This you?
> They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B.
In other words: the big number trumps the small number - QED.
> and zero on what it means to OpenAI-NP
Why do you believe OpenAI-NP wouldn't care about all the issues I raised?
> > They can either have $40B in OpenAI equity or $97B.
> In other words: the big number trumps the small number - QED.
Yes those are words I used to describe a factual choice they have. Following that are a lot more words that dive deeper into that discussion. Here's how I summarized my initial point in the TL;DR on my ultimate parent post:
"Musk is trying to force OpenAI to value OpenAI-NP's stake in OpenAI-P at a reasonable level which is far greater than the current $40B which will help Musk by potentially derailing OpenAI-P's goal to be spun off.
For people with smooth brains like me, I'll helpfully point out how this doesn't present Elon's offer as "an instant checkmate." The first word to note is "trying." This suggests it is an attempt to do something that is not guaranteed to result in a win (ie a "checkmate"). The second word is "potentially" which again reinforces the case that this does not guarantee Elon achieves the stated goal (ie is not "checkmate").
> Why do you believe OpenAI-NP wouldn't care about all the issues I raised?
My prior post raised all sorts of reasons and you seem to have decided to ignore them to build strawmen.
Yes. I responded directly to that comment, acknowledged it as interesting, but stated that there are obvious reasons why this fact - that you are building your entire argument around - isn't the primary concern in this transaction. In exchange, you offered me feigned disbelief that all the insanity surrounding Musk isn't totally distorting the economic incentives at play.
> Following that are a lot more words that dive deeper into that discussion
Following that are a lot more words saying the same thing over and over again:
> ...either $40B of equity or $97B of cash.
97 bigger than 40
> in the scenario where they chose the $40B in OpenAI equity, they are eschewing $97B with which they can achieve their mission
if they choose 40 they are eschewing 97 (which is bigger than 40)
> but in this case they get to deploy $97B of capital to their goals.
In this case, rather than having 40 to put towards their goals, they have 97, 97 of course being higher than 40.
> My prior post raised all sorts of reasons and you seem to have decided to ignore them to build strawmen.
It's not a strawman, it's essentially the only thing you've had to say this entire thread. If an executive order is passed to make 40 greater than 97 your entire argument completely dissipates.
