Linda smith

61.2K posts

Linda smith banner
Linda smith

Linda smith

@lindasmith_X

Protecting Elon Musk's online presence from impersonators is my top priority, leveraging my cybercrime expertise to safeguard his digital identity.

Alabama, USA Katılım Aralık 2011
5.3K Takip Edilen11.2K Takipçiler
Linda smith retweetledi
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
Congrats to the @SpaceX Falcon Team!
English
741
1.2K
3.7K
564.7K
Linda smith retweetledi
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
This is how an economy actually works
Brivael@brivael

Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital. Cette phrase change tout. L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ? Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible. Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur. Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé. Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire. L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants. Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution. Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain. Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée. Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien. La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose. Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins. Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires. La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.

English
5.6K
18.8K
131.5K
78.8M
Linda smith retweetledi
Linda smith retweetledi
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
Scam Altman and Greg Stockman stole a charity. Full stop. Greg got tens of billions of stock for himself and Scam got dozens of OpenAI side deals with a piece of the action for himself, Y Combinator style. After this lawsuit, Scam will also be awarded tens of billions in stock directly. The fundamental question is simply this: Do you want to set legal precedent in the United States that it is ok to loot a charity? If so, you undermine all charitable giving in the United States forever. I could have started OpenAI as a for-profit corporation. Instead, I started it, funded it, recruited critical talent and taught them everything I know about how to make a startup successful FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. Then they stole the charity.
X Freeze@XFreeze

Interesting how it works Elon puts up his own money, rounds up the absolute best AI talent on the planet, leverages every connection he has to secure serious resources, and launches OpenAI in 2015 as a pure non-profit explicitly created to develop AI for the benefit of humanity, with zero profit motive and open research Then the “team” decides they want the bag They push Elon out, take control, and quietly flip the entire thing into a for-profit machine All while preaching the same sanctimonious lines on repeat: “We’re still mission-driven!” “AI for the good of humanity!” “We’d never abandon our principles!” The ultimate betrayal: Elon got zero equity. Not a single share. He funded it. He built the foundation. He got nothing while they turned his non-profit into their personal cash cow This is the level of betrayal and hypocrisy we’re dealing with And for the record.... this lawsuit doesn’t put a single penny in Elon’s pocket. Any win goes straight back to the non-profit to restore the exact mission he founded

English
10.6K
32K
187K
37.3M
Linda smith retweetledi
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
They stole a nonprofit. It’s not right.
English
9.5K
31.7K
275.6K
75.9M
Linda smith retweetledi
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
Long list
X Freeze@XFreeze

Scam Altman has a incredible track record for being a con artist I don't think anyone has a "former ally turned enemy" list this big with directly with people he worked with A massive new 18-month investigation dropped, revealing the full list of people who worked directly with Sam Altman and now openly say they don’t trust him - they call him a liar, manipulator, scam artist, and worse These are his co-founders, board members, top executives, and biggest partners. Not random haters: • Elon Musk (OpenAI co-founder) ➝ Betrayed the original nonprofit, open & safe AI mission and turned it into a closed profit machine What he says: Calls him "Scam Altman" and “Sam Altman lies as easily as he breathes” • Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI co-founder & former Chief Scientist) Why: Discovered Sam repeatedly lied about safety protocols and bypassed board oversight. What he says/did: Compiled 70+ pages of memos, Slack messages, and evidence proving Sam’s lies → helped fire him. Said he didn’t think “Sam is the guy who should have his finger on the button for AGI” • Dario Amodei (former OpenAI President, now Anthropic CEO) Why: Left because of Sam’s leadership and broken safety promises What he says: “The problem with OpenAI is Sam himself.” Called the company under Sam "mendacious” (full of lies) and compared it to Big Tobacco knowingly selling something dangerous. Accused him of a clear “pattern of behavior” • Helen Toner (former OpenAI Board Member) Why: Sam made it impossible for the board to do its job through constant deception What she says: He was “outright lying to the board” and created a “toxic atmosphere” of psychological pressure • Tasha McCauley (former OpenAI Board Member) Why: Complete loss of trust after years of the same behavior What she says: Senior leaders reported Sam cultivated a “toxic culture of lying” • Jan Leike (former Superalignment co-lead) Why: Sam deprioritized real safety work for shiny products What he says: Resigned publicly saying he “lost confidence” in OpenAI leadership and that the company was “losing its way” on alignment • Mira Murati (former CTO - one of Sam’s closest longtime collaborators) Why: Lost all confidence in his leadership as they approached AGI What she says: Told insiders “I don’t feel comfortable about Sam leading us to AGI” and said his playbook is to say whatever he needs to get what he wants, and if that fails, destroy your credibility • Microsoft executives (including major tensions with CEO Satya Nadella) Why: Felt constantly misled on deals and partnerships What they say: A senior exec warned he could be remembered as a “Bernie Madoff or Sam Bankman-Fried-level scammer” • Paul Graham (Y Combinator co-founder - Sam was YC President) Why: Long pattern of deception during his time running YC What he says: Privately told YC colleagues, “Sam had been lying to us all the time" • Loopt board & early employees (Sam’s first startup) Why: History of chaotic and deceptive behavior What they did: Employees went to the board twice trying to get him fired over lack of honesty and shady behavior These are his co-founders, board members, closest executives, and major partners who actually worked with him all say the exact same things - chronic lying, manipulation, broken trust, toxic culture, scam & deception

English
3.2K
10.3K
61.5K
21.5M
Linda smith retweetledi
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
Yup
SophieZX@Z_XSophie

He is “Scam Altman”. Why? Because the pattern is obvious. • Founded OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit “for humanity” — Elon left in 2018 when it started going closed and profit-first. Now it’s basically a Microsoft subsidiary chasing billions while pretending it’s still open. • In 2023 the entire board fired him. Their words: “not consistently candid in his communications.” That’s corporate for “we can’t trust a word he says.” • Ilya Sutskever compiled 70 pages of internal docs — Slack messages, HR records — and the first line was “Sam exhibits a consistent pattern of… Lying.” • He lied to the board about safety reviews. Told them GPT-4 features were approved — they weren’t. Pushed product launches without proper checks. • Promised safety teams huge compute for alignment — they got scraps while the money went to shiny products. Top safety people quit saying the company went “off the rails.” • This isn’t new. Got pushed out of his first startup for “deceptive and chaotic behavior.” Same story at Y Combinator. • Uses harsh NDAs to silence ex-employees. Pits people against each other. Says whatever keeps him in power. The guy now running OpenAI has a long, documented history of not being straight with the people who are supposed to watch him. That’s why “Scam Altman” sticks. The New Yorker piece just put receipts on what Elon’s been saying for years. Read the article if you can. The stakes are too high for anything less than total honesty at the top.

QST
1.5K
4.1K
27.3K
38.3M