Quite apart from the blatant corruption, if SpaceX's biggest problem is that its rockets keep exploding, how is an AI that you have deliberately designed to give wrong answers supposed to fix things?
Thanks to gutting NASA and science budgets, space is another area where the US will soon cede the top spot to China. They have fully developed plans for a lunar base, deep space exploration, and will likely be the next to have humans on the Moon.
BTW - to anyone who tries to argue this isn't outright corruption, via diverting and siphoning taxpayers money, I have NFTs and memecoins for a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to interest you in.
SpaceX to invest $2 billion in Musk's xAI startup, WSJ reports
Sure, and that's their choice. It's their money to invest, be they good investments or bad ones.
I'm not saying that funnelling money into xAI is a good idea. I happen to think it's a terrible idea, I would much rather that SpaceX not do that. But it's not corruption.
It's got a milestone-based contract with NASA for Artemis. It's paid to achieve milestones. So if it hasn't been making good progress it isn't getting paid.
If you think the contract could be better written then maybe that's on NASA to do a better job negotiating. It has nothing to do with Grok one way or the other.
I would much rather Musk get incinerated by one of his rockets. We don't care about the finer points of the legality or whatever. I am a communist and Musk should be hanged for crimes against humanity.
It's their money to invest however they want only if it comes with no strings attached, no obligations to use it for a specific purpose. We don't know if this is the case, so there's no basis to argue that they can do whatever they want with it.
What is corruption? It's a form of dishonesty that is undertaken by a person or an organization that is entrusted in a position of authority. That certainly seems to be the case here - not by SpaceX and xAi as such, but by Musk and his involvement in the government.
And Musk has everything to do with Grok.
So you're saying we don't have enough details to argue that they can spend the money however they want, but you can argue that they can't spend the money however they want?
No, that's not what I said. Do you have trouble with reading?
Right. That's exactly what I've been saying.
No, quite the opposite. You claimed that "It's their money to invest" without knowing if it's the case or not.
Guilty until proven innocent, I guess?