Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#811

Post by AndrewKemendo » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:29 AM UTC

boringg wrote: post #665

qwertox wrote: post #658

Whatever 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…

I don't think he has any resentment about jumping off "too soon" as you say. He specifically abandoned ship because he didn't align with the organization anymore. I suspect this has been a long time coming given his public commentary on AI. He's goal on OpenAI investments were to keep close watch on the development of AI. If you believe the public comments or not is an entirely different matter though I do feel like…

I’d offer that Musk hasnt shown any consistent principle motivating his behavior other than gathering power, in the face of stated motivations.

So while he may genuinely believe what he is saying, the inherent philosophical conflicts in his consistent narcissistic actions, have poisoned any other possible position to such an extent that he has lost all moral credibility

Revealed preferences never lie

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

#812

Post by swat535 » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:31 AM UTC

We all know that Musk's intentions for this are not noble (who would be so naive to think otherwise anyway?) so I'll leave that aside for now but he has a good point by bringing on this lawsuit.

What I love is the fact that people here are trying to justify Sam's action by amusing mental gymnastics such as "AI Safety! Think of Humanity!".. seriously guys? At least we should be honest and call a spade a spade, "open" in "Open AI" is nothing more than Sam's attempt at scamming people with marketing gimmick and dodging taxes. The truth is that Altman knows other AI models are catching up quickly and he is trying seal the deal with regulatory capture as soon as possible.

OpenAI has already lost any credibility they had after the recent implosion with half the team threatening to leave as soon as they realized that their bank accounts might shrink by a few cents if Altman is not sitting at the helm. The best part is that Sam delivered by making them all supremely rich [0]

This company is a joke and it's all about the money.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-17/openai-de...

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

#813

Post by az226 » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:32 AM UTC

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.

The $10M “equity” awards being vested flies in the face of private gain.

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

#814

Post by JamisonM » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:41 AM UTC

stubish wrote: post #809

JamisonM wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A non-profit with a for-profit subsidiary is actually pretty common and it is probably one of the more "normal" things OpenAI has done. https://www.marcumllp.com/insights/creating-a-for-profit-sub... My personal opinion is that not creating a for-profit wing would have made a even bigger mess. (But then I also think this suit is very obviously without merit and the complaint is written in a way that it sounds like la…

I don't think the problem is with having a for-profit wing. The problem is that only the for-profit wing got to use the technology developed by the non-profit, when the non-profit was explicitly tasked with releasing the technology to the public, allowing competition.

I would say you are using the words "explicitly tasked" when the articles of incorporation use the words "seek to" and "when applicable". (And also the "allowing competition" part I don't think is actually in the mix, is there a citation for that?)

""The Founding Agreement was also memorialized, among other places, in OpenAI, Inc.’s December 8, 2015 Certificate of Incorporation, which affirmed that its “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.”""

That said, I was only commenting on the idea that creating a for-profit wing was adding to the unusual corporate structure of OpenAI and saying that it really didn't.

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

#815

Post by neom » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:44 AM UTC

gregwebs wrote: post #472

This suit claims breach of the "Founding Agreement". However, there is no actualy Founding Agreement, there are email communications claimed to be part of a "Founding Agreement". IANAL, but I would suspect that these emails don't matter for much now that there are Ariticles of Incorporation. Those articles are mentioned, but the "Founding Agreement" implied by emails is mentioned more. The suit also seems alarmist by…

These dudes[1] had a lawyer on today who talked about it, it's actually pretty interesting, but this is what they are arguing with: https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I77e...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWZJg_nda4

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

#816

Post by toomuchtodo » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:45 AM UTC

tmaly wrote: post #682

troupe wrote: post #625

Earlier 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.

There is the tax issue, then there is being incorporated in Delaware issue. He likely could bring some issue before the Delaware court as was done to him recently.

Can you imagine him having to go in front of the same judge again asking for corporate governance accountability? Zing!

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

#817

Post by stubish » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:49 AM UTC

breadwinner wrote: post #33

Hamuko wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would he have standing by having a company competing in the same space as OpenAI?

He would have the opposite of a standing, right? It seems he wants to slow down OpenAI so that his competing company can catch up.

No, you can reasonably expect an open source company to open their source. Allowing you and everyone else to benefit from the work. The lawsuit is because all of the competing companies should not need to be wasting money catching up, when the goal was for everyone to be building from OpenAI's work.

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

#818

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:55 AM UTC

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #769

patcon wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, e…

If you insist on sci-fi analogy, then try protomolecule from The Expanse. Or a runaway grey goo scenario triggered by a biotech or nanotech accident.

Artificial general intelligence is not a stick you can wield and threaten other countries with. It's a process, complex beyond our understanding.

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

#819

Post by throwitaway222 » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:59 AM UTC

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.

Unfortunately you can also easily show that they ARE doing these things too.

Open source. Check - they have open source software available.

Private Gain of any person. Check (Not hard to see it's a non-profit. People that make private money from a non-profit is obviously excluded) Now to me, personally, I think all non-profits are for-profit enterprises. The "mission" in nearly all cases isn't for the "people it serves". I've seen so many "help the elders" "help the migrants" but the reality is, money always flows up, not to the people in need.

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

#820

Post by tim333 » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 12:59 AM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #811

boringg wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he has any resentment about jumping off "too soon" as you say. He specifically abandoned ship because he didn't align with the organization anymore. I suspect this has been a long time coming given his public commentary on AI. He's goal on OpenAI investments were to keep close watch on the development of AI. If you believe the public comments or not is an entirely different matter though I do feel like…

I’d offer that Musk hasnt shown any consistent principle motivating his behavior other than gathering power, in the face of stated motivations. So while he may genuinely believe what he is saying, the inherent philosophical conflicts in his consistent narcissistic actions, have poisoned any other possible position to such an extent that he has lost all moral credibility Revealed preferences never lie

He seems to broadly pursue projects he considers helpful to humanity like sustainable energy, the multiplanetary thing and setting up OpenAI. You can interpret people's motivations in different ways but it doesn't look like just power gathering to me. I mean if he was that power hungry you'd expect him to try to monopolize AI for himself rather than make it open.