571–580 of 1001 posts
OpenAi is also being investigated by the SEC. If "Altman hadn’t been consistently candid in his communications with the board" is interpreted as being misleading then that could be interpreted as misleading investors and therefore securities fraud. https://www.wsj.com/tech/sec-investigating-whether-openai-in...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in Pittsburgh, and UPMC’s nonprofit status as they make billions in profits and pay their executives fortunes, is a running joke. With the hospitals and universities as the biggest employers and land owners here, a big chunk of the cities financial assets are exempt from contributing to the city budget.
In NYC, NYU and Columbia University are increasingly owning larger parts of Manhattan because they as universities have massive property tax exemptions. There is a big push right now to terminate those exemptions which currently amount to over $300 million per year. At the same time they are getting these tax cuts, the CUNY public university system is struggling financially and getting budget cuts.
do people just no longer believe in win wins? if someone else is successful or impactful they must be taken down?
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.
23. Mr. Altman purported to share Mr. Musk’s concerns over the threat posed by AGI.
In 2015, Mr. Altman wrote that the “[d]evelopment of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. There are other threats that I think are more certain to happen . . . but are unlikely to destroy every human in the universe in the way that SMI could.” Later that same year, Mr. Altman approached Mr. Musk with a proposal: that they join forces to form a non-profit AI lab that would try to catch up to Google in the race for AGI, but it would be the opposite of Google.
24. Together with Mr. Brockman, the three agreed that this new lab: (a) would be a nonprofit developing AGI for the benefit of humanity, not for a for-profit company seeking to maximize shareholder profits; and (b) would be open-source, balancing only countervailing safety considerations, and would not keep its technology closed and secret for proprietary commercial reasons (The “Founding Agreement”). Reflecting the Founding Agreement, Mr. Musk named this new AI lab “OpenAI,” which would compete with, and serve as a vital counterbalance to, Google/DeepMind in the race for AGI, but would do so to benefit humanity, not the shareholders of a private, for-profit company (much less one of the largest technology companies in the world).
[...]
>"C. The 2023 Breach Of The Founding Agreement
29. In 2023, Defendants Mr. Altman, Mr. Brockman, and OpenAI set the Founding Agreement aflame.
30. In March 2023, OpenAI released its most powerful language model yet, GPT-4. GPT-4 is not just capable of reasoning. It is better at reasoning than average humans. It scored in the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam for lawyers. It scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE Verbal Assessment. It even scored a 77% on the Advanced Sommelier examination. At this time, Mr. Altman caused OpenAI to radically depart from its original mission and historical practice of making its technology and knowledge available to the public. GPT-4’s internal design was kept and remains a complete secret except to OpenAI—and, on information and belief, Microsoft. There are no scientific publications describing the design of GPT-4. Instead, there are just press releases bragging about performance.
On information and belief,
this secrecy is primarily driven by commercial considerations, not safety."
What an interesting case!
We'll see how it turns out...
(Note that I don't think that Elon Musk or Sam Altman or Greg Brockman are "bad people" and/or "unethical actors" -- quite the opposite! Each is a luminary in their own light; in their own domains -- in their own areas of influence! I feel that men of such high and rare intelligence as all three of them are -- should be making peace amongst themselves!)
Anyway, it'll be an interesting case!
Related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonprofit is a tax status, not a corporate structure.
It is in this case. After Musk invested in them, they’ve incorporated separate for-profit companies to essentially profit from the IP of the non profit.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in this case, it wasn’t a company, but a nonprofit.
Nonprofit is a tax status, not a corporate structure.
In a practical sense, there needs not be an operational difference, and is subject to scrutiny from the IRS to determine whether an organization is eligible non profit status
Has there been a successful suit against a company for "abandoning their founding mission"? Does anyone think that this suit will succeed? Another article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/01/elon-musk...
Yes, especially nonprofits.
Not saying I agree that being closed source is in the public good, although one could certainly argue that accelerating the efforts of bad actors to catch up would not be a positive.