41–50 of 1001 posts
AI is going to continue to have incremental progress, particularly now in hardware gains. No one can even define what AGI is or what it will look like, let alone be something that OpenAI would own? Features progress is too incremental to suddenly pop out with "AGI". Fighting about it seems a distraction.
There's also no reason to believe that incremental progress in transformer models will eventually lead to "AGI".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's a donor to the OpenAi non-profit organization.
A donor usually is only able to say how his donation will be used. For example, if you donate to Harvard University, you can say the money will be earmarked for scholarships, but you don't get a say on how the university is managed. You can at best say you will no longer donate based on how the university is managed.
Allowing startups to begin as non-profits for tax benefits, only to 'flip' into profit-seeking ventures is a moral hazard, IMO. It risks damaging public trust in the non-profit sector as a whole. This lawsuit is important
Allowing startups to begin as non-profits for tax benefits, only to 'flip' into profit-seeking ventures is a moral hazard, IMO. It risks damaging public trust in the non-profit sector as a whole. This lawsuit is important
it's quite sad that the American regulatory system is in such disrepair that we could even get to this point. that it's not the government pulling OpenAI up on this bare-faced deception, it's a morally-questionable billionaire
Allowing startups to begin as non-profits for tax benefits, only to 'flip' into profit-seeking ventures is a moral hazard, IMO. It risks damaging public trust in the non-profit sector as a whole. This lawsuit is important
one could argue that they did R&D as a non-profit and now converted to for-profit to avoid paying taxes, but until last year R&D already got tax benefits to even for-profit venture
so there really is no tax-advantage of converting a non-profit to for-profit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A donor usually is only able to say how his donation will be used. For example, if you donate to Harvard University, you can say the money will be earmarked for scholarships, but you don't get a say on how the university is managed. You can at best say you will no longer donate based on how the university is managed.
You can sue for basically any reason in the US. If Musk is able to prove they are mishandling the money, which I think is debatable, then the case can proceed. Just because you donate money doesn’t mean the charity or nonprofit (or whatever OpenAi is), can do as they like. They may still be committing fraud if they are not using the money in the way that they claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A donor usually is only able to say how his donation will be used. For example, if you donate to Harvard University, you can say the money will be earmarked for scholarships, but you don't get a say on how the university is managed. You can at best say you will no longer donate based on how the university is managed.
You can sue for basically any reason in the US. If Musk is able to prove they are mishandling the money, which I think is debatable, then the case can proceed. Just because you donate money doesn’t mean the charity or nonprofit (or whatever OpenAi is), can do as they like. They may still be committing fraud if they are not using the money in the way that they claim.
(Not a lawyer, obviously.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would he have standing by having a company competing in the same space as OpenAI?
He would have the opposite of a standing, right? It seems he wants to slow down OpenAI so that his competing company can catch up.
I also found this: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
>Representative of its remedial objectives, the [Unfair Competition Law] originally granted standing to "any person" suing on behalf of "itself, its members, or on behalf of the general public." This prompted a public outcry over perceived abuses of the UCL because the UCL granted standing to plaintiffs without requiring them to show any actual injury. In response, California voters approved Proposition to amend the UCL to require that the plaintiff prove injury from the unfair practice. Despite this stricter standing requirement, both business competitors and consumers may still sue under the UCL.
[flagged]
He was probably high on something when the idea that AGI competes with Nerolink came to him. You know, the same way he decided trains are evil because they competes with his cars.
Allowing startups to begin as non-profits for tax benefits, only to 'flip' into profit-seeking ventures is a moral hazard, IMO. It risks damaging public trust in the non-profit sector as a whole. This lawsuit is important
I think the public already considers non-profit = scam.