加密货币、人工智能重量级人物支持埃隆·马斯克收购推特

币界网Publicado em 2024-08-22Última atualização em 2024-08-22

币界网报道:

X、 Twitter(前身为推特)发布了一份之前未披露的股东名单,揭示了几家专注于加密货币的公司在2022年埃隆·马斯克以440亿美元收购该社交媒体平台中所扮演的角色。

该公司的股东名单于周三公布,以遵守法律命令。该文件列出了近100家实体,包括币安资本管理公司和几家专注于人工智能和加密货币投资的知名风险投资公司。其中包括Andreessen Horowitz(a16z)、ARK Venture和8VC。

A16z的投资组合包括领先的加密货币交易所Coinbase和加密货币银行Anchorage Digital,而ARK Invest持有股票和加密货币交易平台Robinhood和人工智能开发商Anthropic的股份。与此同时,PathAI和Cognition等人工智能公司是8VC投资组合的一部分。

股东名单还包括与富达有联系的近30家实体,富达拥有数字资产部门。

X没有立即回复Decrypt的置评请求。

虽然币安此前被披露是X的投资者,但该公司的大多数其他股东直到现在还不为公众所知。

周二,一名联邦法官迫使X公布股东名单。法官的命令是对非营利组织新闻自由记者委员会7月提出的一项动议的回应,该动议要求公布X的股东名单,该名单是2023年针对该公司的另一项法律案件的一部分。

2022年10月,马斯克以440亿美元收购了X,这是历史上最大的科技收购之一。

据路透社报道,这位亿万富翁承诺为这笔交易及其成交成本提供465亿美元的股权和债务融资,而摩根士丹利和美国银行等银行承诺提供130亿美元的债务融资。

然而,根据一项新的财务数据分析,这笔交易并没有像支持它的人希望的那样成功。

据《华尔街日报》周二报道,马斯克以440亿美元收购推特成为2008-2009年金融危机以来银行最糟糕的并购融资交易。这在一定程度上是因为该交易增加了130亿美元的“未偿债务”,这是一种银行在不产生损失的情况下无法轻易清偿的债务。

自2022年以来,X的财务状况一直很不稳定,因为大公司为了与所有者保持距离,减少了在社交媒体平台上的广告投放。马斯克长期以来一直因发表公开言论而受到批评,他的批评者称这些言论是反犹太主义、能人主义和充满政治色彩的。

据《纽约时报》报道,在马斯克收购之前,广告商的收入占X收入的近90%。本月早些时候,马斯克就涉嫌抵制X的广告提起诉讼。

Leituras Relacionadas

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbitHá 2h

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbitHá 2h

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbitHá 2h

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHá 2h

Trading

Spot
活动图片