Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

courthousenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by Bjemslev »

patcon wrote: post #598
nicce wrote: post #588

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…

[dead]

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

#732

Post by llm_trw »

tw04 wrote: post #606
nicce wrote: post #588

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…

Just like nuclear weapons? The whole “security through obscurity doesn’t work” is absolute nonsense. It absolutely works and there are countless real world examples. What doesn’t work is relying on that as your ONLY security.

The knowledge of how to make the tool chain of building a nuclear weapon is something that every undergraduate in physics can work out from first principles.

This has been the case since 1960: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science

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

#733

Post by theGnuMe »

burnte wrote: post #396
aCoreyJ wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Elon was forced to buy Twitter that way

No, he wasn't forced to buy Twitter, but he didn't want to pay the $1bn deal failure fee, so instead he spent $44bn to buy Twitter and drive it directly into the ground. But he COULD have just paid $1bn and walked away.

Nah he wanted the narrative power. Twitter is, he argues, the newspaper of record of the internet and he is its editor.

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

#734

Post by timeon »

nuz wrote: post #116
paxys wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of Twitter's amazing new UI I have no idea what Sam is replying to and what the context is, so the link by itself is meaningless.

New? Looks the same as it has been for years. Also sam is clearly speaking in general terms.

> same as it has been for years

It is not the same if you are not logged-in. It will not load context. Or not load at all. Seems like Twitter is in some kind of saving mode for some reason.

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

#735

Post by andy_ppp »

geor9e wrote: post #653
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #580

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…

You don't even need to call him to the stand, it's not some gotcha, he writes it all over the complaint itself. "AGI poses a grave threat to humanity — perhaps the greatest existential threat we face today." I highly doubt a court is going to opine about open vs closed being safer, though. The founding agreement is pretty clear that the intention was to make it open for the purpose of safety. Courts rule on if a cont…

You’re forgetting that any good lawyer would do something some random on hacker news made up to support their belief the lawsuit is about AI safety.

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

#736

Post by echoangle »

tills13 wrote: post #387
VirusNewbie wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? AGI itself makes no claim of super intelligence or even super human capabilities.

It's missing the "I" part -- it's a token prediction scheme using math.

How does that preclude intelligence? A brain is just some neurons sending electrical pulses, can that be intelligence? Could a computer running a physics simulation of a brain generate intelligence?

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

#738

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

troupe wrote: post #438

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.

OpenAI being a nonprofit is like Anthony Levandowski’s "Way of the Future" being a 501(c) (3) religious nonprofit. All of which is lifted from Stranger in a Strange Land and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology.

(It wouldn't be the first time someone made a nerd-cult: Aum Shinrikyo was full of physics grad students and had special mind-reading hats. Though that was unironically a cult. Whereas the others were started explicitly as grifts.)

It's like they have no shame.

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

#740

Post by starbugs »

brookst wrote: post #730
starbugs wrote: post #590

Earlier 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.

…unless you believe that the world can change and people’s opinions and decisions should change based on changing contexts and evolving understandings. When I was young I proudly insisted that all I ever wanted to eat was pizza. I am very glad that 1) I was allowed to evolve out of that desire, and 2) I am not constantly harangued as a hypocrite when I enjoy a nice salad.

> …unless you believe that the world can change and people’s opinions and decisions should change based on changing contexts and evolving understandings.

What I believe doesn't matter. As an adult, if you set up contracts and structures based on principles which you bind yourself to, that's your decision. If you then convince people to join or support you based on those principles, you shouldn't be surprised if you get into trouble once you "change your opinion" and no longer fulfill your obligations.

> When I was young I proudly insisted that all I ever wanted to eat was pizza.

What a good thing that you can't set up a contract as a child, isn't it?

Post reply on HN