Kurt Wagner and Katie Roof, Bloomberg:

Elon Musk said his xAI artificial intelligence startup has acquired the X platform, which he also controls, at a valuation of $33 billion, marking a surprise twist for the social network formerly known as Twitter.

This feels like it has to be part of some kind of financial crime, right? Like, I am sure it is not; I am sure this is just a normal thing businesses do that only feels criminal, like how they move money around the world to avoid taxes.

Wagner and Roof:

The deal gives the new combined entity, called XAI Holdings, a value of more than $100 billion, not including the debt, according to a person familiar with the arrangement, who asked not to be identified because the terms weren’t public. Morgan Stanley was the sole banker on the deal, representing both sides, other people said.

For perspective, that is around about the current value of Lockheed Martin, Rio Tinto — one of the world’s largest mining businesses — and Starbucks. All of those companies make real products with real demand — unfortunately so, in the case of the first. xAI has exactly one external customer today. And it is not like unpleasant social media seems to be a booming business.

Kate Conger and Lauren Hirsch, New York Times:

This month, X continued to struggle to hit its revenue targets, according to an internal email seen by The New York Times. As of March 3, X had served $91 million of ads this year, the message said, well below its first-quarter target of $153 million.

This is including the spending of several large advertisers. For comparison, in the same quarter in the pre-Musk era, Twitter generated over a billion dollars in advertising revenue.

I am begging for Matt Levine to explain this to me.

⌥ Permalink

Elon Musk se je ponovno znašel na prvih straneh osrednjih medijev. Tokrat ne zaradi njegove pojavnosti v bližini Donalda Trumpa, temveč zaradi medijske kampanje za izpustitev britanskega skrajnega desničarja Tommya Robinsona. Zakaj je Muskov medijski angažma spravil na noge predvsem liberalce in naletel na obsodbo pri političnih voditeljih, ki so se v tednih pred tem ob rokovanju z njim še nasmihali v kamere?

Musk je že dobro poznan po radodarnih finančnih vložkih na politični desnici. Liberalni politični establišment z mediji na čelu pa se z obsojanjem Muskovega financiranja nazadnjaških strank obnašajo hinavsko in ignorantsko, saj načelno nimajo nič proti takšnim oblikam financiranja političnih strank. Ravno nasprotno.  Tudi sami rade volje sprejemajo ogromne donacije iz strani lastnikov kapitala, nepremičninskih lordov, fosilnih magnatov. S tem, ko poudarjajo, da Musk podpira »skrajno« desnico, utrjujejo predstavo, da sicer obstaja »normalna« desnica, ki pa bi jo lahko finančno podprl brez dviganja prahu in kontroverznosti. 

Muskovo financiranje ni samo podpora določenim političnim strankam, kot sta na primer AfD v Nemčiji in Reform UK, stranka Nigela Faraga v Veliki Britaniji, ki sta obe prejeli izdatne zneske iz njegovega žepa. Gre za podporo politični opciji, ki najbolj koristi pripadnikom njegovega razreda: lastnikom kapitala ali najbogatejšim vladajočim slojem. Muskovo financiranje ni samo spogledovanje s skrajno desnimi politikami, ampak je premišljen vložek v politiko, od katere bo za vladajoči razred »izboril« davčne odpustke in dodatne subvencije kapitalu na račun delovnih ljudi.

Zakaj torej ne smemo verjeti Olafu Sholtzu, ki je v svojem novoletnem nagovoru izrazil zaskrbljenost zaradi Muskovega vmešavanja v nemško politiko? Zato ker tudi evropski politični vrh že tako ali tako vodi politiko, ki je naklonjena takšnim, kot je Elon Musk. Vodi politiko davčnih odpustkov na račun siromašenja javnih storitev, socialnih transferjev in družbenih potreb na sploh. Tudi zato, ker je celoten vladajoči razred v medijih utrjeval predstavo o »genialnem podjetniku«, ki bi naj bil vzgled mladim generacijam. 

Elon Musk je nedvomno velika nevarnost za delavski razred. Z največjo donacijo v zgodovini ameriških volitev v znesku 277 milijonov dolarjev se je zavezal, da bo v vlogi svetovalca na ameriškem “Ministrstvu za vladno učinkovitost” še dodatno »pospešil« proces razgradnje javnih sistemov, s tem ko je že napovedal korenite spremembe v davčni politiki ZDA. 

Njegove tovarne avtomobilov Tesla so znane po tem, da delavci in delavke psihično in fizično izgorevajo, omedlevajo od izčrpanosti, delajo dolge nadure in vikende. Tesla je po številu varnostnih kršitev na delu daleč presegla povprečje drugih ameriških avtomobilskih tovarn. Kršitev je zagotovo mnogo več, saj so zaposlene in zaposleni  podvrženi njegovim grožnjam glede ustanovitve sindikata. Tesla je edina avtomobilska tovarna brez sindikata.  

Kljub svojemu bogastvu na račun ameriških delavk in delavcev Elon Musk leta 2018 ni plačal niti centa zveznih davkov na dohodek. Ko je leta 2021 vendarle poravnal davčne obveznosti, je znesek predstavljal zgolj 10 odstotkov povečanja njegovega premoženja v tistem letu. Rast vrednosti naložb – glavni vir dohodka najbogatejših – je namreč obdavčena bistveno nižje od običajnih plač in dohodkov. Za primerjavo, povprečna ameriška družina je istega leta plačala 14,9-odstotno davčno stopnjo na svoj zaslužek.

Nedavno je obljubil zmanjšanje proračunskih izdatkov ZDA za kar 200 milijard dolarjev, kar bi prizadelo širok spekter javnih storitev – od socialne varnosti in zdravstvenih programov, kot sta Medicare in Medicaid, do izobraževanja ter pomoči pri hrani in stanovanjih. Prihajajoča Trumpova administracija bo še bolj očitno vlada bogatih, ki jo bodo bogati vodili za bogate. 

Bolj očitno zaradi tega, ker bodo v njej sodelovali tudi demokrati, ki so mesece poprej svarili pred  fašizmom. Nedavno smo takšen politični konsenz videli tudi v primeru Francije, kjer je Macron samo potrdil znani rek: ko ima liberalec izbiro med podporo komunizma ali fašizma, se bo zmeraj odločil za fašizem. Zato ne smemo verjeti političnim voditeljem, ko svarijo pred Elonom Muskom medtem ko v isti sapi dajejo koncesije najbogatejšim, pospešujejo podnebni zlom in uničujejo javne storitve. Uslužnost kapitalistične države je namreč tista, ki je omogočila in celo vzpodbudila vzpon Elonov Muskov.

The post ELON MUSK: SOVRAŽNIK DELOVNIH LJUDI first appeared on Rdeča Pesa.

Cade Metz, New York Times:

Mr. [Sam] Altman said he was “tremendously sad” about the rising tensions between the two one-time collaborators.

“I grew up with Elon as like a mega hero,” he said.

But he rejected suggestions that Mr. Musk could use his increasingly close relationship with President-elect Trump to harm OpenAI.

“I believe pretty strongly that Elon will do the right thing and that it would be profoundly un-American to use political power to the degree that Elon would hurt competitors and advantage his own businesses,” he said.

Alex Heath, the Verge:

Jeff Bezos and President-elect Donald Trump famously didn’t get along the last time Trump was in the White House. This time, Bezos says he’s “very optimistic” and even wants to help out.

“I’m actually very optimistic this time around,” Bezos said of Trump during a rare public appearance at The New York Times DealBook Summit on Wednesday. “He seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation. If I can help him do that, I’m going to help him.”

Emily Swanson, the Guardian:

“Mark Zuckerberg has been very clear about his desire to be a supporter of and a participant in this change that we’re seeing all around America,” Stephen Miller, a top Trump deputy, told Fox.

Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, agreed with Miller. Clegg said in a recent press call that Zuckerberg wanted to play an “active role” in the administration’s tech policy decisions and wanted to participate in “the debate that any administration needs to have about maintaining America’s leadership in the technological sphere,” particularly on artificial intelligence. Meta declined to provide further comment.

There are two possibilities. The first is that these CEOs are all dummies with memory no more capacious than that of an earthworm. The second is that these people all recognize the transactional and mercurial nature of the incoming administration, and they have begun their ritualistic grovelling. Even though I do not think money and success is evidence of genius, I do not think these CEOs are so dumb they actually believe in the moral fortitude of these goons.

⌥ Permalink

Gian Volpicelli and Samuel Stolton, Bloomberg:

Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, the bloc can slap online platforms with fines of as much as 6% of their yearly global revenue for failing to tackle illegal content and disinformation or follow transparency rules. Regulators are considering whether sales from SpaceX, Neuralink, xAI and the Boring Company, in addition to revenue generated from the social network, should be included to determine potential fines against X, people familiar with the matter said, asking not to be identified because the information isn’t public.

These are all businesses privately owned by Elon Musk; Tesla, as a publicly traded company, is reportedly not being factored into the calculation. According to a Bloomberg source, the Commission is trying to decide if they should be penalizing the owner of the business and not the business itself.

Matt Levine, in Bloomberg’s Money Stuff newsletter:

See, you’re not really supposed to do that: X is its own company, with its own corporate structure and owners; 6% of X’s revenue is 6% of X’s revenue, not 6% of the revenue of Musk’s other companies. But if everyone thinks of the Musk Mars Conglomerate as a single company, then there’s a risk that it will be treated that way.

I can see how the penalty formula should not be stymied by carefully structured corporations. There should be a way to fine businesses breaking the law, even if their ownership is obfuscated.

But that is not what is happening here. As reported, this seems like an overreach to me. Even though Musk himself disregards barriers between his companies, as Levine also documents, a penalty for the allegedly illegal behaviour of X should probably be levied only against X.

⌥ Permalink

Jonathan M. Gitlin, Ars Technica:

Last night, after a wait of roughly an hour after the official start time, Elon Musk spoke to a crowd of Tesla fans and some journalists on a film studio backlot in California to give us an update on the company’s much-talked-about pivot to robotics. […]

[…]

After promising that “unsupervised FSD” is coming to all of Tesla’s five models — “now’s not the time for nuance,” Musk told a fan — he showed off a driverless minibus and then a horde of humanoid robots, which apparently leverage the same technology that Tesla says will be ready for autonomous driving with no supervision. These robots — “your own personal R2-D2,” he said — will apparently cost less than “$30,000” “long-term,” Musk claimed, adding that these would be the biggest product of all time, as all 8 billion people on earth would want one, then two, he predicted.

These announcements are almost certainly bullshit, and correctly contextualized by Gitlin. Mix the axiom “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” with the boy who cried “wolf!”, and the result is this media event — and that is without factoring in the usual Tesla sloppiness. These are three brand new products, all of which are purportedly future-defining, rambled about in the span of about thirty minutes on a random Thursday in October. Nothing is finished. Musk called two of the products “Cybercab” and “Optimus Robots”, but the company’s website refers to them as “Robotaxi” and “Tesla Bot”. Everything is hypothetical until proven otherwise.

The robot is particularly galling. The automotive industry has a long history of building humanoid robots: Honda’s ASIMO, Toyota’s Partner series, and General Motors’ work on NASA’s Robonaut 2. Some of these perform more specialized tasks. All of them have been around for a while. None of them are in widespread use. Tesla’s should be treated as an elaborate fiction until anyone outside the company can confirm even the most fundamental qualities it is claimed to possess.

Oh, and speaking of claims on the website, I want to address this:

To create a sustainable future, we must democratize transportation. We do this by making driving more efficient, affordable and safe. Autonomy makes this future possible, today.

Musk — for the featherweight of his words — said the Robotaxi would cost “less than $30,000” and be available “before 2027” — that is, to be clear, not “today”. If this thing ever ships, it will still require car-like infrastructure and ample space, even though it carries only two people.

Public transit, which is available today, is the very definition of democratized transportation, especially if it has been carefully considered for the needs of people with disabilities. It is inexpensive for end users, requires less space per person than any car, and has a beneficial feedback loop of safety and usage. I am not arguing the two cannot coexist; perhaps some of this stuff makes sense in low-density sprawl. But I have little confidence the future will look like Musk’s vision, or that Tesla will be delivering it. Why would anyone still believe this too-rich carnival barker who lies all the time?

⌥ Permalink

Jason Koebler, 404 Media:

Monday, Elon Musk tweeted a thing about Apple’s marketing event, an act that took Musk three seconds but then led to a large portion of the dwindling number of employed human tech journalists to spring into action and collectively spend many hours writing blogs about What This Thing That Probably Won’t Happen All Means.

Karl Bode, Techdirt:

Journalists are quick to insist that it’s their noble responsibility to cover the comments of important people. But journalism is about informing and educating the public, which isn’t accomplished by redirecting limited journalistic resources to cover platform bullshit that means nothing and will result in nothing meaningful. All you’ve done is made a little money wasting people’s time.

The speed at which some publishers insist these “articles” are posted combined with a lack of constraints in airtime or physical paper means the loudest people know they can draw attention by posting deranged nonsense. All those people who got into journalism because they thought they could make a difference are instead cajoled into adding something resembling substance to forty-four tweeted words from the fingers of a dipshit.

⌥ Permalink