391–400 of 1001 posts
This is going to be an interesting trial. Elon has a good case that OpenAI has long diverged from his founding principles. Sam and his friends can side with Microsoft to build a ClosedAI system like Google/Deepmind and Apple. There is a place for open research. StabilityAI and Mistral seem to be carrying that torch. I don’t think SamA is the right leader for OpenAI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From: Elon Musk To: Sam Altman Subject: AI Lab Agree on all On Jun 24, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Sam Altman wrote: 1. The mission would be to create the first general Al and use ti for individual empowerment ie, the distributed version of the future that seems the safest. More generally, safety should be a first-class requirement. 2. I think we'd ideally start with a group of 7-10 people, and plan to expand from there. We h…
Wait, Peter Thiel is/was heavily involved in YC?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually NVIDIA just took over Saudi Aramco, but they are sharing 3rd position.
I read this comment as "NVIDIA just took over Saudi Aramco" and was briefly confused in what could possibly be their reasoning for that acquisition?! Perhaps they decided to get some weird lower price on fuel for their gpus.... Anyways it was a brief but fun bit of confusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mental gymnastics that some tech bro has to go through to like Musk over Microsoft to the point that they still use the 2001 meme of "M$FT" is hilarious. I know just about everything I could ever need to know about both companies and I have tons, tons of friends who absolutely love and have been at "M$FT" for 5-20 years. I don't know a single person who likes working at Tesla or SpaceX and I used to live in Austi…
Glad you're not a figurative linux kernel contributor
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the public already considers non-profit = scam.
I don't think the public is quite that cynical, broadly. Certainly most people consider some non-profits to be scams, and some (few, I'd reckon) consider most to be scams. But I think most people have a positive association with non-profits as a whole.
I think the big NGOs are no longer effective because they are run as the same corporations they fight and are influenced by the same perverse incentives. Like eg Greenpeace.
But in general I think non profits are great and a lot more honorable than for profit orgs. I donate to many.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah - Had you donated the funds as "restricted funding" in the nonprofit parlance, they would have a legal requirement to use the funds as you had designated. It seems that Musk contributed general non-restricted funding so the nonprofit can more or less do what they want with the money.. Not saying there's no case here, but if he really wanted them to do something specific, there's a path for that to happen and tha…
A non-profit is obligated to use any donated funds for its stated non-profit purpose. Restricted donations are further limited.
"OpenAIs mission is to build general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. OpenAI believes that artificial intelligence technology has the potential to have a profound, positive impact on the world, so our goal is to develop and responsibly deploy safe AI technology, ensuring that its benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible."
So as long as the Musk bucks were used for that purpose, the org is within their rights to do any manner of other activities including setting up competing orgs and for-profit entities with non-Musk bucks - or even with Musk bucks if they make the case that it serves the purpose.
The IRS has almost no teeth here, these types of "you didn't use my unrestricted money for the right purpose" complaints are very, very rarely enforced.
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.
Isn't this how drugs get developed? Even worse, the research is done using public funds, and then privatized and commercialized later.
For a promise to be enforceable in contract, it has to be definitive. There's nothing definitive here.
For a representation to be fraudulent, it has to be false or misleading and relied upon as material. Courts don't treat a later change of heart as making earlier statement false, and since Altman arguably knew less than Musk at the time, it's unlikely to be material.
More generally, investors lose all the time, and early minority investors know they can be re-structured out. These investments are effectively not enforced by law but by reputation: if you screw an investor, you'll lose access to other investors (unless your investor tribe is, well, tribal).
The detail and delay that evolved in law for the sake of truth and legitimacy is now being deployed for the sake of capturing attention and establishing reputation.
Musk's investment in twitter has been a catastrophe from an investment and business standpoint, but has amplified his icon status with king-maker aspects through control of attention in our attention-based economy and politics. If he can lead the charge against AI, he can capture a new fear and resentment franchise that will last for generations.
Hence: posturing.
We burrowing mammals can hope the dinosaurs fighting might make life quieter for us, but that's just hope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the public is well aware that “non profit” is yet another scam that wealthy elites take advantage of, not available in the same way to the common citizen.
Or at least not available to the common citizen who does not have the $50 incorporation fee