Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

courthousenews.com

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

#581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The replies that say "well the profits go to the non-profit, all's good" miss the reality of these high profit nonprofits: the profits invariably end up in the pockets of management. Most of those are essentially scams, but it doesn't mean that OpenAI isn't just a more subtle scam. The hype and the credulity of the general public play right into this scam. People will more or less believe anything Sam the Money Gushi…

The reality was that nobody could have predicted the A.I breakthroughs when OpenAI first got started. It was a moonshot. Thats why Musk gave $50m dollars without even asking for a seat at the board. OpenAI had to start as a non profit because there was no clear path forward. It was research. Kind of like doing research with the goal of curing cancer. The unexpected breakthroughs came a bit quicker than anticipated an…

I have a slightly more cynical take:

Training LLMs requires a lot of text, and, as a practical matter, essentially all LLMs have committed copyright infringement on an industrial scale to collect training data.

The US has a fair-use exception with a four-part test:

The second and third parts (nature of the work (creative) and how much of the work is used (all of it)) strongly favor copyright owners. The fourth part (which SCOTUS previous said is the most important part, but has since walked back) is neutral to slightly favoring the copiers: Most LLMs are trained to not simply regurgitate the input, so a colorable argument exists that an LLM has no impact on the market for, say, NY Times articles.

Taken together, parts 2 through 4 are leaning towards impermissible use. That leaves us with the first part: Could it make the difference? The first part really has two subparts: How and what are you using it for?

"How" they are using it is clearly transformational (it defeats the purpose of an LLM if it just regurgitates the input), so that argues in favor of copiers like OpenAI.

But where I think Altman had a brilliant/evil flash of genius is that the "what" test: OpenAI is officially a non-profit, dedicated to helping humanity: That means the usage is non-commercial. Being non-commercial doesn't automatically make the use fair use, but it might make the difference when considering parts 2 through 4, plus the transformativity of the usage.

Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

#582
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would have an argument if Elon Musk didn't attempted to take over OpenAI, and proceeded to abandon it after his attempts were rejected and he complained the organization was going nowhere. https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/24/23654701/openai-elon-musk... I don't think Elon Musk has a case or holds the moral high ground. It sounds like he's just pissed he committed a colossal error of analysis and is now trying to r…

That sounds like the petty, vindictive, childish type of stunt we've all grown to expect from him. That's what's making this so hard to parse out, 2 rich assholes with a history of lying are lobbing accusations at each other. They're both wrong, and maybe both right? But it's so messy because one is a colossal douche and the other is less of a douche.

Thing to keep in mind. That Musk even might force to open up GPT4.

That would be nice outcome, regardless of original intention. (Revenge or charity)

Edit: after a but of thinking, more realistically, threat to open sourcing gpt4 is a leverage, that musk will use for other purposes (e.g. Shares in for profit part)

Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

#583

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?

Musk is just salty that he could not get OpenAI stocks and his Grok is going nowhere. After all he was trying to restrict OpenAI development for 6 months or something (to try to give some time to Grok).

Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

#584
post #565

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?

Microsoft contributes to the python foundation, Linux, and lots of other non-profits with valuable IP. I’m sure if any of those nonprofits stopped releasing source code and began giving it only to Microsoft, there would be a lawsuit as well. OpenAI was still effectively sharing their research until last year.

As I recall OpenAI started becoming more closed at least around the time of GPT-3 (2020). Remember them initially saying the large model was too dangerous to release?

Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

#585

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…

It's incredibly common, there are probably even more but these are the most asset rich companies. If properly structured even something like a local gym is going to be 6-8 entities. I took multiple entire classes dedicated to corporate structure. Multiple entities are needed to maximize liability protection and tax avoidance purposes.

> If properly structured even something like a local gym is going to be 6-8 entities.

Can you explain that? It seems outrageous to me.

Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

#587
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would OpenAI be "too big to fail"? They seemed pretty close to failing just some months ago.

Right, and then a bunch of unclearly identified forces came in and swept it all under the rug.

Ye. The failed "coup" was really shady, in that it failed, even though they fired Sam Altman.

Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

#588

Any competent lawyer is going to get Musk on the stand reiterating his opinions about the danger of AI. If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given. 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…

> If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given.

Not really. It slows down like security over obscurity. It needs to be open that we know the real risks and we have the best information to combat it. Otherwise, someone who does the same in closed matter, has better chances to get advantage when misusing it.

Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

#589

I do wonder if OpenAI is built on a house of cards. They aren’t a nonprofit, aren’t open, and stole a huge quantity of copyrighted material to get started. But, by moving fast and scaling quickly, are they at the Too Big to Fail stage already? The attempted board coup makes me think so.

> built on a house of cards

The "house of cards" is outperforming everyone else.

It would have to come out that the slow generation times for GPT-4 are a sweatshop in Egypt tired of typing.

Either that, or something inconceivable like that board coup firing the CEO as a material event triggering code and IP escrow to be released to Microsoft...

PS. “Too big to fail” generally is used to mean a government+economy+sector ecosystem will step in and fund the failed enterprise rather than risk harm to the ecosystem. That's not this. Arguably not Tesla or even Google either. That said, Satya's quote in this filing suggets Microsoft already legally contracted for that eventuality: if this legal entity fails, Microsoft keeps the model online.

Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

#590

Any competent lawyer is going to get Musk on the stand reiterating his opinions about the danger of AI. If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given. 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…

> If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest

If that was true, then they shouldn't have started off like that to begin with. You can't have it both ways. Either you are pursuing your goal to be open (as the name implies) or the way you set yourself up was ill-suited all along.

Post reply on HN