@Anon99 including or not including mergers?

@jim

there might be a better way to get access to Anon99's decision on this

i wouldn't want to position myself such that I had undue influence on or unfair insight into the approach Anon99 will take in resolving this question

@jim wouldn't you have way less undue influence if you asked them directly vs let them see the market and your position on it before deciding

@Bayesian that's due influence not all influence is undue

@jim crookjim /s

@Anon99 does it include the valuation from the merges with spaceX + X? kinda seems against the spirit of the market but also maybe technically counts

@Bayesian technically correct is the best kind

@MattP thanks for cheap shares we will see though

i will also bet more at 90% if you want to

@Bayesian I mean, if this resolves NO on a SpaceX/xAI merger where the new company (whatever it is called) is valued more than openAI, it's malpractice. If those two merge, the combined entity Is "Elon Musk's AI company" as the question says (even if it takes the SpaceX name or some new third name).

@MattP we’ll see if that sticks in court sir

@MattP Title literally says “Will Elon Musk's AI Company (xAI)”

@SorenJ yes. Grammatically, the operative noun is "Elon Musk's AI Company" and the parenthetical is a clarification. If Elon Musk's (only) AI Company becomes known by a different name, that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

@MattP Grammaticaly the noun phrase is "Elon Musk's AI Company xAI." Paranthetical clarifications specify the exact noun that is being referenced. The question when written was referring to xAI.

@MattP I think it's not at all obvious that "Elon Musk's AI Company" would be an accurate description of the company post merger. It seems more likely that it would "Musk's Space Company, that does some AI stuff on the side".

@archvenison so by that logic, you're positing that after the merger, Elon Musk no longer has an "AI company"? (or even that "AI company (xAI)" no longer refers to any entity that still exists?)

Both those seem dubious to me - but even if true, should result in a resolution of N/A (because the question would no longer be coherent), not NO.

The only way this should resolve NO is if Elon Musk still has an AI company that is the subject of the question, but it is not worth more than OpenAI. Arguing that the merger invalidates the question is precisely that - arguing that the merger invalidates the question (i.e N/A resolution).

@MattP Yes I agree with “AI company (xAI)" no longer refers to any entity that still exists.”

Keep in mind Tesla also does AI stuff. Should this market have instantly resolved yes because Tesla’s market cap was larger at time of creation?

I agree it should N/A.

@MattP yeah basically if xAI gets folded into another larger company, I don’t think “Musk’s AI company” exists (and “Musk’s AI company (xAI) definitely doesn’t)

I think an N/A would be reasonable, since the spirit of the market becomes unknowable. But if we’re going on technicalities (or just really want to avoid N/As) then a nonexistent company clearly doesn’t exceed the value of one that exists.

Being saddled with twitter on it's balance sheet probably does not help, but maybe superintelligence can turn that ship around

yeah ngl this seems likely now

not 75% tho. openai still has the sauce

@Bayesian OA is going to zero. Only reason this isn't 100% is that xAI could conceivably go to zero first.

@Bayesian why does it seem likely?

@Siebe bc elon has near unlimited money and has a good rl team

@Bayesian most people think they're behind GDM, OpenAI, Anthropic on technical capability

https://x.com/peterwildeford/status/1896109027974922588?t=oCGlU9Qw2MDZlzakxoge4w&s=19

@Siebe Petwitter is sleeping on xai, but granted they have a smaller team. Very dense tho

i mean i could be wrong it’s kinda hard to tell. Plausibly they’re worst overall but top 1-2 in rl w anthropic and that’s what’s gonna end up mattering