211–220 of 1001 posts
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
The defendant list is a bit bewildering. How usual is a corporate structure like this? Which, if any of these, is the nonprofit? OPENAI, INC., a corporation, OPENAI, L.P., a limited partnership, OPENAI, L.L.C., a limited liability company, OPENAI GP, L.L.C., a limited liability company, OPENAI OPCO, LLC, a limited liability company, OPENAI GLOBAL, LLC, a limited liability company, OAI CORPORATION, LLC, a limited liab…
The NYT lawsuit lists the same organizations: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20... According to https://openai.com/our-structure the non-profit is "OpenAl, Inc. 501(c)(3) Public Charity".
It explains at least three of the entities, but I do wonder about the purpose of some of the other entities. For example, a limited partnership is quite odd to have hanging around, I'm wondering what part it plays here.
The cynic in me believes this is motivated by not Musk's love for the "mission", but by xAI, his attempt to build OpenAI's competitor. I'm guessing this is just a way to weaken a competitor.
This requires less cynicism than seeing through that Putin invaded to denazify Ukraine, or that your corporate employer rewarded you with pizza because they care about you.
This is good news. OpenAI's recent decision to dive into the secretive military contracting world makes a mockery of all its PR about alignment and safety. Using AI to develop targeted assassination lists based on ML algorithms (as was and is being done in Gaza) is obviously 'unsafe and unethical' use of the technology: https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/perspective/20231212-un...
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
Wouldn't you have to prove damages in a lawsuit like this? What damages does Musk personally suffer if OpenAI has in fact broken their contract?
that AGI, instead of benefitting the whole world, in which Musk is a part of, will end up only benefitting Microsoft, which he isn't a part of?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can sue for many reasons. For example, when a party breaks a contract, the other party can sue to compel the contract to be performed as agreed.
Well Elon was forced to buy Twitter that way
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
The public has no idea what non-profits are and a lot of things that people call 'profit seeking ventures' (ie. selling products) are done by many non-profits.
I hear this all the time. As if the people working there shouldn't be paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The organization consists of the non-profit OpenAI, Inc. registered in Delaware and its for-profit subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC. (From Wikipedia)
A non-profit can have a for-profit subsidiary?
While I have no doubt everything in the complaint is correct, it's hard to see it as Elon being genuinely concerned about open and safe AI vs just having FOMO that he isn't part of it anymore and doesn't get to call the shots. For example his own AI startup is exactly as closed off and unregulated as OpenAI. Why is that not equally concerning?
I don't want to be in the position of defending Elon Musk, but in this case his complaint seems to be that OpenAI claims one thing and does another. If X.ai started out telling everyone it's for-profit and closed off, then it's not hypocritical at all for it to be that. It's something else, sure.