681–690 of 1001 posts
It's clear that OpenAI has become something that it wasn't intended to be at it's founding. Maybe that change happened for good reasons, but the fact that there was a change is not in doubt.
Sam Altman: fake billionaire (most equity is tied to openAI)
this should be a one sided battle
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the charter legally binding? Is it unchangeable? A single quote doesn't tell us much.
Going to the IRS and saying, "This is how we plan to benefit humanity and because of that, we shouldn't have to pay income tax." and then coming back later and saying, "We decided to do the opposite of what we said." is likely to create some problems.
He likely could bring some issue before the Delaware court as was done to him recently.
It's clear that OpenAI has become something that it wasn't intended to be at it's founding. Maybe that change happened for good reasons, but the fact that there was a change is not in doubt.
Elon Musk: actual billionaire Sam Altman: fake billionaire (most equity is tied to openAI) this should be a one sided battle
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.
Is the charter legally binding? Is it unchangeable? A single quote doesn't tell us much.
Such mission statements are generally modifiable as long as the new purpose is still charitable. It depends on the bylaws though.
It's clear that OpenAI has become something that it wasn't intended to be at it's founding. Maybe that change happened for good reasons, but the fact that there was a change is not in doubt.
Elon Musk: actual billionaire Sam Altman: fake billionaire (most equity is tied to openAI) this should be a one sided battle
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...
The SEC doesn’t protect investors in private companies. OpenAI isn’t a public company
https://www.sec.gov/education/capitalraising/building-blocks...
> Indeed, as the November 2023 drama was unfolding, Microsoft’s CEO boasted that it would not matter “[i]f OpenAI disappeared tomorrow.” He explained that “[w]e have all the IP rights and all the capability.” “We have the people, we have the compute, we have the data, we have everything.” “We are below them, above them, around them.” Yikes. This technology definitely needs to be open source, especially if we get to t…
I don't trust OpenAI or Microsoft, but I don't have much faith in democratization either. We wouldn't do that with nukes, after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
When I try to port your logic over into nuclear capacity it doesn't hold very well. 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 hum…
I don't even particularly like Musk, but I definitely despise M$ and their comic-book tier villanous shenanigans even more. Here's to hoping M$ gets fucked in this.
Musk is even more cartoonishly villainous than MS. This is pretty much Lex Luthor against Darkseid. Unless it results in mutual destruction, doesn't matter who wins, everybody else loses. My take is that Elon is suing OpenAI because he left OpenAI before they opened a commercial venture, which means he doesn't benefit from the companies current valuation, so he's using the courts to try to strong arm the foundation i…
According to the Isaacson book, Sam offered Elon equity in the for-profit arm of OpenAI but he declined. He is clearly motivated by the original mission, i.e. the Open part.