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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by ryukoposting »

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…

> 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.

I contend that a threat must be understood before it can be neutralized. It will either take a herculean feat of reverse-engineering, or an act of benevolence on OpenAI's behalf. Or a lawsuit, I guess.

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

#763

Post by QuantumG »

mdasen wrote: post #706
akerl_ wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, changing what your company does is just “pivoting”. It’s not clear to me why Elon would having standing for this suit, or why a company changing their direction would be actionable. This would be like suing Google for removing “Don’t be evil” from their mission statement.

I think non-profits change the argument here a bit. With a for-profit company, what your company is doing is trying to make money. If you change that, investors have a right to sue. With a non-profit, what the company is doing is some public service mission. Why does Musk have standing? Potentially because he donated millions to OpenAI to further their non-profit mission. I'm not saying that Musk has a good case. I h…

If you haven't read the complaint, why comment? It's right there!

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

#764

Post by LudwigNagasena »

shp0ngle wrote: post #712
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.

They claim that this is about the end result, but in the meantime, they can license the not-yet-done AI to Microsoft.

[flagged]

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

#766

Post by Matticus_Rex »

Aloisius wrote: post #719
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you make promises to someone in order to get them to give you money, depending on the circumstances, that can (but does not always) create a contractual relationship, even if the promises themselves or the document they're in don't normally constitute a contract in themselves. Proving the implied terms of the contract can be difficult, but as long as the court believes there may have been such a contract created, we've moved from a question of standing to questions of fact.

I've skimmed the complaint now. There seems to be prima facie evidence of a contract there (though we'll see if the response suggests a lot of context was omitted). I find the Promissary Estoppel COA even more compelling, though. Breach of Fiduciary Duty seems like a stretch using "the public" as a beneficiary class. This isn't really my area, but I'll be mildly surprised if that one doesn't get tossed. Don't know enough about the Unfair Business Practices or CA Accounting requirements to have any opinion whatsoever on those. The Prayer for Relief is wild, but they often are.

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

#767

Post by QuantumG »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #247
BitWiseVibe wrote: post #70

Wouldn't you have to prove damages in a lawsuit like this? What damages does Musk personally suffer if OpenAI has in fact broken their contract?

It's worth reading the actual filing. It's very readable. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/mu...

It's literally the title.

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

#768

Post by ajdude »

This is a lot of OpenAIs:

ELON MUSK,

an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAMUEL ALTMAN, an individual, GREGORY BROCKMAN, an individual, 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 liability company, OPENAI HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

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

#769

Post by a_wild_dandan »

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…

Self annihilation fails due to nuclear proliferation, i.e MAD. So your conclusion is backward.

But that's irrelevant anyway, because nukes are a terrible analogy. If you insist on sci-fi speculation, use an analogy that's somewhat remotely similar -- perhaps compare the development of AI vs. traditional medicine. They're both very general technologies with incredible benefits and important dangers (e.g. superbugs, etc).

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

#770

Post by kbos87 »

mycologos wrote: post #313
kbos87 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious why I'm getting downvoted - similar comments don't appear to have met the same fate, and I'm by no means defending Altman or OpenAI. If it's because I mentioned that Altman is gay - and I can't find another reason - I think that's relevant in context of Musk's recent hard shift rightward and his consistently aggressive, unprovoked behavior toward LGBTQ people. For some reason the topic looms large i…

It seems like he's talked a lot about the T in LGBTQ, not so much the G? Evidence that he would be especially incensed at getting beat by a gay guy seems thin on the ground unless we insist on treating LGBTQ as a bloc. (I don't exactly keep up with Musk's doings, though.)

Let’s see, he insinuated that a former gay employee was a predator…

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/elon-musk-smears-for...

One of several similar specifically anti-gay run-ins if you poke around a bit

Post reply on HN