XAI is the dictionary definition of a blue-chip nothingburger. Nobody wants their tax dollars going towards the bailout of an AI company that can't compete on merits alone. It's a dilution of SpaceX's valuation, if nothing else.
For all I know, SOTA model can be a copy with some additive work on Claude or OpenAI models.
So, if a very contentious personality is involved, is there any purpose or value in pointing out seriously flawed assumptions/POV/rationale?
Another example is the excessive divisiveness in politics, what would make discussions around those topics better? In my opinion, it would be better to rein in serious factual errors, even if the errors skew towards "my side"
Do we want to discuss this on merits, or are we concerned that the merit of the idea might undermine... checks clipboard ...commercial LLM businesses cashing R&D checks expensed by the US taxpayer?
The “taxpayer” (govt) pays SX a very low rate for launches, and gets an excellent product in return. In what way is the “taxpayer” being swindled?
You can argue that the dilution is good for taxpayers in the long-run (fat chance lol), or that SpaceX can survive the immediate aftermath (duh). But you cannot argue that XAI is a deserving company, because it never won a contract against it's competition. The demand is invented, simple as that.
Mind you, XAI couldn't even fund itself before the seed rounds. Both political admins will be looking at their SpaceX contracts with a renewed scrutiny, which Elon had better hope doesn't develop into a campaign for nationalizing SpaceX IP.
...who am I kidding, he was begging to become eminent domain the moment he put POTUS in his crosshairs. Au revoir, rocket man.