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

Post by Veserv » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 1:03 AM UTC

josh2600 wrote: post #614

aleksandrh wrote: post #610

> 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…

Just going to note that it is widely suspected that Hal Finney did much of the programming on PGP with Zimmermann taking the heat for him.

Post by tracerbulletx » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 1:11 AM UTC

stubish wrote: post #821

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.

So much of the discussion here is about being a non-profit, but per your quote I think the key is open source. Here we have people investing in an open source company, and the company never opened their source. Rather than open source technology everyone could profit from, they kept everything closed and sold exclusive access. I think it is going to be hard for OpenAI to defend their behavior, and a huge amount of da…

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 1:18 AM UTC

username332211 wrote: post #354

whimsicalism wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are non-profit, they do not make billions in profits. I suspect you mean revenue :) Exec compensation is another thing, but also not a concern I am super sympathetic to given that for profit companies of similar magnitude generally pay their execs way more they just are not required to report it.

> If they are non-profit, they do not make billions in profits. I suspect you mean revenue :) Uhm, profit is a fact of accounting. Any increase in equity (or "net assets", or whatever other euphemism the accountant decides to use) on a balance sheet is profit. Revenue is something completely different.

Post by HarHarVeryFunny » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 1:20 AM UTC

starbugs wrote: post #716

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by 4death4 » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 1:25 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #823

codexb wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Page 37 of the lawsuit has the certificate of incorporation. It says precisely what Musk claims it says. That’s the founding document he’s referencing.

> It says precisely what Musk claims it says. Almost. Musk uses an ellipsis in his copy in the text that elides some text that is rather detrimental to his claims: > In furtherance of its purposes, the corporation shall engage in any lawful act of activity for which nonprofit corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of Delaware.