561–570 of 1001 posts
Is this a wise move for Musk? What if Altman unveils a true AGI that ultimately takes control of the world’s systems and exacts revenge on anyone who has tried to stop its existence?
Is this a wise move for Musk? What if Altman unveils a true AGI that ultimately takes control of the world’s systems and exacts revenge on anyone who has tried to stop its existence?
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?
The exact amount will be argued but it will likely be in the billions given OpenAI’s recent valuations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I think for a governance structure, we should start with 5 people and I'd propose you, [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and me. Technology would be owned by the foundation and used "for the good of the world", and in cases where it's not obvious how that should be applied the 5 of us would decide." You can find the number of letters of the redacted text and then guess who they are. It's fun!
> "for the good of the world", and in cases where it's not obvious how that should be applied the 5 of us would decide." It's hard not to be a bit cynical about such an arrangement.
Microsoft first invested in OpenAI in 2019, which is when they changed their corporate structure. It's now 2024. If Musk had some ideological issue with OpenAI's new corporate structure then why didn't he sue right away?
OpenAI was still effectively sharing their research until last year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way to truly make a ton of wealth is to break rules that others follow.
This statement represents the complete disintegration of the optimism that ruled in the 90s and before when we ardently believed that networking and communication amongst people would increase understanding and improve lives by ensuring no one would be cut off from the common wisdom and knowledge of humanity. While robber baron economics certainly appeal to a lot of robber barons, the twentieth century pretty decisiv…
Parallel to this was the complete disintegration of the understanding that ruled during the Progressive Era, when we believed you don't sell half your country's economy to a handful of megacorporations[0]. The real growth that came from switching from analog[2] landlines to Internet ran out in the mid 2000s, because most people had it, while consolidation kept on going up until 2020 when we realized, "shit, we're locked in a box with Facebook and TikTok now".
In the late 2000s, there was a shift in the kinds of businesses venture capitalists funded. They can be classified as one of two things:
- Creating a target for a big tech acquisition that will get the VCs their exit
- Flagrantly violating an established rule or law and calling it "disruptive"
The last bit is almost a sort of parody of the post-AT&T boom. Surely, if we squint, AT&T and the US government are both monopolies[3], so they're both fair game to 'disrupt'. Shareholder fraud is pretty ubiquitous in large companies[4], but AI is also based on several more instances of "hope the law goes unenforced". e.g. the whole usefulness of all this AI crap is specifically based on laundering away copyright in a way that lets OpenAI replace the entire creative industry without actually getting rid of the monopolies that made the creative industry so onerous for the public.
"Laws for thee but not for me" is the key point here. Uber and Lyft violate taxi medallion rules, but they aren't interested in abolishing those rules. They just wanted (and got) special carve-outs for themselves so they'd have a durable advantage. If they had just gotten those rules removed, there'd be competitive pressure that would eat their profits. To be clear, I'm not alleging that Uber and Lyft actually are profitable businesses - they aren't - but their ability to access capital markets to continue losing money is predicated on them having something monopoly-shaped. Every pirate wants to be an admiral, after all.
[0] English for chaebol[1]
[1] Korean for zaibatsu
[2] Yes I know ISDN existed sshhh
[3] To be clear, the US government is not a moral high star, but they have democratic controls that other monopolies do not. Voting in a government is granted to all citizens on a one person, one vote basis. Voting in a corporation is one dollar, one vote - i.e. not a democracy.
[4] Example: big tech's complete refusal to break down business profits by line of business despite clear SEC rules against that
This suit claims breach of the "Founding Agreement". However, there is no actualy Founding Agreement, there are email communications claimed to be part of a "Founding Agreement". IANAL, but I would suspect that these emails don't matter for much now that there are Ariticles of Incorporation. Those articles are mentioned, but the "Founding Agreement" implied by emails is mentioned more. The suit also seems alarmist by…
It likely depends on what constitutes a valid contract in this jurisdiction. For example, some states recognize a "handshake agreement" as a legally-binding contract, and you can be taken to court for violating that agreement. I'm certain people have been found guilty in a legal context because they replied to a email one way but acted in the opposite manner. The Articles of Incorporation are going to be the key lega…
Subject to limits on specific kinds of contracts that must be reduced to writing, all US jurisdictions (not just some states) recognize oral contracts provided that the basic requirements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, etc.) are present.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they are non-profit, they do not make billions in profits. I suspect you mean revenue :) Exec compensation is another thing, but also not a concern I am super sympathetic to given that for profit companies of similar magnitude generally pay their execs way more they just are not required to report it.
> If they are non-profit, they do not make billions in profits Wrong. Non-profits are not called that because they don't make profits, they are called that because they don’t return (even as a future claim) profits to private stakeholders.
If OpenAI became a non-profit with this in its charter: “resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person" I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.
yeah, the lawyers will have the whole case on those two words: "where applicable"