Elon Musk confirms he diverted 12,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs from Tesla to X

midian182

Posts: 9,870   +125
Staff member
What just happened? Elon Musk has confirmed reports that 12,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs intended for Tesla's EV production were diverted to X. Musk says logistical challenges were behind the diversion as Tesla "had no place to send the Nvidia chips to turn them on, so they would have just sat in a warehouse."

On Tuesday, CNBC reported that Musk had diverted the 12,000 H100s from Tesla to X, citing a memo from Nvidia staff. The publication wrote that by allowing privately held X to jump the line for the in-demand chips ahead of Tesla, he has potentially pushed back the EV maker's acquisition of $500 million worth of GPUs by months.

Musk said during Tesla's first-quarter earnings call in April that the company would be increasing its number of active H100s from 35,000 to 85,000 by the end of this year in order to transform the automaker into "a leader in AI and robotics." He added that Tesla would spend $10 billion "in combined training and inference AI, the latter being primarily in car."

But the emails from Nvidia employees paint a different picture. They point out that Musk's comments during the earnings call and on X "conflicts with bookings."

"Elon prioritizing X H100 GPU cluster deployment at X versus Tesla by redirecting 12k of shipped H100 GPUs originally slated for Tesla to X instead," an Nvidia memo from December reads. "In exchange, original X orders of 12k H100 slated for Jan and June to be redirected to Tesla."

Musk responded to the story in an X post, claiming that Tesla could not accept the Nvidia chips due to a lack of capacity as the Texas factory is incomplete. He added that the South extension of Giga Texas will house 50,000 H100 chips for FSD (Full Self-Driving) training.

In a separate post, Musk wrote that of the roughly $10 billion of AI-related expenditures Tesla will make this year, about half is internal, primarily for the Tesla-designed AI inference computer and sensors present in all its cars, as well as the Dojo supercomputer it is building. He added that the company will purchase $3-4 billion of Nvidia hardware this year.

Musk gave Tesla an ultimatum in January: increase his ownership in the company to 25% or he will cut back on its development of AI and robotics. He explained that without owning a quarter of Tesla, which he says is enough to be influential but not so much that he can't be overturned, he would prefer to build products outside of the automaker.

Permalink to story:

 
Another day, another anti-Musk hit piece from the Left. There is nothing in the anonymous email that "paints a different picture". Musk took 12K N100s that Tesla had and shipped them to X, in exchange for X's order for 12K N100s due Jan-June. Sitting on inventory like this is expensive, and both companies will benefit from the swap.

But hey -- when you enrage the fascist Left by releasing files demonstrating an illegal collusion between Twitter and the FBI to silence free speech, the gloves come off.
 
So. He wants to get Tesla shares, and to ensure he will get them, he is reducing Tesla capacity by magicaly moving stock from one separate company to another separate company. I wonder which company actually ordered those systems in the first place?
And sure, that is aaaall good. You dont want to give me 25% shares? no issue, but you remember the computers you ordered in order to get better position on market? Sorry, you wont get them. Unless you know what.

Apart of that one stuff is really bothering me. This manchild recently was complaining about meta using users data to train their AI. So... all this shipment to X doesn't mean they will be using X user data at all, does it? .... I'm sure all this processing power will be separate from X DB and just used for pacman simulation.
 
... he is reducing Tesla capacity by magicaly moving stock from one separate company to another separate company. I wonder which company actually ordered those systems in the first place?
Did you not read the article? Tesla ordered the original consignment, and X ordered the later one. But Tesla's manufacturing capacity is based on its factory space -- not its AI training prowess. Finally, the chips were sitting unused, due to delays in expanding their Texas facility. This benefits Tesla, as well as X. Unbooking that inventory for a few months saves both depreciation and taxes on inventory. In business, that's called a win-win.

So... all this shipment to X doesn't mean they will be using X user data at all, does it?
Of course it will. But, unlike Meta, Musk notified users of this:

"Sep 1, 2023 · Elon Musk's X tells users it could use their posts to train artificial intelligence models"
 
Last edited:
1. It's not N100s, but H100. You can't even get the basics rights. Just like all MAGA folks.
2. Contrary to your claims, Tesla will not benefit anything from the swap. And actually he loses the opportunity to potentially sell the chips at a surplus, even if it can't use them. Which could have been a convenient orchestration by Musk anyway.
3. Musk diverting the chips from a public company he's leading to a private company he owns, to the benefit of latter and potentially damaging the former, is a clear cut case of criminal misappropriation.

The sooner Musk gets locked up, the better for Tesla sharesholders, and for the world in general.
 
Contrary to your claims, Tesla will not benefit anything from the swap.
Of course Tesla will benefit. By immediately unbooking $500M of stock, Tesla avoids paying several months of taxes on them. Texas, like most states, taxes businesses on tangible personal property, including inventory, machinery, supplies, etc. Total taxes on those chips for a year comes to $25,290,000.00.

....And actually he loses the opportunity to potentially sell the chips at a surplus.
Except that the sales contract with NVidia specifically bars this -- not to mention the liability issues with selling half a billion dollars worth of technically "used" chips. The legal structure is a bit different than when selling your five-year old cpu on Ebay.

It's not N100s, but H100. You can't even get the basics rights. [sic]
Your point might have carried more weight without the spelling and grammatical errors.
 
Did you not read the article? Tesla ordered the original consignment, and X ordered the later one.
Don't you see what is wrong with that? Lets say Intel order some stuff, and Walmart order same stuff. And then a board member of intel says: "we have no space for it, lets send it to Walmart for now".
This is _very_weird. Those are not single, same companies or conglomerate. Different companies have different buying agreements. And, in the end, if a director of a company orders stuff for huge money which can't be used that is a huge mismanagement of company's funds and resources.
This might result in stock value change for Tesla, or in the planned development of a company. Tesla is not owned by Musk, but X is. You absolutely see no conflict of interest here?
 
The sooner Musk gets locked up, the better for Tesla sharesholders, and for the world in general.
Germany's far Left National Socialist Party -- aka the Nazis -- loved locking up their political opponents too. It didn't work out well for them in the end.

Lets say Intel order some stuff, and Walmart order same stuff. And then a board member of intel says: "we have no space for it, lets send it to Walmart for now".
This is _very_weird....
Weird only for someone without experience in business. Corporations often perform such barter-type inventory and asset swaps. Both sides benefit, and a veritable army of accountants will verify the deal conforms to GAAP.
 
Well there must be some good reason to dislike the guy for doing what he wants with his property. How DARE he
 
Godwin's Law! Just like Ye Olde Internete™. It's like nothing's changed, good times!
The OP wants a man imprisoned because he disagrees with him politically. There's no other way to describe that other than "fascist".

Tesla is not owned by Musk. Those GPUs are not his property, they're company property owned by the shareholders. Details matter.
And those shareholders have chosen Musk to represent their best interests. So far the vast majority of those shareholders support his actions here.
 
The OP wants a man imprisoned because he disagrees with him politically. There's no other way to describe that other than "fascist".

And those shareholders have chosen Musk to represent their best interests. So far the vast majority of those shareholders support his actions here.

Sure whatever, the Law was invoked. Go ahead and show where TSLA shareholders support this diversion of H100s from their company to another private company they have no interest in.
 
Last edited:
Germany's far Left National Socialist Party -- aka the Nazis -- loved locking up their political opponents too. It didn't work out well for them in the end.
The Nazi Party, officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), was a far-right political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that created and supported the ideology of Nazism.
 
Another day, another anti-Musk hit piece from the Left.
Ah yes, love this attitude. No one can say even one bad word about Musk, the Orange Clown, etc. because people like you immediately cry foul. Everything that doesn't agree with you or your ideology is automatically a hit piece from the Left. Why do you even come here? Shouldn't you be spewing your venom on Truth Social, Brietbart, and the other conspiracy laden dark recesses of the internet?
 
If I was a shareholder of Tesla but not X, I'd be very interested to know what the market value of immediate access to those chips was, and if that's about what X paid.
 
Tesla is not owned by Musk. Those GPUs are not his property, they're company property owned by the shareholders. Details matter.
Who makes the choices? He owns the company. Reality matters. Did all those stockholders get calls? Techspot is seeing what they can do to see they do. He is the boss for a reason. Maybe teach the world to sing rather than....
 
Who makes the choices? He owns the company. Reality matters. Did all those stockholders get calls? Techspot is seeing what they can do to see he does. He is the boss for a reason

No, the shareholders own the company. The CEO is their employee. If the law was as dumb as you seem to think it is, which fortunately it's not, every CEO on his or her last day could just write themselves a check for all the company's assets. That's just not how it works. If a CEO goes rogue and acts against the other shareholder's interests, there are criminal and civil remedies that may apply depending on the circumstance.

That's the general principle. I have no idea how big a conflict of interest this particular matter was or was not. If Musk transferred 1 billion dollars worth of chips for about 1 billion dollars worth of consideration, the shareholders don't have a lot of damages to recover even if the process looks funny. But if it's more like 5 billion dollars at current spot market rates vs. 1 billion dollars later down the line, then they've got a lawsuit.
 
Who makes the choices? He owns the company. Reality matters. Did all those stockholders get calls? Techspot is seeing what they can do to see they do. He is the boss for a reason. Maybe teach the world to sing rather than....

Lol, your cute aphorisms are irrelevant to the structure of a publicly traded company, go ahead and look that up if you need a refresher. Elon Musk does not own Tesla though he does own about 13% of its shares.

As the CEO he can certainly do lots of things and the vast majority of shareholders who actually own Tesla will let him know whether they like what he did or not.
 
Who makes the choices? He owns the company. Reality matters. Did all those stockholders get calls? Techspot is seeing what they can do to see they do. He is the boss for a reason. Maybe teach the world to sing rather than....

He most certainly does not own the company. In fact, he's been vocally unhappy about how little of it he owns after he hocked his shares to buy Twitter.

So much so that he threatened to take AI development to one of his other companies unless the Tesla board agreed to dilute everyone else's shares by awarding him new stock to make up for his Twitter loss and then some.

Aside from the fact that this move of training and inferencing equipment to X pretty much aligns perfectly with that threat, the whole thing really puts into question just how much of the current CEO of Tesla's focus is on the company and its shareholders rather than himself.
 
The Nazi Party, officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), was a far-right political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that created and supported the ideology of Nazism.
Learn history. Fascism has always been a far-Left political doctrine. Mussolini was a ultra-liberal socialist writer before founding his party with the "fasci": Italian Leftwing unionists. And Hitler's Party wasn't called National Socialism for nothing. The majority of the party's platform matches the "progressive" Left of today. The rise of National Socialism was **cheered** by Leftists in the US and Europe -- it wasn't until their atrocities came to light that the Left began attempting to rewrite history.

The official National Socialism pary platform included raising taxes on the wealthy, strengthening and expanding unions, a high minimum wage, strong regulation of corporations, laws against "unfair profits", nationalization of major industries, expanded access to abortion, free higher education for college students, and -- most of all -- a slavish desire to categorize people by race, not as individuals.

That's the platform of the DNC. There was nothing "right wing" about their ideology.
 
Germany's far Left National Socialist Party -- aka the Nazis -- loved locking up their political opponents too. It didn't work out well for them in the end.
And who's the dumb one bringing politics in this, because he has no logical arguments? ... Exactly. Also, Nazis were and are a right-wing party. You didn't know that either? Why am I not surprised?
 
Go ahead and show where TSLA shareholders support this diversion of H100s from their company to another private company they have no interest in.
Your argument fails for many reasons.
1. Your side is the one claiming Tesla was harmed and shareholders are upset. The onus is on you to provide proof.
2. Not one major Tesla shareholder has come forward to complain of this. The only ones "offended" are the usual anti-Musk suspects who own no Tesla stock and are outraged over his politics, not his business management.
3. Many past such hit pieces have falsely claimed Musk is hurting Tesla and "shareholders are outraged" -- yet those shareholders keep voting him back into the CEO office year after year. Why? Musk is the only person on Planet Earth ever able to turn a profit from manufacturing EVs. Fisker? Bankrupt. Rivian? Bankrupt. Ford, GM, Toyota -- their EV divisions have lost hundreds of billions, and are afloat only due to the profits from conventional vehicles.

But reason 4 trumps all. I've given a clear explanation why this move not only didn't harm Tesla, but benefitted the firm. No one has even attempted to rebut it. Why try to deny reality?


Exactly. Also, Nazis were and are a right-wing party. You didn't know that either?
As outlined above, the National Socialists espoused dozens of staple Left-wing political goals -- but not one single conservative one. No matter how many times you call them "right wing", the fact remains that, in both ideology, rhetoric and action, they were a far-Left party.
 
Your argument fails for many reasons.
1. Your side is the one claiming Tesla was harmed and shareholders are upset. The onus is on you to provide proof.

Let's follow your own logic and your own post. You posted:

And those shareholders have chosen Musk to represent their best interests. So far the vast majority of those shareholders support his actions here.

You made the claim of shareholder support. Therefore the onus is on you to provide proof. Those words might seem familiar.

And your BS assumption of 'sides' betrays preconceived notions here. I realize you are answering multiple people at once but stick to the topic instead of labeling people.
 
Back