Archive for the ‘Elon Musk’ Category

Who is Elon Musk and what is his net worth? – Yahoo! Voices

It seems like not a day goes by without billionaire Elon Musk making headlines.

The boss of X (formerly Twitter), Tesla and SpaceX is the world's richest person and uses his platform to make his views known on a vast array of topics.

He is currently in the UK for a global summit on artificial intelligence.

Ahead of the event he said he thought AI could lead to humanity's extinction - without giving any detail on how he believed that could actually happen.

Since bursting on to the Silicon Valley scene more than two decades ago, the 52-year-old serial entrepreneur has kept the public captivated with his business antics.

Born in Pretoria, South Africa, Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12.

He has described his childhood as difficult, affected by his parents' divorce, bullying at school and his own difficulty picking up on social cues because of Asperger's Syndrome. At the earliest opportunity, he left home for college, moving to Canada and then the US, where he studied economics and physics at the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League college.

In a 2010 essay for Marie Claire, his first wife, Justine Musk, a writer whom he met in college and married in 2000, wrote that even before making his millions Mr Musk was "not a man who takes no for an answer".

"The will to compete and dominate, that made him so successful in business, did not magically shut off when he came home," she recalled, adding that he told her while dancing at their wedding, "I am the alpha in this relationship."

After being accepted to a physics graduate degree programme at Stanford University, Mr Musk quickly dropped out and founded two technology start-ups during the "dotcom boom" of the 1990s. These included a web software firm and an online banking company that eventually became PayPal, which was sold to eBay in 2002 for $1.5bn.

He ploughed his fortune into a new rocket company, SpaceX - which he aimed to make a cost-effective alternative to Nasa - and a new electric car company, Tesla, where he chaired the board until becoming chief executive in 2008.

The two firms are credited with upending their industries, even as they sometimes veered close to financial collapse.

More recent business ventures include his takeover of social media platform Twitter in October 2022.

Since then he has dramatically reduced the size of its workforce including, controversially, cuts to teams responsible for keeping the platform safe; rebranded the company as X; and introduced new premium subscriptions so that the business does not rely on advertising alone for income.

Mr Musk's long-term ambition is for X to become an "everything app" offering a range of services. However, so far the value of the firm has plunged from the $44bn he originally paid to just $19bn, according to reports.

He also has ambitions in the AI sector, being an early investor in ChatGPT's parent company, before parting ways and setting up his own company xAI in July, whose mission is "to understand the true nature of the universe".

"I'm never hugely convinced that he knows what he wants to do tomorrow," says journalist Chris Stokel-Walker. "He very much leads by instinct."

In a 2015 biography, author Ashlee Vance described Mr Musk as "a confrontational know-it-all" with an "abundant ego". But he also called him an awkward dancer and diffident public speaker.

Divorced three times - twice from the same woman, British actress Talulah Riley - Mr Musk is frank about his vices, regularly discussing his fondness for marijuana.

In the press, he's been dubbed both a mad genius and Twitter's biggest troll - known as much for his lofty ambitions as his petty fights, not to mention the more serious lawsuits he and his companies have faced from regulators, investors and others over issues such as racial discrimination and the trustworthiness of his claims.

"If you list my sins, I sound like the worst person on Earth," Mr Musk said in a TED interview last year. "But if you put those against the things I've done right, it makes much more sense."

All those contradictions appear to be part of his appeal - and it certainly hasn't stopped him from amassing a fortune.

Bloomberg and Forbes rank him as the world's richest person, estimating his net worth to be between $198bn (162bn) and $220bn (180bn), as of November 2023.

That's based largely on the value of his shares in Tesla, of which he owns more than 13%. The company's stock soared in value - some say unreasonably - in 2020 as the firm's output increased and it started to deliver regular profits.

The shares plunged at the end of last year, with some blaming the distraction of the Twitter takeover for the fall, though they have since recovered ground.

Mr Musk also champions digital currencies and has a hand in several other smaller companies, including tunnel-maker the Boring Company and experimental brain-computer start-up Neuralink.

Mr Musk, who wears the mantle of a workaholic proudly, has often said he's not in business simply to make money - claims he repeated recently with regard to his Twitter takeover.

"Elon only gets involved with things if he feels that they're critically important for some reason... for the sake of society or humanity," says friend and Tesla investor Ross Gerber.

Mr Musk, who became a US citizen in 2002, has resisted efforts to label his politics - calling himself "half-Democrat, half-Republican", "politically moderate" and "independent".

That doesn't mean he's shied away from political debate.

He has injected himself into some of the world's hottest geopolitical fights - suggesting that China should establish a "special administrative zone" in Taiwan, and proposing terms to resolve the war in Ukraine that were adamantly rejected by many of the country's top leaders.

While Mr Musk provided his Starlink satellite internet service to Ukraine, he has also attracted criticism for refusing an emergency request from Kyiv to activate Starlink in Sevastopol, home to a major Russian navy port.

In the US, he moved to Texas, complaining of California's regulations and high taxes; has clashed with union organisers; and, in the spring of 2020, decried coronavirus lockdowns as "fascist".

He was one of the first business executives to part ways with former President Donald Trump, quitting a White House business council after Mr Trump withdrew the US from a global climate agreement.

But he's also made it clear he's not a fan of President Joe Biden, whom he sees as snubbing Tesla while promoting electric vehicles.

He has said that he sees his businesses as a form of philanthropy, because they are focused on solving major human issues, such as climate change in the case of Tesla.

And despite his own interest in artificial intelligence, he has also been one of the most prominent figures worried about the supposed threat to humanity's future that super-intelligent AIs might pose.

He has claimed that the rise of artificial intelligence, combined with a declining birth rate, could result in "not enough people" being in the world.

Here, you can't accuse him of not doing his part.

Mr Musk has had 11 children - six with his first wife, three with Canadian singer Grimes, and two with Shivon Zilis.

Following the birth of his twins with Ms Zilis, he tweeted: "Doing my best to help the underpopulation crisis."

Additional reporting by Liv McMahon

See original here:

Who is Elon Musk and what is his net worth? - Yahoo! Voices

Elon Musk and Other AI Doomers Cause Meltdown – Gizmodo

Welcome to AI This Week, Gizmodos weekly roundup where we do a deep dive on whats been happening in artificial intelligence.

Did Elon Musk Regret Buying Twitter? | Walter Isaacson Interview

As governments fumble for a regulatory approach to AI, everybody in the tech world seems to have an opinion about what that approach should be and most of those opinions do not resemble one another. Suffice it to say, this week presented plenty of opportunities for tech nerds to yell at each other online, as two major developments in the space of AI regulations took place, immediately spurring debate.

The first of those big developments was the United Kingdoms much-hyped artificial intelligence summit, which saw the UKs prime minister, Rishi Sunak, invite some of the worlds top tech CEOs and leaders to Bletchley Park, home of the UKs WWII codebreakers, in an effort to suss out the promise and peril of the new technology. The event was marked by a lot of big claims about the dangers of the emergent technology and ended with an agreement surrounding security testing of new software models. The second (arguably bigger) event to happen this week was the unveiling of the Biden administrations AI executive order, which laid out some modest regulatory initiatives surrounding the new technology in the U.S. Among many other things, the EO also involved a corporate commitment to security testing of software models.

However, some prominent critics have argued that the US and UKs efforts to wrangle artificial intelligence have been too heavily influenced by a certain strain of corporately-backed doomerism which critics see as a calculated ploy on the part of the tech industrys most powerful companies. According to this theory, companies like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI are using AI scaremongering in an effort to squelch open-source research into the tech as well as make it too onerous for smaller startups to operate while keeping its development firmly within the confines of their own corporate laboratories. The allegation that keeps coming up is regulatory capture.

This conversation exploded out into the open on Monday with the publication of an interview with Andrew Ng, a professor at Stanford University and the founder of Google Brain. There are definitely large tech companies that would rather not have to try to compete with open source [AI], so theyre creating fear of AI leading to human extinction, Ng told the news outlet. Ng also said that two equally bad ideas had been joined together via doomerist discourse: that AI could make us go extinct and that, consequently, a good way to make AI safer is to impose burdensome licensing requirements on AI producers.

More criticism swiftly came down the pipe from Yann LeCun, Metas top AI scientist and a big proponent of open-source AI research, who got into a fight with another techie on X about how Metas competitors were attempting to commandeer the field for themselves. Altman, Hassabis, and Amodei are the ones doing massive corporate lobbying at the moment, LeCun said, in reference to OpenAI, Google, and Anthropics top AI executives. They are the ones who are attempting to perform a regulatory capture of the AI industry. You, Geoff, and Yoshua are giving ammunition to those who are lobbying for a ban on open AI R&D, he said.

After Ng and LeCuns comments circulated, Google Deepminds current CEO, Demis Hassabis, was forced to respond. In an interview with CNBC, he said that Google wasnt trying to achieve regulatory capture and said: I pretty much disagree with most of those comments from Yann.

Predictably, Sam Altman eventually decided to jump into the fray to let everybody know that no, actually, hes a great guy and this whole scaring-people-into-submitting-to-his-business-interests thing is really not his style. On Thursday, the OpenAI CEO tweeted:

there are some great parts about the AI EO, but as the govt implements it, it will be important not to slow down innovation by smaller companies/research teams. i am pro-regulation on frontier systems, which is what openai has been calling for, and against regulatory capture.

So, capture it is then, one person commented, beneath Altmans tweet.

Of course, no squabble about AI would be complete without a healthy mouthful from the worlds most opinion-filled internet troll and AI funder, Elon Musk. Musk gave himself the opportunity to provide that mouthful this week by somehow forcing the UKs Sunak to conduct an interview with him (Musk), which was later streamed to Musks own website, X. During the conversation, which amounted to Sunak looking like he wanted to take a nap and sleepily asking the billionaire a roster of questions, Musk managed to get in some classic Musk-isms. Musks comments werent so much thought-provoking or rooted in any sort of serious policy discussion as they were dumb and entertainingwhich is more the style of rhetoric he excels at.

Included in Musks roster of comments was that AI will eventually create what he called a future of abundance where there is no scarcity of goods and services and where the average job is basically redundant. However, the billionaire also warned that we should still be worried about some sort of rogue AI-driven superintelligence and that humanoid robots that can chase you into a building or up a tree were also a potential thing to be worried about.

When the conversation rolled around to regulations, Musk claimed that he agreed with most regulations but said, of AI: I generally think its good for government to play a role when public safety is at risk. Really, for the vast majority of software, public safety is not at risk. If an app crashes on your phone or laptop its not a massive catastrophe. But when we talk about digital superintelligencewhich does pose a risk to the publicthen there is a role for government to play. In other words, whenever software starts resembling that thing from the most recent Mission Impossible movie then Musk will probably be comfortable with the government getting involved. Until then...ehhh.

Musk may want regulators to hold off on any sort of serious policies since his own AI company is apparently debuting its technology soon. In a tweet on X on Friday, Musk announced that his startup, xAI, planned to release its first AI to a select group on Saturday and that this tech was in some important respects, the best that currently exists. Thats about as clear as mud, though itd probably be safe to assume that Musks promises are somewhere in the same neighborhood of hyperbole as his original comments about the Tesla bot.

This week we spoke with Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, to get his thoughts on the much anticipated executive order from the White House on artificial intelligence. The Biden administrations EO is being looked at as the first step in a regulatory process that could take years to unfold. Some onlookers praised the Biden administrations efforts; others werent so thrilled. Jain spoke with us about his thoughts on the legislation as well as his hopes for future regulation. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

I just wanted to get your initial response to Bidens executive order. Are you pleased with it? Hopeful? Or do you feel like it leaves some stuff out?

Overall we are pleased with the executive order. We think it identifies a lot of key issues, in particular current harms that are happening, and that it really tries to bring together different agencies across the government to address those issues. Theres a lot of work to be done to implement the order and its directives. So, ultimately, I think the judgment as to whether its an effective EO or not will turn to a significant degree on how that implementation goes. The question is whether those agencies and other parts of government will carry out those tasks effectively. In terms of setting a direction, in terms of identifying issues and recognizing that the administration can only act within the scope of the authority that it currently has...we were quite pleased with the comprehensive nature of the EO.

One of the things the EO seems like its trying to tackle is this idea of long-term harms around AI and some of the more catastrophic potentialities of the way in which it could be wielded. It seems like the executive order focuses more on the long-term harms rather than the short-term ones. Would you say thats true?

Im not sure thats true. I think youre characterizing the discussion correctly, in that theres this idea out there that theres a dichotomy between long-term and short-term harms. But I actually think that, in many respects, thats a false dichotomy. Its a false dichotomy both in the sense that we should have to choose one or the otherand in fact, we shouldnt; and, also, a lot of the infrastructure and steps that you would take to deal with current harms are also going to help in dealing with whatever long-term harms there may be. So, if for example, we do a good job with promoting and entrenching transparencyin terms of the use and capability of AI systemsthats going to also help us when we turn to addressing longer-term harms.

With respect to the EO, although there certainly are provisions that deal with long-term harms...theres actually a lot in the EOI would go so far as to say the bulk of the EOdeals with current and existing harms. Its directing the Secretary of Labor to mitigate potential harms from AI-based tracking of workers; its calling on the Housing and Urban Development and Consumer Financial Protection bureaus to develop guidance around algorithmic tenant screening; its directing the Department of Education to figure out some resources and guidance about the safe and non-discriminatory use of AI in education; its telling the Health and Human Services Department to look at benefits administration and to make sure that AI doesnt undermine equitable administration of benefits. Ill stop there, but thats all to say that I think it does a lot with respect to protecting against current harms.

Here is the original post:

Elon Musk and Other AI Doomers Cause Meltdown - Gizmodo

Ron DeSantis will launch his presidential bid with Elon Musk on Twitter – NBC News

  1. Ron DeSantis will launch his presidential bid with Elon Musk on Twitter  NBC News
  2. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will kick off 2024 presidential bid with Elon Musk on Twitter  USA TODAY
  3. DeSantis Set to Announce 2024 Run on Twitter With Elon Musk  The New York Times

See the original post:

Ron DeSantis will launch his presidential bid with Elon Musk on Twitter - NBC News

Federal judge throws out shareholder lawsuit against Elon Musk over Twitter buyout – Automotive News

A judge dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Elon Musk that claimed he cheated Twitter shareholders several times last year in the course of buying the social media company for $44 billion.

In a decision on Monday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco said plaintiff William Heresniak lacked standing to sue because he challenged "wrongs associated with" Musk's buyout, not the fairness of the buyout itself.

Breyer said Heresniak did not show harm from Musk's belated disclosure of a 9.2 percent Twitter stake, which the suit said let him buy more shares at lower prices before the buyout was announced, or from the closing's taking place 1 1/2 months later than planned.

The judge also found no proof that Musk helped two friends then on Twitter's board, co-founder Jack Dorsey and Silver Lake private equity firm managing partner Egon Durban, breach their fiduciary duties by favoring their own and Musk's interests.

Breyer said letting Dorsey roll over his approximately $1 billion of Twitter shares into an equity stake in the new company merely reduced how much Musk had to pay at closing, and did not "improperly divert" money from other shareholders.

Heresniak's lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours.

Musk, the CEO of Tesla Inc., is the world's second-richest person, according to Forbes magazine.

Lawyers for Musk, two of his holding companies and Twitter did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a March 3 court filing, they called Heresniak's claims "a disjointed laundry list of - often irrelevant - grievances against Elon Musk."

Heresniak sued on May 25, 2022, one month after Twitter accepted Musk's $54.20 per share buyout offer. The transaction closed on Oct. 27.

Twitter has since struggled to maintain ad revenue, with some advertisers expressing concern that loosened content rules could leave their ads associated with hate speech or other "wrong messages."

On May 12, Musk named former NBCUniversal advertising chief Linda Yaccarino as Twitter's new chief executive.

The case is Heresniak v Musk et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-03074.

Read the original post:

Federal judge throws out shareholder lawsuit against Elon Musk over Twitter buyout - Automotive News

Elon Musk dubbed ‘Karen Musk’ on Reddit over remote working comments – Business Insider

  1. Elon Musk dubbed 'Karen Musk' on Reddit over remote working comments  Business Insider
  2. You cant tell me this doesnt work: Shark Tanks Kevin OLeary has ripped apart Elon Musks claim that working from home is immoral  Fortune
  3. Elon Musk calls remote work morally wrong 'bullshit'  Business Insider

Read more from the original source:

Elon Musk dubbed 'Karen Musk' on Reddit over remote working comments - Business Insider