OpenAI rejects $97.4 billion bid from Musk, asserts company is not for sale

The recent opening rejected a $97.4 billion bid by a consortium led by billionaire Elon Musk for ChatGpt makers, stating that the startup is not up for sale.

This unsolicited offer is Musk’s latest attempt to thwart a startup co-founded with CEO Sam Altman.

“Openai is not for sale. The board unanimously turned down this latest attempt to disrupt Musk’s competition. Openai emphasized that their mission is to ensure that AGI benefits humanity and mentioned the possibility of a reorganization as a nonprofit organization.”

Altman confirmed in an interview with Axios that Openai is not for sale, and he responded to Musk’s offer with a simple “no thanks,” prompting Musk to call him a “swindler.”

A consortium, including Musk-led AI startup Xai, stated that they would withdraw their bid for Openai’s nonprofit status if plans to become a for-profit organization were removed, as per a court application filed on Wednesday.

Two days ago, the consortium introduced new terms in the proposal through a court filing. The filing exposed that the client’s “published ‘bids’ were not actual bids at all.” The Openai board communicated their position to Musk’s lawyer on Friday.

Other investors in the consortium include Valor Equity Partners, Baron Capital, and Hollywood Power Broker Ari Emanuel.

Altman and Musk have been in conflict for several years.

After Musk’s departure in 2019, Openai established a for-profit division that attracted significant fundraising, leading Musk to claim that the startup was deviating from its original mission and focusing more on profits than public good.

Musk filed a lawsuit against Altman, Openai, and their major supporter Microsoft in August last year on grounds of breach of contract.

In November, Musk requested a preliminary injunction from a US district judge to prevent the transition to a for-profit structure.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk asserts influence in Washington by vetoing spending bill | Elon Musk

Elon Musk utilizes his social media platforms and threat to spend millions against Republicans in primaries to advocate for a bipartisan Congressional spending bill to keep the government running, but the bill was diluted. House Republicans rushed to create a new deal after Musk’s initial failure. The revised agreement provided funding for several months while suspending the debt limit at Trump’s request, but it did not pass in the House of Representatives.

Musk, the world’s richest man, played a significant role in the 2024 election, supporting Trump and spreading right-wing rumors. He criticized the spending bill on social media, misrepresenting its contents and impact. Trump and Vice President-elect Vance opposed the bill, but Musk’s public opposition was more prominent.

Musk urged the public to contact legislators to defeat the bill and celebrated its failure as a victory for the people. While he has no formal role in the Trump administration, he wields significant influence over the party and future president through his organization.

The incident exemplifies Musk’s influential role in using social media to attack opponents and influence public opinion. He vowed that no legislation should pass until Trump takes office and pledged to hold dishonest politicians accountable.

Congressional Republicans largely supported Musk, with Senator Rand Paul suggesting him as Speaker of the House. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene also expressed openness to the idea. Democrats criticized Musk’s influence and power, with Congressman Pocan creating images depicting Musk controlling Trump.

Musk spread misinformation about the bill, falsely claiming lawmakers would receive a significant pay raise. Fact-checks have disproven these claims, but Musk continued to mislead on social media. Republican Rep. Crenshaw was also caught in rumors about a pay increase, which he denied.

Musk responded to Crenshaw’s claims, emphasizing that Congress should only give raises with a balanced budget. Crenshaw advised Musk to verify sources before amplifying misleading information.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Google’s AI asserts it can create superior chips compared to human designers, but experts are skeptical

Can AI design chips that are more efficient than those made by humans?

Yuichiro Kayano/Getty Images

Google DeepMind says its artificial intelligence is already helping design chips used in data centers and even smartphones. But some chip design experts are skeptical of the company’s claims that these AIs can plan new chip layouts better than humans.

He said the new method, dubbed AlphaChip, can design “superhuman chip layouts” in hours, rather than relying on weeks or months of human effort. anna goldie and Azaria Mirhoseiniaccording to researchers at Google DeepMind. blog post. This AI approach uses reinforcement learning to figure out relationships between chip components and receives rewards based on the quality of the final layout. However, independent researchers say the company has yet to prove that such AI can outperform expert human chip designers or commercial software tools, and they say they are unable to demonstrate that such AI can outperform expert human chip designers or commercial software tools, and that they believe that current state-of-the-art The company hopes to test AlphaChip’s performance on public benchmarks that include cutting-edge circuit designs.

“If Google provides experimental results for these designs, we’ll be able to make a fair comparison, and we hope everyone will accept the results,” he says. patrick madden At Binghamton University in New York. “Experiments take a day or two to run at most, and Google has nearly infinite resources. The fact that these results aren’t being provided speaks volumes to me.” He declined to comment.

Google DeepMind’s blog post says: update Google for 2021 nature A journal paper about the company’s AI process. Since then, Google DeepMind says AlphaChip has helped design three generations of Google’s Tensor Processing Units (TPUs). TPUs are specialized chips used to train and run generative AI models for services such as Google’s Gemini chatbot.

The company also claims that its AI-assisted chip designs outperform those designed by human experts and are steadily improving. AI accomplishes this by reducing the overall length of wire needed to connect chip components. This could reduce the chip’s power consumption and increase processing speed. Google DeepMind also said AlphaChip created the layout for a general-purpose chip used in Google’s data centers, while also helping MediaTek develop a chip used in Samsung’s phones.

However, the code published by Google lacks support for common industry chip data formats, which suggests the AI method is currently more suited to Google’s own chips, it said. . Igor Markovchip design researcher. “We have no idea what AlphaChip is today, what it does or doesn’t do,” he says. “We know that reinforcement learning requires two to three orders of magnitude more computational resources than techniques used in commercial tools, and typically lags behind. [in terms of] result. “

Markov and Madden criticized the original paper controversial Claim that AlphaChip outperforms anonymous human experts. “Comparisons to unnamed human designers are subjective, non-reproducible, and very easily fooled. Although it is possible that the human designer is not trying hard enough or is underqualified. , there are no scientific results here,” says Markov. “Imagine if AlphaGo were reported to have won against an unknown Go player.”

In 2023, independent experts who reviewed Google’s paper revoked his nature An explanatory article that initially praised Google’s efforts. The expert is andrew kern At the University of California, San Diego, Public benchmarking efforts When we tried to replicate Google’s AI methods, we found that they could not consistently outperform human experts or traditional computer algorithms. The best approach was commercial software for chip design from companies like Cadence and NVIDIA.

“Reinforcement learning appears to lag significantly behind the state-of-the-art in every benchmark that would be considered a fair comparison,” Madden says. “I don’t think that’s a promising research direction when it comes to circuit placement.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Tesla asserts Elon Musk was awarded a $56 billion compensation package even though a judge found it to be invalid.

According to court documents released on Friday, Tesla Inc. states that Elon Musk has emerged victorious in a legal battle over his $56 billion compensation package. This victory comes after shareholders voted in favor of the pay, despite a judge previously setting it aside earlier this year.

The company’s submission comes following Tesla shareholders’ approval of his stock option package for 2018, conducted two weeks ago. This decision was made after a Delaware judge voided the compensation in January due to alleged mismanagement by Musk during negotiations and misleading shareholders about critical details.

The ongoing lawsuit has strained Musk’s relationship with Tesla, as the company grapples with declining sales and mounting competition. Musk has hinted at developing products outside of Tesla if he fails to secure a larger ownership stake.

In its proposal, Tesla has outlined to Delaware Chancery Court Judge Katherine McCormick how the final order should be drafted to implement her January ruling. The company argues that the order should declare “judgment is entered in favor of the defendants.”

Shareholders’ lawyers are urging the judge to uphold the previous ruling that invalidated Musk’s compensation package. They are seeking a directive for Tesla to issue billions of dollars in Tesla stock to cover legal expenses.

Tesla has suggested a fair fee of up to $13.6 million.

McCormick has instructed both parties to prepare briefs discussing the impact of the shareholder vote on the case and to schedule oral arguments on the matter in late July or early August.

Oral arguments on costs are set for July 8, with a decision likely to be reached after several weeks. Even if the January ruling remains unchanged, McCormick may acknowledge that the shareholder vote indicates little merit in winning the case, as Tesla shareholders appear to desire substantial compensation, which could undermine the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee claim based on the value they have provided by overturning the compensation packages.

Source: www.theguardian.com