this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
581 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
62073 readers
5012 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To be clear (and as far as I understand), it’s not a hostile takeover bid because it cannot be: OpenAI is not a public company and thus doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to thousands to millions of shareholders but instead to a handful of big investors who can decide for themselves whether they want that Elon’s money or not. So this isn’t similar to what Twitter had been through but more like Elon teasing Altman I believe.
The distinction you’re making is valid but misses the forest for the trees. Whether OpenAI is public or not, Musk’s bid is a textbook power play, not a genuine offer. The lack of fiduciary duty doesn’t erase the intent—it amplifies it. This isn’t about shareholder obligations; it’s about Musk leveraging his wealth to reshape AI governance in his image.
Comparing this to Altman’s jab at Twitter isn’t apples-to-apples. Altman’s point was rhetorical, highlighting Musk’s track record of overpromising and underdelivering. The “open-source” crusade Musk touts is hollow when xAI remains proprietary.
This isn’t about legality or structure—it’s about influence and control. Dressing it up as altruism insults anyone paying attention.
I read this on Hacker News, which I found particularly interesting:
The Hacker News post you referenced aligns with the broader narrative: Musk’s bid isn’t about acquiring OpenAI but about obstructing its for-profit transition. By setting a high valuation benchmark, he’s complicating regulatory approval and forcing a reassessment of the nonprofit’s stake. This isn’t altruism; it’s a calculated disruption aimed at frustrating Altman and OpenAI’s leadership.
The bid also underscores Musk’s ongoing feud with Altman, weaponizing financial maneuvers to challenge OpenAI’s trajectory. It’s less about AI ethics or governance and more about power plays and ego clashes.
While the restructuring may benefit the nonprofit financially in theory, Musk’s interference highlights how these transitions often prioritize control over mission. Dressing this up as concern for AI governance is disingenuous—it’s a chess match between tech oligarchs, with humanity as the board.
Public companies only have fiduciary duty to their sharehoders to the extent that their corporate charters say that they do. It's entirely possible to launch a corporation that promises nothing to its shareholders, though it might be difficult to find investors.