Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI(techcrunch.com) |
Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI(techcrunch.com) |
PS Bravo to his lawyers. Get his cash folks by promising him that he will win!
Intersting outcome. So it's more of a dismissal on technical grounds rather than a complete loss.
Basically the title of the court case was: "Is Skynet slop going to be helpful to mankind".
We all know how that story ends. Thus, fining both is warranted. When the superrich go to court, they should pay an extra fee. Like a billion per court case or so.
I was really hoping they could somehow both lose.
In point of fact most valuations place OpenAI in the hundreds of billions of dollars already and growing rapidly.
Basically, no: OpenAI's pockets are deeper than Musks's personal wealth. Especially so considering that this suit is existentially important to them where Musk needs to maintain leverage for other efforts.
There won't be a round 2. It's over.
Perhaps he lacks good lawyers, perhaps he just can’t find substance and he’s filling out of spite.
"At some point we’d get someone to run the team, but he/she probably shouldn’t be on the governance board"
"generally, safety should be a first-class requirement"
"Probably better to have a standard C corp with a parallel nonprofit"
"Because we don't have any financial obligations, we can focus on the maximal positive human impact"
"The underlying philosophy of our company [OpenAI] is to disseminate AI technology as broadly as possible as an extension of all individual human wills, ensuring, in the spirit of liberty, that the power of digital intelligence is not overly concentrated and evolves toward the future desired by the sum of humanity"
"The outcome of this venture is uncertain and the pay is low compared to what others will offer, but we believe the goal and the structure are right"
"do you have any objection to me proactively increasing everyone's comp by 100-200k per year?"
"The output of any company is the vector sum of the people within it."
"it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes)"
"Frankly, what surprises me is that the AI community is taking this long to figure out concepts. It doesn't sound super hard."
"Powerful ideas are produced by top people. Massive clusters help, and are very worth getting, but they play a less important role."
"Deepmind is causing me extreme mental stress."
"At any given time, we will take the action that is likely to most strongly benefit the world."
"Would be worth way more than $50M not to seem like Microsoft's marketing bitch."
"Ok. Let's figure out the least expensive way to ensure compute power is not a constraint..."
"Within the next three years, robotics should be completely solved . . . In as little as four years, each overnight experiment will feasibly use so much compute capacity that there’s an actual chance of waking up to AGI"
"We think the path must be: AI research non-profit (through end of 2017), AI research + hardware for-profit (starting 2018), Government project (when: ??)"
"Satisfying this means a situation where, regardless of what happens to the three of them, it's guaranteed that power over the company is distributed after the 2-3 year initial period"
"As mentioned, my experience with boards (assuming they consist of good, smart people) is that they are rational and reasonable. There is basically never a real hardcore battle. . ."
"The current structure provides you with a path where you end up with unilateral absolute control over the AGI. You stated that you don't want to control the final AGI, but during this negotiation, you've shown to us that absolute control is extremely important to you. As an example, you said that you needed to be CEO of the new company so that everyone will know that you are the one who is in charge. . ."
"Specifically, the concern is that Tesla has a duty to shareholders to maximize shareholder return, which is not aligned with OpenAI's mission"
"During this negotiation, we realized that we have allowed the idea of financial return 2-3 years down the line to drive our decisions . . . this attitude is wrong"
"i remain enthusiastic about the non-profit structure!"
". . .apparently in the last day almost everyone has been told that the for-profit structure is not happening and he [Sam] is happy about this"
"Our goal and mission are fundamentally correct"
"We also have identified a small but finite number of limitations in today's deep learning which are barriers to learning from human levels of experience. And we believe we uniquely are on trajectory to solving safety (at least in broad strokes) in the next three years."
"Our biggest tool is the moral high ground. To retain this, we must: Try our best to remain a non-profit. AI is going to shake up the fabric of society, and our fiduciary duty should be to humanity. Put increasing effort into the safety/control problem, rather than the fig leaf you've noted in other institutions. It doesn't matter who wins if everyone dies. Related to this, we need to communicate a "better red than dead" outlook — we're trying to build safe AGI, and we're not willing to destroy the world in a down-to-the-wire race to do so."
"The sharp rise in Dota bot performance is apparently causing people internally to worry that the timeline to AGI is sooner than they’d thought before."
"This needs billions per year immediately or forget it."
"all investors are clear that they should never expect a profit"
"We saw no alternative to a structure change given the amount of capital we needed and still to preserve a way to 'give the AGI to humanity' other than the capped profit thing, which also lets the board cancel all equity if needed for safety. Fwiw I personally have no equity and never have."
If anything, it shows just how a Jury can be tainted by politics and if you are a Republican in a Blue state with a most likely Blue jury, you have no chance at justice.
Of course this will be appealed but, as you see the claims just don't stick.
right, that's my point. not entirely or literally.
Unless you drop it, there is never a case that is over at the trial phase. Anyone reporting on legal matters should know this language matters.
Also: it's not even "effectively" over:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/18/musk-altman-openai-trial-ver...
That said, even though Altman is a shifty dude who's clearly playing a Game of Thrones while all others are playing Capitalism, I am extremely grateful that it's him running OpenAI and not Elon.
Seeing what Elon has done to Twitter, I shudder to think of what he'd do with ChatGPT. The level of reach and subtle influence he would have is insane. He could do with private chats what he's doing to public discourse, and it would all be invisible.
On the other hand, seeing what he's done with Grok, it's very likely OpenAI would be where xAI is and would never reach this level of adoption and influence. Which seems to be what most people at OpenAI were really worried about.
The American judicial system is completely Byzantine and rotten, from top to bottom. Worse than many third world countries.
Moreover, there is no "justice" here either way--it's just rich people suing each other.
>the spectacle of these two multibillionaires fighting about power and money has distorted and obscured what the law is meant to care about here, which is the public interest
(https://www.ft.com/content/846479c8-4ab0-4812-a1d5-08abdd8b9...)
For a robbery that doesn't involve a weapon I think we should generally forgive and forget if it's been long enough. Nobody cared enough to bring action in court for whatever reason, and it would be awful for someone in their 40's to be jailed and brought into court for something that happened in their 20's. At that point if the government fails to prosecute that's on them, and on us for failing to hold them accountable. But 20 years is a long time and people can change over that timespan, so it probably doesn't make sense to hold a grudge for that long.
There are especially egregious crimes that have no statute of limitations like murder and sexual assault, but we might find our society better off for keeping the statute of limitations for injuries that we can recover from.
Also, if someone hasn't committed a crime in, say, 20 years, there's questionable need to lock them up for three years to deter the behavior. Goal is to optimize the overall system even if some people slip through the cracks.
Maybe in the past, but with modern technology that isn't always true. Statue of limitations comes from a time before even cameras existed.
Also, I see many other people in this thread confusing criminal law and civil law, which is a bit sad to see on a place like HN.
It's also generally considered unfair for someone to have an indefinite threat of being sued or prosecuted hanging over them when their ability to defend themselves gets weaker over time. Limitations discourage strategic delays or using old claims as leverage far into the future. Without limitation periods, old business transactions could be reopened forever, estates could never fully settle, people and businesses would face constant uncertainty.
Ultimately, the courts are just better at resolving current disputes than reconstructing old ones.
Encouraging timely action is another factor. Generally people with real harms will file sooner than later, otherwise why wait?
It's also to grant peace of mind -- so people can stop worrying about potential litigation after some amount of time.
Wasting everyone's time and clogging up the court system perfectly describes the heart of this matter. Plain bullying and hype.
It is instead relevant if the state decides not to charge you for a crime but comes back to you decades later and goes "we changed our mind, now you have a week to come up with a defense".
I don't press charges.
20 years pass. You grow up. You've changed your ways. You've become a squeaky-clean individual. You've put all that behind you. You become a healthy member of society. Your career's underway, you live in your own place, you may or may not have started a family.
Hey, remember that Crime I didn't press charges about at the time? Well, surprise, motherfucka. I've been waiting for this moment to do so. To the courts you go, get your ass fined, thrown in jail, and give you a criminal record, all so it'd hurt you that much worse now that you have your roots planted in your life.
Actually, you did Crimes to several people, right? Let's get them all in on this action! We'll just kind of trickle the suits in, one-by-one. Let one resolve, give it a few months, the next guy presses charges about his. Just kind of a steady flow of skeletons in the closet that you have to either defend against (and how are you gonna do that? It's 20 years old, hope you have evidence for your side somewhere in the attic) or take the sentencing of (which will do wonders for that career of yours), just to make your life hell.
Musk lost today because the jury found that he waited too long to bring his claims. The jury answers only yes/no questions, so we do not know their exact thoughts, but it is likely they determined that the 2019 and 2021 Microsoft deals were too similar to the 2023 Microsoft deal that was the centerpiece of Musk’s lawsuit. Musk could have brought the same lawsuit in 2019 or 2021, meaning his claims were untimely for the 3 year statute of limitations.
Because the statute of limitations is a precondition, the jury was not asked to find any other facts. They may tell the press what they thought on other issues, or they may not.
The judge was prepared to immediately accept the jury’s finding, and said she agreed that the jury’s decision was supported by the evidence.
It is possible for Musk to appeal, but success is vanishingly unlikely. Whether Musk’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations is a quintessential question of fact, and appellate courts are extraordinarily deferential to factual findings by juries so as a practical matter it’s almost impossible to appeal this verdict.
If I had been on the jury, I would have found against Musk on every point.
His lawyers created a “3 phases of doubt” to try and sidestep the statute of limitations, but it was clearly bogus and he was on notice of OpenAI creating a for-profit in 2019.
Musk was perfectly happy to have OpenAI be a for-profit, a non-profit with an attached for-profit (the current structure), or even just absorbed into Tesla. His complaints fell flat for me given the number of emails where he said that a non-profit was likely a mistake.
This is technical, but Musk clearly never created a charitable trust, which was a precondition for his claims. His funds were donated for general use by OpenAI, not for any specific use that would allow him to claim breach of charitable trust. Also, all of his funds were spent by no later than 2020 which is before his alleged breach in 2023.
Musk unreasonably delayed bringing this case until the success of ChatGPT and starting a competing AI company, and he had unclean hands because he attempted to sabotage OpenAI repeatedly by poaching its key staff while on the board.
To that extent, what Musk was happy or unhappy with is irrelevant. What is actually allowed by the law is more important.
However, it seems that the lawsuit was not phrased that way and Musk just looked for damages to himself. In that frame it's not much of a surprise that things ended this way.
No, you wouldn't.
The case was thrown out of court before you have any chance to comment or decide on that.
Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.
The fact is, OpenAI was a non-profit belonging to the public and it was appropriated by the donors... Who already got their tax cuts.
This is setting a precedent that if you donate a certain amount of money to a charity, you can later convert it to a for-profit and claim to be an owner of the charity... On the basis of 'donations' which you got a tax rebate from. Very convenient.
OpenAI donors should have created a new, separate, for-profit entity completely distinct from OpenAI, with a different name, poached the original employees, implemented all the logic from scratch, collected all the training data from scratch... This would have been correct. Basically what Anthropic did seems more like the correct way.
So the question before the jury has a significant component of "Should he have found out by this time?" Which is a question of fact, and facts are typically decided by juries, in the US at least.
The two parties can agree together to let a judge decide facts like this, but generally, if one or the other party wants it to go to a jury, it does.
I'm guessing part of Musk's strategy was to have it go to the jury, which are often seen as easier to manipulate than judges, especially when a case is weak. Or perhaps his team already knew this particular judge would be inclined to rule against him, so did the next best thing.
That's what the jury found against - they said he was reasonably informed enough to have brought the suit earlier and thus the 3 year clock should start ticking in 2020 not 2023.
In this case I guess the question was 'when did the incident actually happen' with Elon arguing it was later then Altman.
Statutes of limitations are usually not tried by juries because the underlying facts that cause them to kick in are usually not in actual dispute. Instead a fight over statute of limitation is more likely to be over which statute applies or whether some other mitigating circumstance is kicking in, which are matters of law which do not go to a jury.
It seems the biggest value loss to the nonprofit was in this conversion, not in the initial for profit subsidiary creation giving investors capped profit shares.
He doesn't have to win to succeed.
The richest man on the planet can keep his enemies tied up in court needlessly until the day he dies.
I think Musk's lawyers told him he'd probably lose this suit before he filed it. I suspect he proceeded mostly out of spite and to embarrass Altman by ensuring the concerns even his friends had about his candor and trustworthiness went on the record and were splashed across the media. Musk knew he had little chance of unwinding the theft of a non-profit (and I doubt he cared much about that).
It would have been much better if Musk had actually cared enough about OAI's original mission to bring suit in 2019. However, I'm still glad Musk did this now because Altman and Brockman (with the help of MSFT and others) DID steal a non-profit, or at least subverted it's mission. And this fleeting bit of public embarrassment (funded by Musk for other spiteful reasons) is the only penalty they'll ever see.
So not being within the statute of limitations is typically a legal issue so what must've happened here is the jury would've been asked if the earlier OpenAI-MS deals were substantially similar to the latest deal. I can't find the verdict form or the jury instructions but I'll bet that was the key issue the jury decided.
More often than not the sentences are irrelevant, it's known that it's a lost cause, and they will still proceed if it can bring any dirt or bad publicity or annoyance to the counter party.
Why is a hypothetical ground for this decision? "You didn't complain immediately the first time you got robbed, therefore all the robbing since then is covered by a statute of limitation".
This case demonstrates why. Musk only complained after OpenAI was commercially successful with ChatGPT and after he started a competing effort. He repeatedly said “I do not know” and “I do not recall” on the stand, and argued that the passage of time made it hard for him to remember facts that would have been helpful for OpenAI.
"If the jury determines that at any time before those dates, Musk either knew — or had or should have known — that he had a claim that he could bring, then his suit was brought too late. The consequence of being too late is swift and absolute. If the lawsuit was filed late for a particular claim, that claim is out of the case; if it was too late for all of Musk’s claims, the lawsuit is over."
That's where the question of fact (i.e., the requirement for a jury decision) came in: "What was the statute of limitations?" is a question of law, but "When should Musk have known that OpenAI was moving too much toward for-profit?" is a question of fact (and, here, determines whether the statute of limitations applies).
1. Estoppel. If a party relies on your conduct then you can lose the right to sue over it;
2. Laches. This is a defense against prejudicial conduct, typically by waiting too long to take action;
3. Waiver. Your conduct can waive your right to sue. Imagine you live with someone and they don't pay half of the rent so you cover it. At some point your continued conduct means you lose the right to sue; and
4. The statute of limitations. Some claims simply have to be brought within a certain period. How this applies can be really complex. For example, we saw this in Trump's fraud convictions in New York. His time in office, away from the jurisdiction, essentially suspended the statute of limitations.
Some crimes like murder have no statute of limitations. Others have unreasonably short statutes of limitations. For example, probably nobody can be charged in relation to sex trafficking in the Epstein saga because the statute of limitations is often 5 years with such crimes. This is unreasonable (IMHO) because often the victims are children and unable to make a criminal complaint.
It's also worth adding that not all legal systems have such wide-ranging statutes of limitation as the US does. Founding principles of those other legal systems is that the government shouldn't be arbitrarily restricted for prosecuting criminal conduct. The US system ostensibly favors "timely" prosecution.
Shouldn't the defense have raised the statute of limitations much earlier?
I wonder if the government or taxpayers have a case to bring regarding that.
I don't think it's a coincidence he didn't bring this suit until after the Altman ouster debacle. Discovery was probably the real objective all along.
I'm sure his lawyers told him he wasn't likely to win, so have to assume embarrassment of OpenAI was the goal.
If anyone is/was truly still wronged by OpenAI changing corporate structure they are still able to sue and prove damages. Yet surprisingly no one has come forward on this.
Sol Roth
It's not theft unless a jury says it is, they didn't say it is.
I do not think that your second was correct.
One wonders on what grounds?
In the UK, in a civil case like this, the judge I think comments on the likelihood of an appeal avenue once the verdict has been reached.
Musk is an idiot
Lawyers will be happy to take more of his money
https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/05/18/1137488/elon-mus...
e.g the twitter thing - forced to buy when he didn't want.
Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.
There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!
I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America.
OpenAI was founded to benefit all of humanity.
What they did to him was unfair, he put in all the money, office and initial push, he deserves a piece of the pie he created. This is quite unfair towards him.
We're all supposed to play by the same rules.
But they have emails from one Elon Musk telling them to structure it roughly how it turned out.
They also have emails including Musk where the profit share is discussed, and his "investment" is talked about as roughly a donation.
Like he could have asked for a profit share at any point and it just doesn't seem to happen?
If the outcome is unfair to Musk, its because Musk worked tirelessly to ensure he had no legal standing with which to make it fair to Musk.
The correct remedy would be to return OpenAI to its former non-profit structure but that's never going to happen in the current system.
The next thing after 'too big to fail' is 'too big to litigate.'
Stealing a non-profit entity is legal if enough people dump billions of dollars in it.
The attorneys general of California and Delaware could challenge that 2019 IP transfer if they so wished on behalf of the public.
The issue is that they did R&D as a charity, donations to which are tax deductible, there may also be other benefits to being a charity during R&D but that’s a big one, then once the thing works, setup a for profit, sell ip at “fair value”, get some investment, then things are ready for business.
I read there’s no statute of limitations on a tax issue like this, so I guess it might be hanging over them indefinitely.
I’m not a big taxation and government fan, they’d probably just waste the money anyways. It does seem unfair OpenAI gets to use this loophole though, unless all companies can make their R&D investment tax deductible, and get any other benefits of this setup.
> Early Angels (Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel, and others): Approximately $10 million invested, current value $1.4 billion. That corresponds to a return of around 140x.
If it had been a for-profit company contributing assets to another for-profit company, the transaction would not have had any different tax consequence.
(This is just a thought IANAL)
Only people who are pretending to be confused are people for whom it's in their interest to be confused.
They created a non-profit with the intention of launching AI to make sure that it would stay in the public trust, and then once it became really valuable, they spirited it away into private hands.
It's just a fact. It's obvious from looking at the thing. The details are designed to confuse and trick you into thinking that what you can plainly see happening is OK somehow.
There is no counter factual where OpenAI exists as a non-profit and still inexplicably gets handed billions of dollars of compute to train LLMs. The for-profit company is a different thing from the non-profit and it exists for perfectly understandable reasons and I'm unsure why anyone other than Elon Musk pretends this doesn't make sense.
What is your proposed counter factual where the non-profit entity retains all ownership of the venture, but somehow finds hundreds of billions of dollars to train LLMs?
Having thought about this whole thing more I believe that non-profits should not be a separate type of entity that gets special tax treatment. People have different ideas of what constitutes legitimate non-profit activity. It just opens things up for tax avoidance and scams.
So I take that to mean Musk wanted a settlement as primary goal, and that the threat to OpenAI's reputation was just an (unsuccessful) means to get what he wanted. That isn't to say it wasn't personal for Musk, just that he would have preferred to have gotten paid.
As to Musk texting "By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be" when the settlement offer was turned down, while I'd agree there were a ton of super embarrassing details that came out I don't think Musk was successful in making them more hated than even he is. I don't even think this secondary goal was successful, even though there were a ton of juicy bits.
I think regardless it would be extremely hard for him to make people hate Altman et al. more than himself. Altman's flaws are more subtle and require paying attention to a pattern of behavior. Musk has beem pure cringe for 5+ years now.
My friend had no idea who he was. My friend doesn’t work in tech but he’s in his late 20s and we are both British so I was quite surprised. My guess is most of the world has no idea who these people are, despite their influence they are very niche celebrities.
Maybe Sam is more famous but I’d guess ~no one knows Greg Brockman.
So I find “most hated men in America” quite dramatic!
Isn't this blackmail?
Sometimes rich, powerful people do stuff that's irrational. When you see Trump attack Iran and you think "this doesn't appear to make sense," you can reason "there must have been secret intelligence proving that Iran was about to nuke Israel because otherwise it was a stupid move," or you can reason "it didn't make sense because it was a stupid move."
Really comes down to what you think his primary motivation is and what are just benefits.
Judging by the sheer number of journalistic investigations into OpenAI and the number of accounts of former employees, I would have expected that OpenAI being chaotic and poorly run is common knowledge by now and the lawsuit doesn't add much more to it.
Never. That never ever happens.
Whereas no appeal is effectively him getting fired.
Invent a time machine; send a lawyer back to file a new lawsuit within the statute of limitations.
You can try to file it again, but that gets to the point where the judge can throw your ass directly in jail for 30 days, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.
But (at least in the US), the appeals court does not have to accept your appeal. When you file the appeal, you have to give them enough reason for them to even listen to your appeal, instead of rejecting it from the first filing.
It's a foundational issue that goes to whether the court is even allowed to proceed with the case. A defendant could be guilty/liable/whatever of the alleged claims, and it wouldn't matter. If the statute of limitations has run, they're in the clear.
The only counter to an SOL defense is to try and claim that the SOL was paused for some reason, but those exceptions are very narrow and wouldn't apply here (and in the real world very rarely apply to civil cases).
Or the "I Forgot It Was Tuesday" argument?
That seems unlikely to me given how divisive he is. OpenAI already had one existential leadership crisis without Musk. I doubt it would have fair better under his notoriously difficult leadership. If he had wrestled control away, I would expect an exodus of employees going to new companies.
1. 2019 capped-profit restructuring + 1B MSFT investment
2. 2023 Microsoft expansion / reported 75%-then-49% economics
3. 2024/2025 PBC restructuring
AFAIK it has not been reported as to exactly what the jury found, but IIUC the 2019 date is consistent with their findings.
That's poor for Musk, but it makes sense. He was arguing 2023. I think it is a valid argument.
But he had to know that 2019 was very much in play (and is likely the most logically consistent).
This is very squishy law.
It's the same as always. Musk himself is an awful business man. He relies upon buying the success of others and taking over. Outside of that, he's kind of awful. Initiatives started by Musk himself almost inevitably fail.
SpaceX, founded entirely by him alone, is also the most valuable space technology company on earth, so...
Disclaimer: My portfolio is 65% Tesla.
It’s called Jury Nullification.
More info below:
Ah google to the rescue:
> In the U.S., a jury’s factual findings can only be challenged post-trial if an appellate court or trial judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict based on the evidence.
And
Civil Cases - (Judgment as a Matter of Law / JNOV): Governed by Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge can overturn a jury’s factual finding if the evidence is legally insufficient to support it.
Criminal Cases - (Insufficiency of the Evidence): Under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy clause, an acquittal cannot be appealed or overturned. However, after a guilty verdict, a defendant can file a motion challenging the evidence, asserting that the facts do not support the conviction
The 2025 recapitalization was discussed at trial, but it was ancillary since all that changed was the existing for-profit changed from a capped-profit with weird cash flow mechanics to a traditional public benefit corp with ordinary equity.
I can understand why people and me included might think they can decide this before trial.
- if the video is real (not AI / edited / another event)
- if the subject the same person (twins, look alike, too bury to tell)
etc
There is no loophole here.
Why do you have to assume that?
I thought that children at any age can complain to the police. The filing side on the criminal case is "State" -- or "People", or "Rex/Regina" (and not the person complaining, regardless of the age.)
2. This has nothing to do with the case which was just Musk trying to punish his competitor.
It seems to have been widely reported from the start[1] and throughout[2] that the statute of limitations was a key thing Musk's team had to prove. If it was so clear, why did people think this case had legs?
[0] https://polymarket.com/event/will-elon-musk-win-his-case-aga... [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/musk-lawsuit-over-o... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/05/14/technology/openai-tr...
cf: Sports betting.
https://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+people+who+los...
I guess there could be a question of fact in a case where the statues of limitation differ for different injuries, and the factual question is which injury was it.
After OpenAI went for-profit and China became a significant AI powerhouse, he no longer cares about safety and just insists that his team get “there “ (whatever the destination is) before “they” do. I’m not so certain he has a coherent belief system, but is probably further into AI psychosis or paranoid delusions than we want to believe.
Terrible options for a person with some of the most wealth in the tech world and perhaps just as influential, given that he effectively ensured Trump won in 2024, had direct foreign policy comms with Putin post-2022, controls the only cost-effective gateway to space, was given the keys to destroy his own regulators, is impregnating dozens of women (but perhaps not paying for those kids), etc.
[0] Assuming that the trial judge didn't materially screw up in admitting or excluding evidence, or in instructing the jury about the law, and also assuming no proof of juror bias or improper influence.
They just can't "found" something when they are not asked. If you tell the count you found something because you saw something outside the court, that would consider invalid.
In its more colloquial sense, I can see why you prefer to call that "answering" questions rather than "finding" facts.
However, it's silly to quibble over the parent thread's author's usage of "found" when it's the dominant phrasing used in the legal system.
The problem is: As a jury, you can't answer the question you ain't asked.
In this case, they jury was instructed to answer a YES/NO question. They can say YES/NO or (sometimes, can't decide). They just can't answer something else. If they do, that is either disregarded, or consider the jury misunderstood the instruction.
You just don't understand how the jury system works.
I'm sure people in the US are in no mood to take any advice from us here in the UK, having just recently abolished the right to a jury trial.
There are some exceptions to this, but they are rare and usually only employed in extreme situations (aka things which would get the lawyers involved debarred).
*ducks to dodge downvotes for not only making a bad dad joke but a political one*
What he didn't need to do was alienate his existing customers by acting like he enjoyed it. Did he actually think he was going to sell a lot of EVs to Trumpers?
They'll do it, because that's what Elon Musk wants them to do and he's paying them and they want his other business, but this isn't what gets them up in the morning.
No, findings of disputed fact - like when Musk had reason to know of his injury, are determined by a jury (or a bench judge). Appeals courts examine whether the law was applied correctly, not what the jury's fact finding was. There may be an avenue of appeal that the jury was improperly instructed, but determining questions of fact are exactly -not- the bread and butter of an appeals court.
Safety not only seems to be an anti-priority at xAI given what we've seen come out of it, even at OpenAI Elon seemed not that concerned with safety, leading to that entertaining incident with a "golden jackass" trophy: https://xcancel.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/20546984193823543...
Almost certainly Dario would still have split from under Elon too, but also very likely that Elon would have immediately thrown a barrage of IP / NDA / trade secret / non-compete violation lawsuits to cripple Anthropic and keep it from reaching the frontier.
The jury instructions are public and the final jury form will be published, likely later this week.
I can tell you that the instructions told the jury to decide whether Musk could have brought his case before 2021.
Presumably a non-profit can move all its staff and its stuff into a for-profit anyway.
The role of the government is to make the laws, and to apply them when violation are reported. It is also to regulate new situations as they arise, for example, if a court decides the law allows a non-profit to become a for-profit and that is deemed as not desirable, new laws can be passed to amend that.
It is the government roles, however, to going around to aks hypothetical questions before they are risen by someone, as there are too many possible hypotheticals, most never materialize, and that would be a conflict of interest. In that case Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided.
The Trump admin is not fond of enforcing regulations as the Biden admin was not fond of enforcing other regulations. That shows you can't expect the govenment to take that role since it's discretionary.
I agree with you that this is an important question.
I disagree with you that, "Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided"
Standing is itself a very important and critical concept. If anyone could sue over any “important” public issue without standing, courts would be asked to referee disputes that are normally handled by elections, legislation, agency rulemaking, oversight hearings, and public debate. We don't want the courts to be such arbiters of so many matters and want their purview to be more narrow by design.
In this case, the jury found that Musk knew or should have known of his alleged injury prior to 2021.
Edit: to augment the sibling comment.
Tesla is an incredibly overvalued company rapidly losing ground to China that survives by Musk’s image of being a futurist, and by announcing fake products that never see the light of day.
SpaceX has been headed by Gwynne Shotwell since the early days and usually when Musk inserted himself it’s been a mess.
Within this realm of AI, Musk has constantly invested and failed. Dojo, xAI, Grok. His newest idea is leveraging SpaceX money to put data centers in Space.
Good luck with that.
How do you measure Dojo, xAI, and Grok being failures?
Dojo is training models for FSD, which is in operation today. The chips in Tesla cars are also taped in-house / vertically integrated, a lot of which is presumably shared investment with the chips needed for the Dojo training side specifically.
Separating xAI from Grok (in a list like this) is kinda weird, but seems that Grok is actually a very capable LLM, even if it is not best-in-practice. Even if not beating out the top 3 labs, it certainly seems to be in the top 5 by most metrics. The xAI Colossus data centers are real AI training/inference infrastructure that were stood up in record time, and they are now selling capacity to other LLM providers. Is that a failure?
Dojo is shutdown dude. Literally doing nothing but rotting. After spending $Billions on a custom chip, Tesla is now just buying NVidia chips and wasting their Dojo efforts entirely
Team dismantled. Operations closed. Game over.
---------
A similar event is playing out with xAI. Operations are transferring over to SpaceX. Out of money, out of time. They're going to try to grab more money (possibly illegally) across Musks enterprises but there's some severe legal questions on the legality of these moves.
It's already sketchy as all hell that xAI bought Tesla's GPU fleet. Now SpaceX is buying it up under doubious circumstances.
Whatever is going on with xAI / Twitter is now clear. It's not possible for it to stand on its own two feet and needs external investors to continue to survive.
It is actually extremely important that no one “owns” a nonprofit in the way shareholders own a corporation. A nonprofit has no equity owners. It has directors/officers with fiduciary duties, and its assets must be used consistently with its charitable/public-benefit purpose.
But to be clear, that is in no way equivalent, even metaphorically, to it being "owned by the public".
“Public benefit” does not mean “whatever the median taxpayer would vote for” or “whatever the government currently approves of.” It includes many causes supported by small, unpopular, eccentric, religious, ideological, scientific, or advocacy-oriented communities, so long as the organization fits within an exempt purpose and does not operate for impermissible private benefit.
simple examples can easily elucidate this. One can found a nonprofit for a purpose that society generally disagree with. For instance: - a nonprofit to advocate for the rights of hemorrhagic fevers as living organisms - nonprofit museum devoted to preserving a deeply unpopular ideology’s historical artifacts - a nonprofit to educate the public about an eccentric scientific theory - a nonprofit advocating for legal recognition of some fringe moral concern
All of these could be legitimate nonprofits under the law, even though we may deeply disagree with them. This is by design.
I think if the non-profit retained over 50% of the shares of the for-profit subsidiary, a case could have been made that the public-benefit aspect is still dominant. But with only a 26% stake, that argument cannot be made.
As for the OpenAI that is a public benefits corporation, I know nothing about all the ins and outs of that type of corporation.
The $60M in IP has grown to about a $200B stake in the OpenAI for-profit.
Is there some part of this that I'm missing where this was true of OpenAI at some point?
A cynical take is that non-profits are for-salary; they still pay their owners, just using other means.
edit: no, my bad, apparently I misunderstood how non-profits work in the USA. Thanks for the correction :)
At a certain point, "justice" is deciding that it is impossible to fairly and reasonably adjudicate the dispute in question, and that it is better to have let a guilty person go free than to punish an innocent person. Statutes of limitation are one part of that package of procedures we have in place to make the process as fair and equitable as possible.
The passage of time makes it harder to have a fair trial, as shown by the number of times Elon said I don't know or I don't recall about conversations that would have been recent in 2019 but are now long (or strategically) forgotten.
Limiting time that an action can be brought is critical to having a fair trial.
> the court just doesn’t want to do its job.
What do you think its job is.
I personally hold to the idea that whoever at SpaceX crafted the team used to pre-occupy Musk and keep him entertained while the rest of the company worked, is largely responsible for its success.
It's also a lot less dumb if you can make your chips work well at higher temperatures.
It's also a lot less dumb if you can space harden your chips better than anybody else can at the moment. This is what the Terafab thing is about (for now). Not about pumping out insane amounts of chips but about doing practical R&D for chips that work better in space: hardening and higher temperatures.
Such chips would also be useful for Starlink/Starshield and for Starship itself.
Putting something similar to Akamai/Cloudflare up there would work very well with Starlink. If the costs could be made low enough, of course.
Will it make any sense whatsoever for AI training? Not unless he manages to scale a whole lot of things drastically, and probably not even then. It might make sense for AI inference in a few years, though. Faster inference responses (via Starlink) might be worth some money.
Also...hardened electronics have been a thing for decades. It's not big because shielding is cheaper and far more effective. The only practical use is military, and there are already DoD suppliers who are generations ahead of SpaceX on the hardened chip front.
No, it's still dumb.
No matter how cheap they manage to make SpaceX launches realistically, there's really no situation that a space datacenter makes any sense compared to putting datacenters in, for example, Antarctica. If they built in Antarctica, it would still be cheaper than launching into orbit. You'd have lots of free cold air to potentially cool the computers, and you wouldn't need trained astronauts to fix things when things break. I dont' even think that building a datacenter in Antarctica is a good idea, I'm just saying it's less dumb than launching into space.
Even if you make CPUs that are able to work at a hotter temperature, you still have to contend with the fact that space is effectively one giant insulator and these CPUs cannot work at infinitely high temperatures no matter what.
Even for something like Akamai space data centers are a dumb idea. Keep in mind, this would be space, where people can't easily get to, so you'd need considerably more physical servers to be installed in order to have fault tolerance. Even if the servers weighed nothing, which they wouldn't, you'd need to power them, and in order to power that many servers you'd need solar arrays considerably larger than the ISS.
And what exactly would this buy you? Slightly lower latency for Starlink? With a potentially spotty connection, I'm not even convinced on that; I suspect any latency savings you'd have would be eaten by retries when packages drop.
Outside of a neatness factor, I just don't see exactly would be won by doing this compared to just setting up gigantic solar array in the middle of large deserts and building here on earth. You know, the planet we live on, where technicians can go and repair things in datacenters, because servers break all the fucking time, and these technicians don't have to get into a rocket to do that.
We probably disagree on the meaning of "smartness"
I guess he's good at making shit up and making his investors forget his failed promises? I guess that requires some level of intelligence.
Things like space datacenters are probably just part of the promotion side. It pumps up share prices for a gullible public. Where's he's been clever is in creating companies that do enough real things to convince many people that he might be able to pull off the unrealistic things as well.
---
Sept 1, 2017 DX-669: Funding paused confirmation. Elon is still on the board for a while. DX-707 specifies the board as of Sept 26, 2017, and even suggests adding Shivon, Jared, Sam Teller.
Jan 31, 2018 DX-748: Elon is still discussing things with Greg. Elon: "The only paths I can think of are a major expansion of OpenAI and a major expansion of Tesla AI. Perhaps both simultaneously"
Feb 3, 2018 DX-754: Sam Teller says Elon "just suggested we use SpaceX email for AI stuff so switching over to that"
Feb 4, 2018 DX-755: Sam Teller and Shivon Zilis discuss disabling Openai
Feb 20, 2018 DX-770: Elon officially leaves board (first document I see specifying)
A move that surprisingly didn't get much press.
I especially struggle to not make a Venn diagram of people who still take Mr. Musk's promises seriously, and current state of American politics.
I simply cannot make a sentence about Mr. Musks promises that will pass Hacker News guidelines of being serious and productive.
...And that's how I feel about Mr. Musks promises, particularly those regarding donations and charities. I think the only way that promise by Mr Musk could've been made stronger, is if it were a Twitter poll :).
"Greediest man in the world Elon Musk..." "Captains of Greed" instead of "Captains of Industry" "Larry Ellison, notable for his legendary greed,"
Starting point: money can't buy happiness.
So what to do to be happy? Extreme wealth removes most practical goals like buying things or going places and doing things. Not that you can't do them, but it's not a meaningful goal to work towards.
They have to create their own meaning, whatever that is.
A billionaire trying to create purpose for themselves can be boring, or weird. Which one gets media coverage?
Gates Foundation, Zukerberg's fitness craze, MacKenzie Scott's philanthropy, Bezos and Musk's [whateverness] are all just variations on a theme. And like all people, some will be better at it than others.
Note though, that they will do what it takes to stay wealthy because what would they be without that?
Could also partly be a curiosity to see what one is capable of, or maybe wanting to be known for helming an organization that accomplishes xyz.
Why do you need an extra dollar?
I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A].
You need a fukton more than median wealth to be able to protect yourself against your own government.
The type of person that enjoys chasing money doesn't stop.
[A] via capital gains taxes and wealth taxes. Also one needs an excessive amount more to handle progressive taxation and means testing.
New Zeeland is an outlier in that it doesn't have capital gains tax.
Its not the end of the world to have captial gains tax.
Go to Australia where you pay a stamp duty for buying (to pay for infra) and a CGT for selling
Edit: Changed stamp tax to stamp duty
Realistically I probably need $5m and I'd be set for life.
If I had $10m instead of $5m I don't see how my life would meaningfully change.
You can't just apply One Simple Rule like this ("more money is always better" / "more money never makes a difference"). There is, objectively, an amount of money above which another dollar, or another billion, will never make a meaningful difference in your overall lifestyle[0].
The amount isn't a single bright line, but like with so many things, there's an area below it where extra money unquestionably improves your quality of life, and an area above it where it unquestionably doesn't.
[0] unless "your lifestyle" involves manipulating major governments and controlling the way people the world over think, which I wouldn't consider a legitimate part of "lifestyle"
because thats another 250 billion less for a competitor to use against you.
Because billionaires are mentally unwell.
Tesla has been a meme stock for about five years now, maybe more. Its valuation correlates with Musk's abilities as a showman and media figure, not a businessman.
GME did not beat the S&P500 over the past 10 years, and it is just the evidence of you needing to verify your claims before making them.
Over the past 5 years[0]: S&P500 up by 77%, GME down by 50%.
Over the past 10 years: S&P500 up by 260%, GME up by 207%.
GME performance in the past 10 years doesn't indicate that Ryan Cohen is a business genius. It indicates that he runs a company that has been underperforming the market for at least the past decade.
0. https://www.google.com/finance/beta/quote/.INX:INDEXSP?windo...
From Yahoo Finance
GME Jan 1, 2016: $7.09, $5.49 adjusted (accounting for dividend disbursements)
GME Jan 1, 2026: $20.09
266% or 365% return depending on how you count dividends. 365% for GME vs. 306% for S&P 500 over the same period (also using adjusted for dividend numbers).
Market Cap: Tesla (TSLA): ~$1.4T GameStop (GME): ~$9.7B
If anything, GME is a meme.
I also gave my bias so as a way to ignore me.
TSLA currently has a P/E of ~375. That's extremely overvalued. There's no possible objective reason for TSLA to have such an extreme ratio. Even if you think Robotaxi is going to be a massive success, it would have to completely devour Lyft, Uber, and traditional taxi services all combined to even get half way to justifying that P/E, and considering the already major distrust in Tesla's FSD, I just don't see that happening.
The math doesn't math. People buy TSLA because they want to be part of Elon's cult, not because of anything to do with Tesla as a company.
Normally the way this works, is you excuse yourself away from a debate for being too financially involved in the situation, knowing that your financial bias is too overwhelming.
But started this by pointing out Elon Musks weakness in the field of AI, and the best anyone seems to have come up so far is that Elon Musk has more money so it doesn't matter. It's not quite the flex that the Musk fanboys think it is.
The simplest solution would have been to ya know, point at an Elon Musk AI win. And Dojo, xAI, Grok are all relative failures in these respects.
IE: Tesla spent over a $Billion building a team and custom building Dojo chips only to fire the entire team, throw away their chips and buy NVidia.
AFAICT Tesla has increased investment in their own chip ambitions. Dojo specifically being cut is a massive failure if you are motivated to believe that, but otherwise it looks more like a subset of custom chip work that didn't pay off and the company has appropriately cut their losses. The onboard "AI2/3/4/5" chips are clearly the bigger investment (they can be found on every Tesla vehicle) and do not seem to be going anywhere at the moment.
I wasn't trolling, but I have unfortunately deviated from the topic.
What isn't fine is my belief that I'm going to be rug-pulled by my government. From multiple sources I believe New Zealand will tax most savings to smithereens. The lie is that I should save for retirement; when any savings will be taken from me over time via a variety of mechanisms including taxes.
Both our Labour (leftish) and National parties will screw me.
The underlying issue is that our demographics leave little choice to the government. The majority of voters are naturally happy to take everything from everyone who has more than them. Voters are selfish.
Attacking the successful is called the tall-poppy syndrome down here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome (I'm nowhere near successful enough for much backlash - but I do fear it).
I was trying to make a argument based on marginal economics. NZ should be encouraging me to increase my income from export earnings: instead it drastically discourages me. I helped found a startup, so I deeply understand the multiple ways our government discourages us from earning export income. My marginal utility from an extra dollar is already drastically diminished because I already have enough to enjoy my life. The >40% taxation on top (incl GST) reduces my motivation to earn money for NZ to nearly zero. I am not a money chaser and I dislike investing.
After some threshold, money as a marginal value becomes meaningless because other non-monetary factors like politics dominate. It seems like nobody cares how much society profits from you - they only care about their own selfish goals.
You cannot have a % ownership in a nonprofit because its resources must be used exclusively to carry out its mission. You could have a % control in its decision making process.
And businesses with owners can be dedicated to their mission.
And public businesses are run by a board of directors.
The main difference isn't what you're saying, which is somewhat subject to interpretation. It's just that people can't invest money with expectation of a return, other than via employment, speaking fees, etc etc.
For an example of the former, the previous head head of Mozilla received a compensation that rose from about 2 million a year to nearly 7 million a year following hundreds of layoffs due to declining revenues. For an example of the latter, following the earthquake in Haiti, the American Red Cross raised nearly half a billion dollars. After all was said and done, they built a total of 6 homes. [1]
Basically, non-profit is a tax-status with conditions. But those conditions are sufficiently unenforceable or side steppable that it's ultimately just a tax status. And the whole game of OpenAI being nonprofit until profits started rolling in is just making this even more clear.
[1] - https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
Even taking it at face value, it's just an idea for the judge to consider, not legally binding for anybody.
I'm not sure how one can learn to see the world in a more positive light...
These people aren't satisfied with themselves having more, everyone else must have less too.
Not that I am interested in changing your mind on this. I would, though, encourage you to actually say it's "positive-sum" if that's what you believe instead of hinting and then being vague about it for some reason.
Solar energy is going to expensive in Antarctica.
We can imagine a situation where the server hardware becomes so cheap that the energy cost dominates. In that case, sticking the things in space could make sense, particularly if extremely low mass space PV (just a few microns thick) can be made to work and also work cheaply.
I am harping on this point because You can’t just say “but in future computes won’t need maintenance” because at that point you’re just engaging in speculative fiction that you have no way of knowing. I could say “in the future we’ll have cold fusion” and maybe that’s true but I have no way of knowing.
So given that you would need 2x the power that you’d need on earth. Compared to just putting a shitload of solar panels in a desert where non-astronauts can easily access it I don’t see the point.
And of course there’s the nuclear-power-plant sized elephant in the room; if power is the constraint it would still almost certainly be more economical to have a nuclear reactor than trying to get a data center in space.
Or, and hear me out, Elon is just a drug addict who makes shit up based on his 12-year-old-boy fantasies because it sounds neat and investors just eat it up.
I share all the disillusionment and cynicism about Musk, shared here by others.
But he has also done amazing things. When someone declares they are going to create a Martian colony, something literally "out of this world", and against all odds makes unbelievable progress for years, including re-usable rockets that return and land vertically, more efficient powerful engines, and fast operational turnarounds, while making orbital travel mundane, hanging a criticism of schedules on the weak hook of "yet" is myopic.
For starters it's too cold, too dry, atmosphere is too thin, and there's no reasonably sustainable power source.
But all of that is irrelevant because there's no magnetic field. So radiation. So unlivable.
There's also no point in a colony there. If life ends on earth it ends on Mars. There are no materials there we want. It offers exactly nothing we can't do better here, for much less money.
Will we land on Mars? Sure. There's always the goal of being first. But live there? No. Unsupported by earth? Very much no.
How are robotaxis coming along, versus the promises?
How are Optimus robots coming along, versus the promises?
How is the 2nd edition Roadster coming along, versus the promises?
You need to stop thinking of Musk in terms of a person who has "done amazing things" and letting that lead you to a belief that he has some kind of special ability in this space.
He's the money guy. He's occasionally managed to acquire talent that has done amazing things. This does not give him an innate "make amazing things happen" ability. He can throw money at bad ideas and ineffectual people. He can make something happen given the size of his wealth, but whether that actually achieves any of the stated goals is largely independent of his own actions.
If you think objectively Elon is not a psychopath.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be empathetic, of course. Someone else’s lack of empathy does not excuse our own. However, consider that billionaires mostly reach that status by exploiting others. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, they all fit that mould. Being empathetic does not mean being a chump. I’m not going to shed a tear for the poor exploitative billionaire who underpays and overworks people to the point they literally die on the floor of their warehouses and others around them are ordered to keep working.
If given the choice to defend the one billionaire who is fucking up the world and billions of lives in the process, or those who are being exploited by said billionaire, I think it’s obvious where one should place their empathy.
It’s not my responsibility, or yours, or anyone but themselves, that they can’t find meaning in life without being massive assholes. Use some of that money to go to therapy. Use it to enhance the lives of others around you, improve your community and you improve your own well being. It’s not that hard, we’ve known for a long time that a way to happiness is to do things for others.
Musk himself has lamented that money does not buy happiness, and after that expressed the desire to become the first trillionaire. I mean, come on…
And like the rest of us, there are those who cope better or worse, who are morally better or worse. Police are another bunch of people judged similarly.
Which is to say, there are indeed woeful billionaires. Possibly most of them. But don't paint the humans all with the same brush, even if the way to fix society might be to do so legally.
But that’s not what I did. From the very first post I was explicit in mentioning greedy narcissists. Obviously that doesn’t mean everyone in every group, it means the greedy narcissists. That’s why the adjectives exist, to distinguish some from the others.
I’m not sure I’m getting your point, because I don’t really see where the disagreement lies.
Sorry can't agree on this at all. Helping others feels amazing to any sane human being. Doing sports is similar. Experiencing adrenaline sports is similar. Focusing on raising one's kids properly is always exceptionally well-spent time, and feels great if one is not burned out and has some help against overloading with responsibilities. Thats a plenty of meaning for one's life, regardless of fortune.
The fact is, most of those billionaires are broken human beings - various mental issues, imbalances, maniacally competitive, often sociopaths. They can't achieve what society calls 'happiness', regardless of amount of money spent. So they into various status ego competitive 'games'.
I am pretty sure we all met such people in our lives if you looked close enough, I certainly did. Ie one girl I dated even outright laughed at happiness being my life goal, she was such a mess and knew it she rather openly focused on career and money, those were at least somewhat achievable for her. Its logical - if you can't achieve something important, you focus on next best thing, however inferior it may be. And if one surrounds oneself with the right people, one is not constantly reminded how it actually sucks and there is no force in universe to change that.
As means to buy an election an Presidency: highly efficient use of capital with an undeniable short and long-term ROI.
That he won't have to pay for. Shareholders will, as part of the SpaceX IPO.
The thing is... SpaceX and Tesla actually delivered something, in the case of Tesla at least until that damn rust bucket. They were (and, with the exception of the rust bucket, still are) miles ahead of the competition.
Back when Musk proposed buying Twitter, the site already was in the gutters, there's a reason that place was up for sale. Bugs littered everywhere, reliability issues, the disaster that was the universally hated 2019 redesign, sex spam bots, trolls and propaganda farms running the show, the "legitimate" bluecheck verification program being all but dead for new applicants. People actually hoped that Musk would turn the sinking ship around.
What even those critical of Musk didn't expect was that he'd open all the floodgates.
https://futurism.com/elon-musk-most-hated-person-america-gal...
> And the latest poll conducted by Gallup seems to confirm that Musk has become genuinely hated: a whopping 61 percent of 1,000 randomly selected adult American respondents said they had an unfavorable opinion of Musk, topping the list of most despised global figures.
> Even Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has widely been accused of genocide against Palestinians, couldn’t quite match Musk’s “strongly negative skew,” with just 52 percent of respondents saying they had an unfavorable opinion of the politician.
I'm very glad I'm not responsible for raising children these days.
Ironically, I'd say that Musk is still Stark, in a lot of bad ways: both show narcissism, overconfidence, impulsivity, ego-driven decision making, control issues, disregard for consequences, and volatility.
Obviously age, family, lifestyle and current savings matter.
The National NZ median house price is about NZD800k, and the Christchurch average estimated value is about NZD800k. That's about how much I spent in a less desirable suburb (Brighton). And I will have to downsize when I reach 65 because otherwise progressive council taxes (rates) and insurance will drawdown my savings too quickly.
We don't have social security in New Zealand: the government takes our taxes and has paid past retirees superannuation (NZD500 per week). But I'm unlikely to receive that: our government must renege on the expectation because the demographics are unaffordable (tweaking multiple constraints to fuck me - e.g. introducing means testing so that if you save you lose).
In theory we could grow our economy. But our government doesn't understand how to create economic growth via good incentives. I know that because my personal incentives are totally out of economic whack (I'm the perfect demographic for a second startup). I have acquaintances who are living in cars, and their incentives are also completely fucked.
You simply can't look at what your retirees do now and make any projection based on that: governments have to pull the rug on you.
House prices depend on the next generation signing up for ever bigger mortgages (such that their interest payments eat the majority of their income). When the music stops, homeowner's expectations will be screwed.
In New Zealand we prop up our economy using immigrants: but that is an unsustainable engine.
New Zealand is increasing taxes faster than investments accrue. We have a 5% wealth tax on owning overseas shares worth more than NZD50000 in total. Investment gains are taxed at 30% or more - e.g. dividends or investment funds.
We currently have a partial CGT on property, and the CGT will take more and more of property gains (perhaps a good thing to discourage property investors?).
In the past in Christchurch residential property generally stayed ahead of inflation by about 1.5%–3% per year in real terms. A CGT of ~30% could easily make that return nothing. That's the norm in New Zealand: work hard, take risks, get no reward. Need luck.
Individually the taxes (and costs such as insurance) appear reasonable, but they screw any hope of using compounding to maintain a reasonable drawdown. A 4% drawdown could absolutely fuck you if you have the bad luck to live a little longer. See https://paulgraham.com/wtax.html
Getting taxed at an unsustainable rate is probably unavoidable without radically changing one's life or taking extreme risks. I had thought 1 million savings would be enough with compounding, but it is clear our government wants to take a massive bite of any investment gains such that you have wasted time and effort, and your investment risks may have no gains.
We have socialised healthcare, but I think we are heading towards the same reality as the US where you likely have to make yourself broke before getting any help (and the help will be more constrained).
The current retirees get financial and healthcare benefits that I will never ever get. Even though many retirees live on extremely meagre means.
It doesn't matter how much I give to the NZ economy: I believe my politicians when they propose measures to take my rewards from me. I use my engineering to be realistic. I'm not yet a hardened cynic (although perhaps I'm slowly being trained to believe that world view).
I understand the economics of my country better than most.
Most people don't want to see reality. Most people look at what current retirees get, and then assume they will get the same... We aren't being lied to. It is just collectively we all hope too much and trust too much.
If your idea of Elon Musks AI success is to lean on THAT side of Tesla... well, good luck with that.
You know that it's a public service and we literally can see the drivers, right?
By contrast, the more money you have the more mistakes you can afford to make
On the one hand, we have major advance, after major advance. But on the other hand, we have crossed out dates on a calendar! Cool things that were mentioned but haven't happen yet! Sad calendar! It's a real toss up!
Puzzle question: is aspirational calendar-target overoptimism good or bad if you get things done late, but sooner than you would have, or at least, more things than you would have, than if you had set more "realistic" targets. Like decades. And then been late for that.
I suggest instead complaining, you your time and Elon's tardiness to beat him to the punch! Lemonade punch.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are late at things, but without the contrast of famous wins, nobody complains. It is so unfair!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
In any case, the promise was full coast to coast self driving by 2016. Not a limited run of some automatic taxis (mostly for publicity) that only operates with safety drivers or safety chase vehicles by 2026 in only one city.
Finally, we've gone from talking about top level AIs chips (Dojo) to limited run safety driver based taxis. It's really astonishing how far you are moving the goalposts here looking for a win.
You know that Elon Musks primary AI effort is xAI, which has failed so hard it's being rescued by SpaceX right? There's like the actual AI effort we can talk about here.
Robots have landed on Mars. Maybe they will even figure out how to use minerals on Mars to build more of themselves. It is plausible to me that as far as space exploration is concerned that it will be autonomous within a few hundred years.
That's an archive of the article it's originally from, from the NYTimes - "Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly", October 1903. The Wright Bros first successful flight would come in December 1903. The NYTimes also similarly published about the impossibility of spaceflight relatively shortly before it happened.
I anxiously await the day for the NYTimes to dismiss colonizing Mars as impossible, as it means we are most certainly on the cusp of achieving exactly that.
Contrast to the moon. The prestige was great, the investment enormous. The return was more-or-less zero. There was a reason Apollo 18 was canceled, and we stopped going.
(Current efforts are in no rush, and are mostly about prestige.)
The value of a colony on Mars is precisely zero. We might visit a couple times. But colonize? Nope.
It's sad that this is believed when it's most often the opposite. Especially in this case we have a literal historical example. You'll never guess what Henry Kaiser built before creating Kaiser, the largest set of hospitals in CA.
The money spent on the ships* could not be double-spent on hospitals. The workers whose manual labour was dedicated to those later ships could not be simultaneously dedicated to more hospitals. The crew of a battleship cannot be simultaneously working in a hospital, the maintenance teams repairing it cannot be simultaneously repairing a hospital.
Every resource-management game demonstrates this principle, even if they're all gross simplifications.
* Wikipedia says Kaiser's ships were cargo and transport, not battleships, which means they had the potential to be a net positive on the economy. This is better than a battleship, because domestic military gear can't be a net positive: the point is to keep matériel and personnel around to deter enemies, and only use them for training and when enemies aren't deterred.
Europe on the other hand would love any judgements which give their rockets a chance to catchup. So they won’t temper an investigation or fines accordingly.
But he'll also likely be shaving equity here and there along the way to hedge this bet.
Assigning zero long term value however to another entire planet worth of resources just seems like a failure of imagination.
You can't get to the 777 without the Wright Flyer.
And I think once we start iterating on these concepts, the timelines might not be as long as might otherwise be expected. Forget the 777 - it's completely stupefying that we went from the Wright Flier to the SR-71 Blackbird [1] in 61 years. That beast is another product of the magic of the 60s - long-term sustained flight at Mach 3.2 - 2450+mph. London to New York in less than 2 hours. There really was something in the water in the US in the 60s.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
So I think the comparison with flight is perfect. Imagine after the Wright Bros. flight, which countless people had died in the process of seeking to achieve, we had one uninvolved entity able to say 'yeah, I'm responsible for all this' and then canceled everything in a simple self-motivated political calculation to try to 'go out on top' so to speak.
The Moon was never the goal, anymore than the Wright Flyer was the goal. It was one small step on a very lengthy journey - a major milestone for sure, but nowhere near the end of the road. And that's where we remain in space, but thanks to the fact that so much expertise was lost in the ~60 year do-nothing era, we're now having to essentially start over. On the bright side, this time the driver's going to be private industry, just like with airplanes - and there will be no myopic politician to cancel it.
I'm guessing you have not checked out modern X/Twitter if you think Musk has managed to evict the bots, trolls, propaganda firms, or even sex workers. The only difference now is they have blue checks and get pushed to the top of the feed.
Any of the struggles old Twitter had are absolutely dwarfed by its current problems. They still lose money hand over fist, the noise floor is way higher than it used to be, and a solid majority of the best users have either left or simulpost their content on other platforms like Mastadon and Bluesky. The new blue check system is close to an outright disaster, the only saving grace being that you can filter out the worst of the trolls by installing an extension that filters out blue check users.
> The thing is... SpaceX and Tesla actually delivered something, in the case of Tesla at least until that damn rust bucket. They were (and, with the exception of the rust bucket, still are) miles ahead of the competition.
For SpaceX this is true, but for Tesla the competition has caught up and in some cases surpassed them. The supercharger network used to be the envy of all other EV companies, but ever since Musk randomly threw a fit and fired the management a few years back the system has stagnated and modern 800V competitors are making them look like fools. Elon's big bet on Full Self Driving has yet to pay off as the deadline for getting it to actually work as advertised continues to slip and it's not clear when if ever unsupervised Full Self Driving will be available, especially on vehicles with older hardware. People paid thousands of dollars for it and Tesla has yet to deliver on the promise. Remember it was supposed to be live in 2021. Even more prosaic things like the 200+ mile total range and integrated route planning are effectively standard features across the EV landscape. Tesla had 3 or 4 years where they stood head and shoulders over the competition, but those days are gone.
Oh yes, I did. Which is why I wrote my last sentence: "What even those critical of Musk didn't expect was that he'd open all the floodgates."
> The supercharger network used to be the envy of all other EV companies, but ever since Musk randomly threw a fit and fired the management a few years back the system has stagnated and modern 800V competitors are making them look like fools.
Yup, the problem of the competitors is that it's a whole mess. Everyone has different rates, sometimes depending on the payment method, discoverability is nuts, payment is nuts.
> People paid thousands of dollars for it and Tesla has yet to deliver on the promise. Remember it was supposed to be live in 2021.
Again, that is why I wrote: "at least until that damn rust bucket". With that, Tesla started to go down the drain - it was obvious that Musk had managed to yeet everyone able / willing to say "no, that is a goddamn stupid idea" to him.
> Even more prosaic things like the 200+ mile total range and integrated route planning are effectively standard features across the EV landscape.
Meh. The Model 3 is less than 40 k€ here in Germany. Competitors in that price range of actual quality brands such as BMW still don't get that range.
The fact that the quote of "it's all computer" is not wrong with all of the other negatives about it are automotive reasons why I'll never own one. I also choose not to do business with companies with that kind of leadership. A noble idea like by an ignoble person does not bode well for that noble idea.
Well... on the other side, not recognizing where the world is moving towards is a damn large part of why the "legacy" automotive companies went down the gutter. VW nearly killed itself over Cariad and even in 2020, most automotive control units had less UI performance than a 2015 iPhone.
When you're the young upstart company playing David to Big Auto's Goliath, you need to make cars that people want and can afford. After that, having a fanatical leader that turns even the most ardent of EV fans away is also not a good for business. Since they can't make cars that people can afford and then decide to make cars that people don't want and you have a mentally unstable drug addled person in charge of the company constantly lying about the abilities of the cars, your David is just going to get slaughtered.
It was "up for sale" because it was a public company. Tesla is also "up for sale" by that definition.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single serious person who'd say Twitter is a better product/experience today than prior to the acquisition.
The place continues to bleed users and is the first stop shop for Nazis
I stated that it already was in the gutters. That does not imply it's gotten out of the gutters ever since. Musk took something that was already pretty much dead and gave it a final shot.
You keep saying that, but prior to the acquisition Twitter had finally managed to start turning a profit.
Frankly, bullshit. It worked reliably, extremely so. It had remarkably few bugs too. It was also actually doing way better financially. It was not perfect ... but all the issues you claim it had became massively more worst.
Musk bought it for political reasons, to stomp down on left leaning opposition and networks that were well functioning there. That part was a success, it is a nazi site now and helped Trump win elections.
I did not claim that Musk improved on the issues, quite the contrary. It seems many people did not read the very last sentence. I also wrote:
> People actually hoped that Musk would turn the sinking ship around.
Quite obviously I am referring to what was the situation back in 2022. Past tense.
It was still notoriously prone to failure, and it had been a financial disaster area until the Trump phenomenon suddenly boosted it.
Solar Roof: https://electrek.co/2026/05/14/tesla-solar-roof-promise-vs-r...
Tesla Full Self Driving: https://electrek.co/2026/05/18/musk-unsupervised-fsd-widespr...
Hyperloop / Boring Company mass-transit vision
Mars settlement timelines
X as an everything app
I consider him a visionary in a sense of innovation but he is insecure and immoral one.
Needles to say his investors made money on his over promises.
Does he also deliver on some mind-boggling timelines? Well Tesla went from delivering its first cars in 2008 to having the best selling car in the world in 2023, and SpaceX went from not having successfully launched a rocket to delivering about 80% of the world's space payload in roughly the same timeframe. So I'd say that's clearly a 'yes', too.
I do. It’s not his singular focus. But he continues to personally invest himself in pushing the boundaries of human spacefaring capability. That goal seems more meaningful to him that it does to e.g. Bezos, who seems to have a rocket company to look cool.
But I see a lot of that announcement, and the others someone else pointed to as his "aspirational, but ultimately never going to happen" goals - whether he believes the claims are achievable, or not, he says these things to energise people to working/paying for him to try
It costs him little to nothing to say, and other people's time, effort, and capital to try (and succeed/fail)
Tesla is falling to pieces now, and SpaceX is getting loaded up with completely unrelated projects (xAI) in order to try and make it look saleable (I guess) - it's very difficult to see the Mars announcement as anything but hype.
Oh yeah, the announcement is hype. But there is actual work underneath it making real progress in science and engineering that moves us closer to Mars. Some of that, moreover, is work that has limited appeal outside a Martian context.
That all depends on how much he values his credibility, I think..
But to be fair, for someone as good at self promotion as he is, I can believe that the value of the hype could be greater than the cost in credibility.
Did I miss something?
At one point he was probably sincere but he's been consumed by culture war slop.
He has a legion of people propping up his stock by manipulating them into believing he is a wizard.
You can’t believe musk without simultaneously believing he’s a liar. It’s in HIS fucking book.
I said I believe he wants to go to Mars and will put in the work to make that happen. I didn't say everything he's said is true. Musk absolutely lies. But his actions speak pretty consistently to Mars being a real goal.
They want mega constellations for always-on drone guidance and for "golden dome" which would allow for the laser-based shoot-down of long range exo-atmospheric missiles. You need reusable spacecraft to make that tenable. This is not about Mars, don't buy the marketing. At best for civilians, this is about making broadband widely available such that America can dominate internet connectivity going forward and increase spying further. As an example, examine a map of Starlink connectivity, you will notice that Russia and Gaza are excluded.
The Artemis missions will eventually enable the placement of communications equipment on the moon, making anti-satellite weapons less effective at disrupting critical communications.
Fortress America will be invincible forever, so so they desire. The macroeconomics are not working out for them though even though the technological edge is still working for them on that level.
This is a conspiracy theory folks who just Googled In-Q-Tel have been stringing together since Covid. It's not true.
> examine a map of Starlink connectivity, you will notice that Russia and Gaza are excluded
Russia wasn't excluded until recently. That was a problem!
> The Artemis missions will eventually enable the placement of communications equipment on the moon, making anti-satellite weapons less effective at disrupting critical communications
Wat.
I guess polluting space with shitty satellites and causing environmental disasters with failed and questionably-permitted rocket launches is, technically, pushing on boundaries of human spacefaring capability.
My cat is both cute and fluffy as well as a menace.
Musk has been successful is pure engineering efforts led by engineers he hired achieving the next big-but-not-too-big step.
You ignore his thoughts on everything else.
These people are all about massive ego trips and legacies. So let them build their legacy as they truly were with all the + and -, not some idealized, simplified image. Truth always deserves to be told, however inconvenient. Sort of moral imperative of a moral human being if you want.
He's fundamentally a very smart socially inept largely sociopathic emotionally immature obsessively driven boy who read a lot of Heinlein as a kid. Everything about him indicates he sees himself as a saviour of humanity and the only person who has their priorities right and everybody should appreciate and adore him and it's so darn frustrating when they don't, oh wait this other party will adore me, now they don't anymore either oh HUMbug.
Do I believe any of his promises? No absolutely not. But I do think Mars is his massive obsession and that he fervently (If completely Implausibly) believes it'll work and help humanity.
It features a leader called the Elon who Musk may have been partly named after. (https://www.mind-war.com/p/the-elon-how-a-nazi-rocket-scient...)
Profit isn't the only thing that matters in this world ffs.
Genuine content that was not relating to politics, the news and nerd topics had long since gone off to Tiktok, Snapchat, Instagram and the likes. Those of us who had been on Twitter since the early days 'member what we lost.
Which is not the argument. At all. You’re preaching to the choir, I very much argue against the relentless pursuit of profit and my comment history backs up that assertion.
But turning a profit does mean it wasn’t close to death. It was in fact starting to turn itself around to become sustainable (and thus not die for lack of resources). Whether you liked their direction is orthogonal. Change does not imply death.
> Genuine content that was not relating to politics
An emphasis on politics was not Twitter’s fault, it was a consequence of the world changing in a such a way discussing politics more actively became a necessity.
> Those of us who had been on Twitter since the early days 'member what we lost.
I had been on Twitter since the early days, and I disagree with you. I also disagree that Musk “gave it a final shot”, he pretty much started destroying it with obvious bad decisions from the start. He took a ship which was finally becoming able to remove more water than it was taking in and shot all its cannons at the hull.
They were contemporaenous. Musk was trying to send stuff to Mars in 2001 [1]. Bezos started Blue Origin in 2000 before any Moon goals had been made concrete or public. I wouldn't say either of their goals really referenced each other until after the financial crisis (that is, after they were both comfortably billionaires with launch-vehicle programs).
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-elon-musk-spacex/
I would not invest.
If Optimus fails to impress, and gain traction, I’d seriously expect Tesla to end up a subsidiary of SpaceX within the next ten years as Elon tries to protect up his net worth.
??? It's documented that Ukraine is using Starlink extensively.
Golden dome: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/golden-dome-for-america-trump-m...
> Wat.
Communications are an exception to the lunar treaty that governs the militarization of space.
Don't forget that the original space program was designed to peacefully demonstrate a high degree of control over ICBM class rockets. They're so good and accurate, we can put a human on top of one. The government does not spend huge amounts of money on things like "art" or "science" without a motivating factor. This is the capitalist empire, not socialism.
This factor (and that it applies to all EM including both radio and optical) is also why we had to wait for lunar orbiter missions to get photos of the Apollo landing sites rather than take a picture with Hubble.
Oh, and then there's the problem with the moon having much longer and much darker nights than anywhere on Earth that isn't the [ant]arctic circle, though I have previously opined that anyone who isn't ready to put a few thousand tons of aluminium onto the moon and make a circumpolar power line *simply isn't ready for any plan like this in the first place*.
And the fact that there's only one moon, so half the planet doesn't get any signal from it at any given time.
Still, in the case of massive destruction of satellite communications, having 50% availability for crucial communications (e.g. continuity of government) etc. isn't ideal but is still something. 2.6 second lag is nothing if you aren't talking about real-time communications. Issuing strategic military orders isn't sensitive to 2.6 seconds of lag.
You can communicate to half the earth at once, you can maybe replace GPS if all the GPS sats are shot down, etc. Your point about large antennas is taken, but for USG installations, I don't doubt they would invest in a few large antennas.
Elon made some political positions (which he has always hinted at in any case) publicly clear, and the divisive nature of politics in the US which has made a rather vocal minority of people just freak out with regards to him. But the reality is that if he died tomorrow, he would already go down as the Thomas Edison of modern times. And he as of yet still has some years to deliver on Mars which could cement a far greater legacy.
SpaceX Falcon 9 has a launch cost of 74 M$ with a payload to LEO of 22,800 kg for a launch cost of ~3,200 $/kg to LEO.
So you are incorrectly claiming that space launch costs were 320,000 $/kg. Elon Musk is a habitual liar, but you should try not to be one as well as it demonstrates your argument to be based in ignorance and deception.
A small but important correction - he would be similar to Henry Ford, with capitalistic approach to humans that would make Marx shiver and write second Capital book. Also aligns better with his nazi sympathies.
There isn't a single thing he personally invented AFAIK, but he is a good manager from certain angles and can recognize future value in ways entrenched ivy league managers seemingly cannot. Also a textbook sociopath and few other mental issues, and horrible father for those who care (most should, future of mankind and all that).
As for Musk, he completely revolutionized the space industry. In modern times no single person just invents everything around something akin to e.g. the telegraph, but I don't think that really diminishes his impact. It's just a consequence of the fact that a reusable rocket is much more complex than a telegraph machine. But he's quite infamously involved and directing essentially every single step of the process. This is quite different from the detached and profit/metric motivated focus of typical management, but in many ways it's much closer to how things were 'back in the day' rather than a novel discovery. It should go without saying that people running businesses building 'x' should be deeply knowledgeable about 'x'. "Business", as a specialization in and of itself, in modern times is the disease that's killing America.
Xiaomi Auto reaching a quarter of Tesla's annual output after four years is much more impressive, given it took Tesla until 2019/2020 (8 years, twice as long) to reach that level.
SpaceX is rather more impressive. Unfortunately for everyone, only someone like Musk could have pulled that off: not just the visionary, but also arrogant and litigious enough to sue the US government to reconsider when the government decided against buying from SpaceX. I'm reminded of the phrase "only Nixon could go to China".
Yes. Owing to the laws of physics, the size of the optics and the wavelengths of its sensors, it is limited to a minimum feature size on the moon of about 22 meters (which happens at the limit of it's ultraviolet sensor range, 115 nm, not visible light). To see the Apollo lander as a single pixel, it would need to have a primary mirror with an 11 metre diameter, to see footprints it would need one with a diameter of 150-200m metres. And proportionally even bigger than that for longer wavelengths such as visible light.
> Still, in the case of massive destruction of satellite communications, having 50% availability for crucial communications (e.g. continuity of government) etc. isn't ideal but is still something. 2.6 second lag is nothing if you aren't talking about real-time communications. Issuing strategic military orders isn't sensitive to 2.6 seconds of lag.
Or you could just use all the stuff on the ground. We used radio well before we went to space, and if the cable-based stuff (and line-of-sight microwave towers) isn't secure then neither is the even more critical power grid.
If you're willing to give up real-time comms, then we have a lot of bandwidth available for text messages that's currently being spent on TV.
> You can communicate to half the earth at once, you can maybe replace GPS if all the GPS sats are shot down, etc.
Nope. GPS fundamentally requires you can see at least four different satellites at the same moment. Also, they're in geosynchronous orbit not low orbit, there are at present no reported anti-satellite weapons that can get to geostationary orbit, nor would this be likely due to the energy budget needed to get there. Consider that while getting to LEO essentially requires the equivalent of an intercontinental missile, getting to geostationary requires the equivalent of such a missile whose payload is itself another intercontinental missile.
> Your point about large antennas is taken, but for USG installations, I don't doubt they would invest in a few large antennas.
I think you've not quite taken on board what I said.
768 times larger diameter.
Diameter, not area.
If your ground station is 1 meter across, like some satellite dishes I see, one 768 times larger is about the size of The Pentagon building and its surrounding car park.
While I look forward to us being able to build structures that size (and bigger) on the moon, the SpaceX website for Starship is currently listing prices to the moon of $100 million per metric ton.
The Ariane 5, first launching in 2003 which is 7 years earlier than the first Falcon 9 launch, had a launch cost of ~150 M$ in 2015 with a payload to LEO of ~16,000 kg for a cost of 10,000 $/kg. The Soyuz-2, first launching in 2004 which is 6 years earlier than the first Falcon 9 launch, had a launch cost of ~35 M$ with a payload to LEO of ~8,000 kg for a cost of ~4,500 $/kg.
The truth is 3-6% of your claim of 100x cost improvement.
And again, you do not seem to understand how percentages work. If I have a thing that costs 1,000 $ and I find a 99% cost reduction it is now 10 $. A 97% cost reduction means it is 30 $. That is a 3x difference. The difference between 1% and 3% is a factor of 3x. That is half of a order of magnitude right there and here you are claiming it is small.
So you are wrong on history, wrong on comparables, and wrong on math to defend a man who runs a company that is legally, and I quote a actual legal decision: a "greviously reprehensible... grossly racist workplace"[1]. But, you know, racism man good because he slightly lowered the cost of cruise ship internet I guess.
[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06... Page 31.
I do think 'self driving' is still their 'moat' when it comes to EVs. I use it every day, and nothing else comes close. But other than that, building EVs is becoming a cut-throat slim-margin business. I don't think that's where Elon, or Tesla employees, want to spend their energy.
Now imagine you're selling robots. If the robot "disengages" and breaks 10% of your plates while emptying the dishwasher, you're going to be pissed. There's no fallback to manual mode. It has to work 100% of the time out the gate.
Based on past history, I don't think Tesla has an engineering culture capable of hitting a home run with this kind of frontier technology out of the gate. So they either delay it until it's ready or they launch it prematurely, in which case everyone mocks it and the dream crashes (along with the stock price).
There's plenty of other companies making robots. Robots can either be controlled by AI or by humans. In the case of humans, there's no moat because everyone can do that. In the case of AI, it can either be on device or on a server, but we're already hitting power supply concerns for data centres, rising prices and supply issues for the components for even local servers, and the historical timeline over which hardware and algorithms have become more energy efficient (and the available power envelope) suggests that on-device AI sufficient for an Optimus to get into a non-self-driving car and drive it at some competence score* happens around a decade after that competence is reached by self-driving cars.
It doesn't even matter if your perception on the relative ranking of different self-drive systems is right or wrong, we're still not yet seeing Tesla vehicles do as Musk said in January 2016:
I think that within two years, you'll be able to summon your car from across the country. It will meet you wherever your phone is
* Any competence score, i.e. 2016 self-drive quality is likely already doable.
Kind of yes, the competition, especially from China, is catching up, and exceeding Tesla's offers.
Kind of no - EVs were around for a very long time before Tesla, Tesla's sales pitch (at one point) was that it was a software company not a car company.
On that front - almost every vehicle manufacturer has caught up, and Tesla is still stuck /promising/ a self driving car, but still not delivering.
The Twitter acquisition is widely seen as the marking point where Musk lost his appeal - something that was not smart because, coupled with his foray into politics was an attack on his core market - middle class left of centre people who were buying for the environment.. etc
He poisoned his brand, and Tesla's too (because the two brands, his and Tesla's, were so intertwined)
He lost the impetus in European markets, leaving a dying (for him) US market, and Asia (which is largely interested in Chinese made vehicles).
My Anecdata: In Australia, where I am, it used to be Tesla's were fairly common, now, I think I've seen two in the last week, compared to maybe a dozen BYD (and I am in a middle class suburb)
The “west” came up with Tesla and Rivian, and their cars are on the road. And the US tariffed chinese EVs. What else can be done to combat China’s lower priced labor and possibly more lax environmental regulations?
In the US at least we’re gearing up for massive failure in the automotive industry solely because we’re avoiding competition. Yes, there will be margin compression, but without it domestic businesses become inefficient. It’s going to be “80s/90s Detroit” all over again with bigger bailouts because at some point it’ll be too politically popular to reduce prices. When that happens the public will be the ones footing the bill.
And all that says nothing of the fact cheap labor alone doesn’t make a better car. But the fact China can both make a better car (EV) and with lower labor costs really shows how dependent US automakers are on market inefficiencies. The US, and Europe, were massively ahead in quality but that lead been destroyed.
I’m not a fan of capitalism, but if the US is going to sell it and preach it— we might as fucking well embrace it. Otherwise we’re just subsidizing the rich without rhyme or reason (other than blatant corruption and exploitation). The cost of those subsidies will be stagnation, and the outright capitulation of quality long term.
I don’t understand this. Why would COGS impact quality? Are Chinese people inherently inferior “Western” people?
The market inefficiency is partly the difference in price of labor, which is being made more efficient by Chinese manufacturers succeeding.
> In the US at least we’re gearing up for massive failure in the automotive industry solely because we’re avoiding competition
Uhhh - you want to prevent competition by using subsidies and regulations, but then complain the US companies are not competitive because they avoid competition?
The US vehicle manufacturers have been here multiple times - VW, Japanese "compacts", and now Chinese EVs
The Germans were competing on quality and fuel consumption.
The Japanese were competing on quality and price, they started out naff, and became gold standard, whilst US manufacturers were stuck delivering low rate products.
The Koreans followed the same playbook.
And, now, the Chinese are doing it again, following the Japanese playbook - offering better and better quality at a lower price.
BYD owns the mines, the batteries, the cars, the USA doesn't have that available, and are having to force other countries to provide their lithium/rare earth deposits to US companies in order to try and become competitive.
And don't trust flatterbots to argue for you. They hallucinate regularly and just make you look more absurd. The Space Shuttle was flying crewed missions to the ISS until 2011. The reason they stopped is because the Space Shuttle had been retired and commercial crew began, which was ultimately won by SpaceX. Well SpaceX and Boeing in an overt act of insiderism, but Boeing is still - 15 years later - trying to figure out how this whole space thingy works.
The alternatives you mention were never commercially viable against SpaceX. All not only cost multiple times more but come with significantly worse reliability records as well as lacking the payload capacity of something like Falcon Heavy for those missions that require it. And when you look at things like the Soyuz, the sticker price doesn't matter so much as the price companies were obligated to pay. They offered cheap internal launches, and charged dramatically higher rates for foreign launchers - including NASA. By the end NASA was paying $90mil/seat.
You are correct that there were Space Shuttle missions to the vicinity of the ISS until 2011. I was talking about ISS crew rotation missions where the last Space Shuttle mission was STS-129 in 2009. The Space Shuttle was still used for ISS assembly flights until 2011. I was using crew rotation missions to highlight that not just commercial satellite launches, but also one of the other important class of missions, crew rotation, also regularly used alternatives to the Space Shuttle disproving your point that the Space Shuttle had some sort of magical monopoly on launches and thus the only alternative to compare against.
You were the one arguing that alternatives cost over 100x more than SpaceX. Even deceptively comparing against the Space Shuttle you were still off by a factor of 3x and comparing against actual competitors your claim is off by a factor of 16x-30x. Your claim is egregiously wrong. Continuing to argue it means you are either completely ignorant or utterly biased or both. I am done here.
And no, I obviously know you're just grabbing nonsense from your flatterbot of choice. The tell tale is being easily confused on basic points, making rather nonsensical statements, being oddly precise about irrelevant esoteric details, and then finding yourself in a situation where you're left trying to recombobulate it all back into something sensical, which you're not quite succeeding at. Your post above is borderline incoherent, even moreso than the 97% to 99% = 300% nonsense.