There's a lot of negativity here, but tbh, it makes complete sense. Grok and X are really tightly integrated already, and it was strange that they were separate enterprises to begin with. That part was odd.
The negativity is because he's using investor money in xAI in a related party transaction. He's negotiating both sides of the sale and it's not at all obvious the transaction price is a good or real price for Twitter. It may make sense to merge the two, but this is an unethical way to make a deal and I think it is likely the xAI investors are getting screwed.
I can understand that angle, but TBH, I have a hard time caring. They aren't a public company, and their private shareholders aren't lacking for resources to fight if they disagreed with this choice.
Oh yeah I totally agree with that framing. I find this fascinating intellectually because of the deal dynamics and worthy of critique but agree that the tone of some of the commentary is a bit silly. It's a really unethical thing to do, but it's all private capital and everyone with exposure knowingly made the choice to go into business with Musk. They can sue and definitely will win if Musk did cross any legal lines.
What makes it unethical? For all we know, the private investors are all in agreement on this. Musk tends to take capital from investors that he is on very good terms with. There's most likely a lot of overlap between investors of both companies.
Nearly the same thing as Google search can at this point, but maybe a better job of it. It isn't people's default choice at this point, but I'm having a hard time imagining people not trending toward it (or a competitor) over time.
And right now, Gemini's public models aren't cutting it.
$80B for Twitter+Grok is potentially a bargain, but it all depends on execution.
Fixing it isn't odd.