast they are not kept in the dark.
This is the real answer. The other commenters just don't understand how money and wealth works. Net worth doesnt mean liquid money in the bank ready to withdraw. He would have to sell his own assets which would have an impact on their value the quicker he yolo'ed those sales.
> The company’s mission is to understand the true nature of the universe.
I would think full-throated development of a diffusion model would make a lot more sense to achieve the mission, since its chief mechanism is separating signal from noise.
Considering we're the only beings in the known universe that have language, I'm not sure there are many universal insights to be gleaned from an LLM
"xAI is primarily focused on the development of advanced AI systems that are truthful, competent, and maximally beneficial for all of humanity. The company's mission is to understand the true nature of the universe."
As if we are currently living in some _false_ representation of the universe.
As it happens "AI" is proving to be a challenge to the meaning of the word "true".
This makes "the 'true' nature of universe" a particularly amusing usage.
It’s not just Musk — as soon as you hit a certain level, it basically becomes impossible to fail. I’ve noticed that even if a senior leader is ousted from a company in disgrace, another company will invariably pick that person up fairly quickly.
The perverse thing is that betting on the irrational behavior of other investors seems paradoxically rational at this point. Just, don't get caught holding the bag.
investors are simply off-setting the losses to the next investor they sell to. Musk brand is still valuable and his bubble keeps growing. It is only the investors present when the bubble bursts that'll be at a loss.
You only need to grow your investment, sell it off to the next person, and exit before it happens
Tesla:
"Tesla maintains an 87% brand retention rate, with Lexus (68%) and Toyota (54%) trailing, according to a new Bloomberg Intelligence survey. Moreover, 81% of prospective US Tesla drivers are new customers switching from competing EV brands." -- https://electrek.co/2024/04/09/87-percent-us-tesla-drivers-s...
I think you would be hard pressed to find any serious thinker exclaiming that SpaceX and Starling are inferior products.
Like how I have questioned so much ridiculous unjustified valuations in the AI space, with the likes of Perplexity, Stability, Inflection, etc which these AI labs are not making enough money to support themselves.
How is xAI worth $24BN? I bet the reason is because Elon Musk.
But until I see a significant jump in xAI making at least $100M+ a quarter, I don't think that is enough to justify that valuation to even be any where near close to Anthropic.
In fact, this means Anthropic should be worth much more and the majority of other AI companies / labs (excluding OpenAI, Midjourney, Cerebras and Groq) to be worth much less.
To downvoters:
To date as of 2024, Anthropic's valuation is around $15BN - $18BN.
So you are telling me that xAI's valuation is justified and should be worth more than Anthropic?
Care to elaborate and discuss? (Especially if you're an insider.)
Even OpenAI is burning money. There is no way that xAI is worth more than Twitter.
Inflection basically collapsed: the founders and best of the technical team jumped ship to MS. They were massively overvalued and basically produced nothing.
Perplexity and Stability are running on pure social-media grift. Neither will be around long once their entire business model is eaten by the big players at economies of scale they will never manage.
Anthropic is a weird middle ground. They seem to be doing novel and impactful research as well as shipping big performant models. But its still unclear how they end up really making money and justifying their valuation.
Yup (what's quoted is precisely what was in the original comment). The reply was very soon (2 minutes) after the original comment, so perhaps GP's author corrected themselves (edited the comment) during that time (prior to noticing the reply).
Are you aware of the recent issues with BYD and other Chinese EV brands? Entire dealerships have gone up in flames from dangerous vehicles. Not lone incidents but tens of dealerships at least, in just this month.
Tesla cars may have flaws but there is no way a BYD can be compared to them even on the basics. And Tesla’s software is simply way better and makes it clear that it was designed by a competent tech company not an old car company. Other brands aren’t on that level yet.
To be clear that wasn't the dealership fire this month in the Uk that was "possibly" started by an EV .. it was an "and also" story tacked on the end:
Last October, it was claimed that an electric or hybrid vehicle had started a huge blaze at Luton Airport’s car park, which destroyed 1,400 cars and much of the building structure.
However, an investigation later revealed that the fire was started accidentally by a diesel vehicle.
So .. we're still shy 19+ dealership fires this month started by Chinese EV's, but at least we can scratch that one from last October's monthly tally.
I heard on social media that a witch turned someone into a newt.
> I heard on social media that a witch turned someone into a newt.
This type of snark isn’t in the spirit of HN. If you’re actually intellectually curious, go search social media for yourself. But spare us the mocking replies and false equivalence.
And perhaps try to read about the role of government censorship on this and similar issues.
Sorry I don’t have a news source, but saw it mentioned in social media. It’s basically a daily occurrence in recent times is my recollection, and often the investigation is done by the offending car company itself rather than public officials, usually resulting in them pointing fingers at something else (like “bad charger”).
I yawned so hard my jaw unlocked.
Can't wait to see groundbreaking... checks notes... "advancements in various applications, optimizations, and extensions of the model".
Do these companies only hire yes men?