591–600 of 1001 posts
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?
See general allegation "C. The 2023 Breach Of The Founding Agreement".
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...
lol, I invested in Google when they had the "Do no evil" thing. Now they removed it and are doing evil. I'm going to sue them!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Musk claims X is the free speech town square but it isn't
X is definitely more free and allows more types of discourse than a year ago.
Free speech is very important and powerful, but truth (the real truth) is what matters the most. Free speech of lies and conspiracies is a very dangerous thing until most people gets good enough in critical thinking.
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 i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is no AGI. An AGI is supposed to be the cognitive equivalent of a human, right? The "AI" being pushed out to people these days can't even count.
The duality of AI's capability is beyond comical. On one side you have people who can't decide whether it can even count, on the other side you have people pushing for UBI because of all the jobs it will replace.
Like that post from Klarna that was on HN the other day where they automated 2/3 of all support conversations. Anyone with a brain knows they're useless as chat agents for anyone with an actual inquiry, but that's not the part that matters with these AI systems, the amount of money psycho MBAs can save is the important part
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...
> Has there been a successful suit against a company for "abandoning their founding mission"? Yes, especially nonprofits.
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…
This is exactly the problem having an open non-profit leader was designed to solve.
Six month moratoriums, to vet and mitigate dangers including outside experts, would probably be a good idea.
But people need to know what they are up against. What can AI do? How do we adapt?
We don't need more secretive data gathering, psychology hacking, manipulative corporations, billionaires (or trillionaires), harnessing unknown compounding AI capabilities to endlessly mine society for 40% year on year gains. Social networks, largely engaged in winning zero/negative sum games, are already causing great harm.
That would compound all the dangers many times over.
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 i…
Nuclear capacity is constrained, and those constraining it attempt to do so for reasons public good (energy, warfare, peace). You could argue about effectiveness, but our failure to self-annihilate seems positive testament to the strategy.
Transparency does not serve us when mitigating certain forms of danger. I'm trying to remain humble with this, but it's not clear to me what balance of benefit and danger current AI is. (Not even considering the possibility of AGI, which is beyond scope of my comment)
Similar to the firing-unfiring of Sam Altman, so much of this seems to be boil down to OpenAI's puzzle-box organizational structure. It seems like the whole "capped for-profit within a non-profit" is not going to to work long term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> he has as much say in the direction of the company as a random crackhead living on the BART train He donated 8 figures to the nonprofit. So he deserves as much say in the direction as a random crackhead living on the BART train who donated $44M to the nonprofit.
It doesn't work like that. You can donate millions or invest millions in a company as the founder or lead investor. As soon as you leave the company as a board member, and are not a shareholder, your official relationship with the company is terminated.
Nonprofits are different that way.