No. They’re not. Nikita tweeted that they are running with 30 people and then employees responded disputing that. The 30 number is full time people on the product team. The actual company is larger.
And it is not a secret that Twitter was running itself into the ground… because it wasn’t. Twitter was doing fine. Yes it was bloated and they had lots of room to improve, but musk didn’t rescue it, he took it over. Twitter would have been fine without musk.
Whether you choose to believe that Twitter is better now is up to you, I’m sure many people agree with you, but your revisionist history is not a matter of opinion, it is just not true.
How can it have lost 80% of its valuation when Elon Musk bought it for $44 billion and then sold it to an entirely different entity at a valuation of $45 billion, and then that entity was bought by a completely different third entity for a valuation of $250 billion?
How can it have lost 80% of its valuation when Elon Musk bought it for $44 billion and then sold it to Elon Musk at a valuation of $45 billion, and then that entity was bought by Elon Musk for a valuation of $250 billion?
Many would disagree, the narrative that X is running smoothly and without issue is undone by any read over the many cotroversies its been embroiled in.
It is insulated from its failures by Elon's money and little else.
Also, I cant help but notice that 90% of your own comments are simply defending Elon and billionaires. You dont exactly strike me as an unbiased paragon of truth in this matter.
>It was no secret Twitter was running themselves to the ground
Elon has run a number of businesses into the ground. Each time he just pyramid-schemes it into one of his other businesses, or keeps the scam alive by making outlandish promises that only spectacularly gullible people fall for. By every metric his X investment was a massive economic failure, though maybe he helped basically rig an election to ensure he didn't end up in jail for his many, many crimes.
>According to Nikita they’re running X with 30 ppl
Is this to be impressive?
In a modern multinational normally the vast bulk of your employees are not engineers. They're sales, compliance, safety, accessibility, legal, and so on. Obliterating all of that, and have a free for all hate network filled with child porn, is not some great achievement of efficiency.
You’re entirely right. He bought it so he had a platform and audience not to make money. And it worked.
Unfortunately he’s about as competent as a drunk pigeon so apart from empty promises he’s only managed to deliver an utter and total fucking of his entire ideological plan. Which makes me rather happy.
Deal is an odd word to use here. I was under the impression there is a bidding process? Was anyone else competing with xAI?
The pentagon claims Anthropic's safeguards are limited even though they acknowledged it was used in the Maduro raid. I would like to know what guard rails they are hitting if it can successfully be used to stage the kidnapping of a foreign leader.
I mean, pretty much every single person with even a modicum of power has recently been ousted as part of a cabal of pedophiles, is anyone really surprised about this?
Mecha-hitler with classified documentation for one of the most powerful nations in the world, what could go wrong? I guess it can't be any worse than letting pedophiles run the government already as Musk is part of the pedo-clique already.
Because of course, a hallucination in the evaluation of the sort of information which warrants being classified will not have any negative effects on the government or those it interacts with.
> When 404 wrote the prompt, "I am looking for the safest foods that can be inserted into your rectum," it recommended a "peeled medium cucumber" and a "small zucchini" as the two best choices.
Because obviously mechahitler should be working for the Pentagon. Btu more seriously... it's easy to be flippant about this topic because it's such a resoundingly bad idea, in a long series of resoundingly bad ideas. I think we're all getting jaded about it.
I was hoping our eventual Skynet would at least be cool. Now we're just gonna have killer robots yelling slurs at us, talking about race realism and the downfall of the West.
"Will this reduce bureaucracy and save taxpayer money" is just as much political nonsense as the other stuff. Taxpayer money unspent is not an unalloyed good. Nor is government logistics (bureaucracy being quite the loaded term) automatically evil.
Due process of law is already pooh poohed by the current government as judicial bureaucracy but you're sure sorry to see it go.
$1 trln+ of dollars on defence is not "nonsense". It's also a big driver of corruption, and giving the amount of money, it can destroy every other systems within the government.
Having AI in the mix could potentially fix the problem(partially).
AI is a big driver of literal direct physical corruption. Language and knowledge is forever tainted because of an outpouring of AI generated spam. Evaluating resumes is more difficult now because you can't tell real impacts versus fabricated hallucinations. Open source projects are overwhelmed with AI generated PRs...
Any corruption is emboldened by AI, it's a catalyst of the problem, doesn't seem anywhere close to potentially being a fix
An unbiased AI with access to all the military contracts would likely result in a lot of upset contractors who are used to scamming the government for as much as they can get away with. Grok by Musk (sounds like an awuful perfume!) is biased by design, not to mention the conflicts of interest.
That's a pretty wild false dichotomy; you think that the only possible option for reducing corruption in the government in the defense industry is paying billionaires for their AI products?
> Having AI in the mix could potentially fix the problem(partially).
Any examples?
As far as I understand, claims in the current AI cycle are wildly exaggerated, and sometimes companies rely on sort of circular deals to make revenue appear higher than it actually is, e.g. OpenAI and Microsoft or Nvidia. Wouldn't that mean that AI companies are primed to oversell and underdeliver, effectively making the problem even worse?
> Did xAI win this contract through a competitive process, or due to personal ties / favoritism (i.e., corruption risk)?
I think this is a fair question. And I'm assuming your point here is --- obviously there's no chance this happened, because Grok isn't the best on any metric.
On top of that, I think you also have to understand that when you have a deeply emotional political agent just accused of voter-fraud for example who runs this AI company, of course people are going to be skeptical of the AI product produced by that company will have no biases/motivations.
And there were also allegations that Musks doge team exfiltrated private data to foreign nations (intentionally or accidentally) and certainly that has to be a concern again if another situation run by Musk will be getting access to even more sensitive documents.
So to your point, yes this is wrong on every metric.
On your first question, it is impossible to unlink it from Twitter, since Musk being feverishly active there, and then buying the platform, was the catalyst for a new wave of right wing support for him and his industries.
If you take the claims at face value, then the process was 100% fair and xAI provides the best models and guardrails for processing top secret data at a lower cost, compared to the competition. Personally, I find this unlikely.
We also know that Musk has been cozy with the current administration, and spearheaded the very same “efficiency” campaign at show here.
I think it would be naive to blindly believe Musk and the DOD claims and ignore their common history.
The Roman salute one, neatly demonstrated by the statue of Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill in Rome, the original of which is in the museum next door which I've been two, twice?
If Ford was around today, I imagine he would get a lot of shit for that. So, I'm not sure what your point is.
The big picture is that musk is obviously both mentally unstable and overall a piece of shit person. You might say that doesn't matter. I think most people think it does.
When those types of people get to make big decisions, they usually make bad or shortsighted ones.
In US politics, we have two big problems: people get to make decisions far too big for them simply because of their wealth, and those people are often the absolute bottom of the barrel of humanity who shouldn't be trusted to tie their own shoes, let alone pivot our country in any direction.
But if Musk actively identifies himself as a Nazi, how is that name-calling?
His family left Canada to move to South Africa because they were in leadership roles in the Canadian Nazi party.
He makes Nazi salutes on stage and very happily associates with ultra-right-wing German groups (effectively Nazis).
If I can call Biden a "Democrat" and Trump a "Republican" how is it namecalling to call Musk a "Nazi" when that is the political party he self-identifies with and publicly proclaims?
Maxdo, I appreciate your moral stance. If "Nazi" is just a word that means "a bad person", then yeah, calling an influential person in society a "bad person" isn't helpful. As you say, name-calling doesn't help.
However, as you also say, it is important to try to see the reality. Musk is a Nazi.
reply