This is a non-story; for those who haven’t read them, prospectuses include every potential risk under the sun. There will be risks that never make the news alongside the exciting backlash.
“Everyone hates us and the very fundamentals of what we are promising, will fight to prevent us establishing infrastructure, may pass laws to limit our activities in their states, and will extend that hatred to our major investors, potentially materially damaging their businesses” is not a common thing in an IPO prospectus, I imagine, for quite obvious reasons.
But that is the gist of the situation is it not? If it’s an honest statement, it is going to say something like this.
Which prospectus got close to anything like this? People hate SpaceX products less.
I'm sure you can find similar stuff in the prospectuses of many controversial companies spanning oil, cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, adult entertainment, guns, gambling, defense, etc... Anything someone is trying hard to ban.
I was thinking maybe Uber but I was not sure it could have been that bad. They would have had states pushing back but against a very popular product with users.
But Airbnb, good point: they would have talked about the risks of states curtailing their businesses.
It’s still a very unusual level of hatred, I would say.
I think there’s a genuinely huge divisive opinion on AI companies. We don’t see this due to our particular industry echo chambers but really the majority of society has bigger problems and this offers them no solutions and threatens to take their lifelines away.
Divisive technology leads to hate. Flock as well which is an us and them. Same mindset.
We are not as popular as we think we are. I know which side of the fence I want to be on.
Uber called out that they were aggressively doing an end run around both taxi licensing AND minimum wage laws and facing significant pushback on both fronts, among many other risks.
And both have been damaging to society. And are getting fined and chased out of certain countries.
Why would you throw investment in this unless you’re just leveraging the growth in the time it takes for regulatory issues to appear? Which is terribly unethical.
Wall to wall bastards. I’d rather die poor than contribute to the further decline of society.
"Our AI products and X platform are subject to complex and evolving U.S. and foreign laws and regulations regarding privacy, cybersecurity, data use, data combination, data protection, content, AI, competition, youth protection, safety, consumer protection and notification, advertising, e-commerce, sanctions, export controls, and other matters. Many of these laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and we could be required to make changes to our products and business practices, and be exposed to monetary penalties, increased cost of operations, declines in user growth or engagement, or loss of customers, or other harm to our AI products and X platform. "
"Certain of our AI products, including Grok, offer features or modes designed to generate more candid, direct, or less reserved or irreverent outputs, such as “Spicy” Imagine Mode and “Unhinged” Voice Mode. These features are intended to provide users with greater flexibility and control in how they use our tools. Because these modes may be more irreverent and harsher than our standard offerings, they present heightened risks, including reputational harm, the generation of potentially explicit content and misinformation or deceptive outputs, potential nonconsensual or exploitative imagery, intellectual property infringement, or content that could be viewed as exploitative, harmful, harassing, abusive, or discriminatory. The availability of such features may also increase the risk of regulatory scrutiny, enforcement actions, litigation, or claims of harm, as well as reputational damage, user or advertiser backlash, or limitations on our ability to distribute or monetize our products in certain jurisdictions or through certain partners."
Or the wonderful:
"We, Mr. Musk, and other companies Mr. Musk is affiliated with frequently receive an immense amount of media attention. The actions and statements of Mr. Musk and his affiliated ventures, whether or not directly relating to us, may draw significant public attention and scrutiny to us and could potentially have a positive or negative impact on our business, relationships with customers and regulators, or stock price."
negative sentiment towards AI and data centers will be listed as a risk factor
The fact that the technology can "hallucinate" and is unreliable is not just a "sentiment" --- it is a well established fact. And it is more than a risk, it is virtually guaranteed to happen if you use it repeatedly.
Calling it "sentiment" is like an "alternative fact".
And water. And oligarchs relations to Trump administration. And it way AI was forced everywhere. And how they get massive investments while rest of economu suffers. And doomtrolling. And how unappealing their culty vision of the world is. And plan to create monopoly. And how they claim to be creating doom machine.
Like ... basically everyone can pick their reason to hate.
its a bit sad that the public can't grasp tools that have high variance but still end up being useful. lots of things in real life follow the same pattern yet when it comes to AI..
Tell that to graphic designers as do you think that's a career a student going into college should pursue? Same with web design and web development.. like would you tell a freshman in college to pursue those degrees vs. medical stuff and or skip college altogether, rather pick up tools to help build those data centers?
Using your example --- as far as "risk" to the public is concerned, which would be more pertinent info --- the fact that this person is a murderer or your low opinion?
Public opinion, or popular opinion, is the collective opinion on a specific topic or voting intention relevant to society. It is the people's views on matters affecting them (From Wikipedia)
It has nothing to do with fact. It broadly represents peoples views, factual or otherwise.
This is a non-story; for those who haven’t read them, prospectuses include every potential risk under the sun. There will be risks that never make the news alongside the exciting backlash.
“Everyone hates us and the very fundamentals of what we are promising, will fight to prevent us establishing infrastructure, may pass laws to limit our activities in their states, and will extend that hatred to our major investors, potentially materially damaging their businesses” is not a common thing in an IPO prospectus, I imagine, for quite obvious reasons.
But that is the gist of the situation is it not? If it’s an honest statement, it is going to say something like this.
Which prospectus got close to anything like this? People hate SpaceX products less.
"Everyone hates us but they can't have enough of us. Our revenue can't stop rising"
Anthropic's credit line is now $10B - [0], and the IPO is expected to beat or match SpaceX - [1]
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/anthropic-p...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-20/anthropic...
I'm sure you can find similar stuff in the prospectuses of many controversial companies spanning oil, cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, adult entertainment, guns, gambling, defense, etc... Anything someone is trying hard to ban.
Why is AI in the category of oil, cigs, and beer? Its software ....
Social media and gaming companies probably have it too
Uber and Airbnb both had similar risks in their S1s, for obvious reasons.
I was thinking maybe Uber but I was not sure it could have been that bad. They would have had states pushing back but against a very popular product with users.
But Airbnb, good point: they would have talked about the risks of states curtailing their businesses.
It’s still a very unusual level of hatred, I would say.
I think there’s a genuinely huge divisive opinion on AI companies. We don’t see this due to our particular industry echo chambers but really the majority of society has bigger problems and this offers them no solutions and threatens to take their lifelines away.
Divisive technology leads to hate. Flock as well which is an us and them. Same mindset.
We are not as popular as we think we are. I know which side of the fence I want to be on.
Uber called out that they were aggressively doing an end run around both taxi licensing AND minimum wage laws and facing significant pushback on both fronts, among many other risks.
And both have been damaging to society. And are getting fined and chased out of certain countries.
Why would you throw investment in this unless you’re just leveraging the growth in the time it takes for regulatory issues to appear? Which is terribly unethical.
Wall to wall bastards. I’d rather die poor than contribute to the further decline of society.
They have but this reply was a fully fair answer to my point; perhaps there are more.
The non-story part is that they would include this risk even if it were 5 people.
I could easily find 5 people who hate SpaceX and yet that wasn’t mentioned as a risk
I think you’re going to have to provide evidence that this is a commonly documented risk
"Our AI products and X platform are subject to complex and evolving U.S. and foreign laws and regulations regarding privacy, cybersecurity, data use, data combination, data protection, content, AI, competition, youth protection, safety, consumer protection and notification, advertising, e-commerce, sanctions, export controls, and other matters. Many of these laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and we could be required to make changes to our products and business practices, and be exposed to monetary penalties, increased cost of operations, declines in user growth or engagement, or loss of customers, or other harm to our AI products and X platform. "
"Certain of our AI products, including Grok, offer features or modes designed to generate more candid, direct, or less reserved or irreverent outputs, such as “Spicy” Imagine Mode and “Unhinged” Voice Mode. These features are intended to provide users with greater flexibility and control in how they use our tools. Because these modes may be more irreverent and harsher than our standard offerings, they present heightened risks, including reputational harm, the generation of potentially explicit content and misinformation or deceptive outputs, potential nonconsensual or exploitative imagery, intellectual property infringement, or content that could be viewed as exploitative, harmful, harassing, abusive, or discriminatory. The availability of such features may also increase the risk of regulatory scrutiny, enforcement actions, litigation, or claims of harm, as well as reputational damage, user or advertiser backlash, or limitations on our ability to distribute or monetize our products in certain jurisdictions or through certain partners."
Or the wonderful:
"We, Mr. Musk, and other companies Mr. Musk is affiliated with frequently receive an immense amount of media attention. The actions and statements of Mr. Musk and his affiliated ventures, whether or not directly relating to us, may draw significant public attention and scrutiny to us and could potentially have a positive or negative impact on our business, relationships with customers and regulators, or stock price."
negative sentiment towards AI and data centers will be listed as a risk factor
The fact that the technology can "hallucinate" and is unreliable is not just a "sentiment" --- it is a well established fact. And it is more than a risk, it is virtually guaranteed to happen if you use it repeatedly.
Calling it "sentiment" is like an "alternative fact".
Not sure what you are talking about. The negative sentiment isn't about hallucinations, it is about job replacement and high electricity cost.
And water. And oligarchs relations to Trump administration. And it way AI was forced everywhere. And how they get massive investments while rest of economu suffers. And doomtrolling. And how unappealing their culty vision of the world is. And plan to create monopoly. And how they claim to be creating doom machine.
Like ... basically everyone can pick their reason to hate.
Isn’t data center water usage actually non-story?
its a bit sad that the public can't grasp tools that have high variance but still end up being useful. lots of things in real life follow the same pattern yet when it comes to AI..
...what? I don't think they're talking about hallucinations here, they're talking about public opinion.
Tell that to graphic designers as do you think that's a career a student going into college should pursue? Same with web design and web development.. like would you tell a freshman in college to pursue those degrees vs. medical stuff and or skip college altogether, rather pick up tools to help build those data centers?
Is it just an "opinion" if it is based on proven facts?
Yes. Let’s say I saw a person kill someone. That’s a fact, but my perception of them would be low; that is an opinion.
I think it’s really swell how the last 10 years have made it so the basic difference between fact and opinion is not totally obvious.
We're talking stated "risk" to the public.
Using your example --- as far as "risk" to the public is concerned, which would be more pertinent info --- the fact that this person is a murderer or your low opinion?
"Public Opinion" -
Public opinion, or popular opinion, is the collective opinion on a specific topic or voting intention relevant to society. It is the people's views on matters affecting them (From Wikipedia)
It has nothing to do with fact. It broadly represents peoples views, factual or otherwise.