• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WSJ: Elon Musk-Led Group Makes $97.4 Billion Bid for Control of OpenAI

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
----------
A consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI, upping the stakes in his battle with Sam Altman over the company behind ChatGPT.

Musk’s attorney, Marc Toberoff, said he submitted the bid to OpenAI’s board of directors Monday.

The unsolicited offer adds a major complication to Altman’s carefully laid plans for OpenAI’s future, including converting it to a for-profit company and spending up to $500 billion on AI infrastructure through a joint venture called Stargate. He and Musk are already fighting in court over the direction of OpenAI.

“It’s time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was,” Musk said in a statement provided by Toberoff. “We will make sure that happens.”

Representatives for OpenAI didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Altman and Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015 as a charity. In 2019, after Musk left the company and Altman became chief executive, OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary that has served as a vehicle for it to raise money from Microsoft and other investors. Altman is in the process of turning the subsidiary into a traditional company and spinning out the nonprofit, which would own equity in the new for-profit.

One of the thorniest questions in the conversion has been how the nonprofit will be valued. Musk’s bid sets a high bar and may mean that he, or whoever runs the nonprofit, would end up with a large and possibly controlling stake in the new OpenAI.

The bid is being backed by Musk’s own artificial intelligence company xAI, which could merge with OpenAI following a deal. He also has several investors backing him, including Valor Equity Partners, Baron Capital, Atreides Management, Vy Capital and 8VC, a venture firm led by Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. Ari Emanuel, CEO of Hollywood company Endeavor, is also backing the offer through his investment fund.

Musk has filed a series of legal complaints accusing OpenAI of betraying its original nonprofit mission by creating a for-profit arm and colluding with its largest investor, Microsoft, to dominate the development of AI.

On Jan. 7, Toberoff sent a letter to the attorneys general in California, where OpenAI is based, and Delaware, where it is incorporated, asking that they open up bidding for the company to determine the fair market value of its charitable assets. Musk and other critics have said they believe OpenAI may undervalue the nonprofit when they spin it out.

OpenAI has called Musk’s legal claims baseless and overreaching and said the nonprofit will receive full value in its ownership stake of the for-profit. The company released documents in December that it said showed Musk previously supported turning OpenAI into a for-profit but walked away because he couldn’t get control of it.

Toberoff said Musk’s investor group is prepared to match or exceed any bids higher than their own.

“If Sam Altman and the present OpenAI Inc. Board of Directors are intent on becoming a fully for-profit corporation, it is vital that the charity be fairly compensated for what its leadership is taking away from it: control over the most transformative technology of our time,” he said.
------------

Latest chapter in the AI Wars…

Elon wants it all.
 

SJRB

Gold Member
It's no secret this is personal for Elon.

Elon has a score to settle with Altman and he might have a point, but this will go nowhere. OpenAI announced a 350 billion dollar project just two weeks ago. They are by far the biggest in the market.

That said: Altman is a punk. The whole fundamental principle of "Open AI" is a joke.

(Resubbed to GPT Plus just an hour ago 👀)
 

SJRB

Gold Member
Definitely feels personal SJRB SJRB



I mean, he's not wrong. Altman turned an organization literally called "Open AI" in a tightly closed for-profit. Booted pretty much everyone from the board. The whole thing would make for an amazing Aaron Sorkin / David Fincher movie.

Elon should just focus on Grok3. There's potential there especially in the way it's integrated with X but as a standalone it's just not great.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
I mean, he's not wrong. Altman turned an organization literally called "Open AI" in a tightly closed for-profit. Booted pretty much everyone from the board. The whole thing would make for an amazing Aaron Sorkin / David Fincher movie.

Elon should just focus on Grok3. There's potential there especially in the way it's integrated with X but as a standalone it's just not great.
Yeah. OpenAI started becoming something world-changing, though, and that level of power comes with its own set of rules. Not really a good guy/bad guy situation--more of a win or lose one. Elon initiated the power struggle, to my understanding, but it’s hard to tell what’s true behind the scenes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gp1

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
I mean, he's not wrong. Altman turned an organization literally called "Open AI" in a tightly closed for-profit. Booted pretty much everyone from the board. The whole thing would make for an amazing Aaron Sorkin / David Fincher movie.

Elon should just focus on Grok3. There's potential there especially in the way it's integrated with X but as a standalone it's just not great.



Yup. He completely switched his tune.
 

violence

Member
Imagine spending that money to make Grok better instead. You know.. the AI platform he already owns?
giphy.gif
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Elon is also super salty that the US Govt is announcing half a trillion in future AI plans, but he's not invited. Especially because he's trying to hard pivot into being about AI, not just cars.

All the big boys and their AIs get to play while he's alone playing with Russian bots in his dumpster fire of a social media platform and an AI no one cares about. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Are you sure he's not invited? Seems like Trump is letting Elon into everything he wants (illegally in many cases from what I've understood).
 

a'la mode

Member
Are you sure he's not invited? Seems like Trump is letting Elon into everything he wants (illegally in many cases from what I've understood).

Yup. He's been on social media criticizing how they don't actually have the funding, prompting Altman to debunk his claims and say something to the lines of "you're welcome to come visit the first site, and while what's best for America doesn't mean what's best for your companies, I hope you take your new role seriously".

Elon is absolutely f u m i n g :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

Hugare

Member
Might be ulterior motives




Was OpenAI who made the offer, tho?

OpenAI was never interested on being sold. Elon and the rest of his group came up with the number, no?

I mean, he's not wrong. Altman turned an organization literally called "Open AI" in a tightly closed for-profit. Booted pretty much everyone from the board. The whole thing would make for an amazing Aaron Sorkin / David Fincher movie.

Elon should just focus on Grok3. There's potential there especially in the way it's integrated with X but as a standalone it's just not great.
The board wanted to boot him (and did). So is he bad for booting them once he came back?

Altman is no saint, but c'mon guys. It's personal to Elon and that's it. You dont need to find reasons to hate the guy as much as Elon.

There are many reasons besides monetary to why the biggest AI company in the world shouldnt be open source.

And yeah, the guy who came up with paid verified checks on Twitter would totally make it open source after paying almost 100b for it.
 
Last edited:

E-Cat

Member
Might be ulterior motives




Can someone ELI5 this for me? What's the problem in valuating yourself below fair market price? While that may seem like a dumb thing to do, aren't you only hurting yourself? I guess if you wanted to acquire a bigger percentage of the company yourself, this would be one way to do it?
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Can someone ELI5 this for me? What's the problem in valuating yourself below fair market price? While that may seem like a dumb thing to do, aren't you only hurting yourself? I guess if you wanted to acquire a bigger percentage of the company yourself, this would be one way to do it?
Basically to sell it to yourself and favored parties at a lower cost.

ChatGPT explains:

—————
If a nonprofit is undervalued before converting to a for-profit entity, it could have several strategic advantages (though ethical and legal considerations must be taken into account):

1. Lower Tax Burden on Asset Transfers – If assets are transferred to the new for-profit entity at a lower valuation, the tax implications (such as capital gains taxes or other transfer taxes) may be minimized.

2. Cheaper Buyout for Founders or Investors – If the nonprofit has valuable assets (such as intellectual property, real estate, or brand recognition), undervaluing those assets makes it easier for insiders to acquire them at a lower cost.

3. Reduced Scrutiny on Conversion – A high valuation could attract regulatory or public scrutiny, especially if it looks like nonprofit assets are being improperly transferred to private ownership for personal gain.

4. Investor Appeal – If the nonprofit converts at a low valuation, early investors or stakeholders in the new for-profit entity may see significant upside when the company’s real value is recognized later.

5. Lower Initial Tax Liabilities – A lower valuation at conversion may result in lower taxes for the newly formed for-profit business, as future appreciation is taxed only when realized (e.g., through sale or distributions).

However, this kind of maneuver can raise serious legal and ethical concerns, especially if it involves undervaluing donor-supported assets or circumventing regulations designed to protect nonprofit resources from being used for private gain. Many jurisdictions have laws requiring fair market valuation and oversight to prevent abuse.
—————
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
The board wanted to boot him (and did). So is he bad for booting them once he came back?
The board is precisely there for checks and balances, not to write blank checks for the execs. This is why the board of Theranos failed in their duty and should have been prosecuted together with Holmes. They are not there to cheer for Altman, this is precisely the risks they should aim to mitigate.
 
Top Bottom