Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon Musk: actual billionaire Sam Altman: fake billionaire (most equity is tied to openAI) this should be a one sided battle
Most of Elon’s wealth is also tied up in equity.
His TSLA shares are quite liquid.
Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
711–720 of 1001 posts
Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
#712If 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.
They claim that this is about the end result, but in the meantime, they can license the not-yet-done AI to Microsoft.
Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
#713Microsoft 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?
Taking Musk's lawsuit on its face:
Microsoft's investment is not the issue. The corporate change is not the issue. They were the first steps needed to create the issue Musk is targeting. Before the Altman drama, Musk probably wasn't paying attention much. Hell, most of HN didn't care either, and we live this shit every day.
Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
#714Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be insane if the court case ended up hinging on whether AGI had been achieved internally or not
It won‘t, that‘s pretty much a throwaway half-sentence, but it stood out to me. You throw a lot of things at the judge and see what sticks.
On p. 34 they specifically ask "For a judicial determination that GPT-4 constitutes Artificial General Intelligence and is thereby outside the scope of OpenAI’s license to Microsoft".
Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
Openai isn't even close to too big to fail. Bank of America fails the entire banking system collapses and the entire real economy grinds to a halt. If GM fails hundreds of thousands lose their jobs and entire supply chains collapse. If power utilities fail then people start actually dying within hours or days. If OpenAI fails nothing actually important happens.
I mean, there's about a hundred thousand startups built on top of their API. I'm sure most could switch to another model if they really needed, but if copyright is an issue, I'm not sure that would help.
If you've plugged your whole business into OAI's snake oil, you're an early adopter of technology and you'll likely be able to update the codebase appropriately.
The sooner SCOTUS rules that training on copyrighted material is infringement, the better.
Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Their position evolved. Many people at the time disagreed that having open source AGI - putting it in the hands of many people - was the best way to mitigate the potential danger. Note that this original stance of OpenAI was before they started playing with transformers and having anything that was beginning to look like AI/AGI. Around the time of GPT-3 was when they said "this might be dangerous, we're going to hold…
> There's nothing wrong with changing your opinion based on fresh information.
I don't really get that twist. What "fresh" information arrived here suddenly? The structure they gave themselves was chosen explicitly with the risks of future developments in mind. In fact, that was why they chose that specific structure as outlined in the complaint. How can it now be called new information that there are actually risks involved? That was the whole premise of creating that organization in the form it was done to begin with!
Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't understand what point your example or analogy is illustrating. Can you state the point you are making? No one is alleging OpenAI committed tax fraud.
The point is possibly that there are rules that prevent organisations started as non-profit to transition to for-profit.
Note: I am just spitballing. I cannot speak definitely about the law or what the GP was saying.
Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would OpenAI be "too big to fail"? They seemed pretty close to failing just some months ago.
I think that is actually quite illustrative of the opposite point.
What about the CEO drama indicates OAI is "too big to fail"? They're completely orthogonal. No one came to bail OAI out of a budget crisis like the banks or auto industry. I fail to see how it's related at all.
Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say for the sake of argument that they violated their original charter, it still wouldn't give Musk standing to bring the suit. The charter is not a contract with Musk. He has no more standing than you or I.
If Musk's tens of millions in donations were in reliance on the charter and on statements made by sama, Brockman, etc., there's probably a standing argument there. Musk is very different than you or I -- he's a co-founder of the company and was very involved in its early work. I wouldn't guess that standing would be the issue they'd have trouble with (though I haven't read the complaint).
I don't see how being a former co-founder or a donor gives one standing for this.
He has no ownership stake. He isn't a director or member of the organization. The thing he claims is a contract he's party to, isn't.
Re: Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]
#720Whatever his reason may be (like resentment for jumping off the ship too soon and missing out, or standing in for humanity), I like what I read in the sense that it contains all the stuff that needs to be spoken about publicly, and the court seems to be the optimal place for this. It feels like Microsoft is misusing the partnership only to block other companies from having access to the IP. They said they don't need…
> Not seeing Mistral Large as an open source model now has a bitter taste to it. A company needs a product to sell. If they give away everything, they have nothing to sell. This was surely always the plan. (1) They can give away the model but sell an API - but they can’t serve a model as cheap as Goog/Msft/Amzn who have better unit economics on their cloud and better pricing on GPUs (plus custom inference chips). (2)…
> (1) They can give away the model but sell an API - but they can’t serve a model as cheap as Goog/Msft/Amzn who have better unit economics on their cloud and better pricing on GPUs (plus custom inference chips).
Which has a simple solution, release the model weights with a license which doesn't let anyone to commercially host them (like AGPL-ish) without your permission. That is what Stability.ai does it.