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

Post by mr_toad » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 2:03 AM UTC

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.

Post by sanxiyn » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 2:11 AM UTC

stubish wrote: post #837

tracerbulletx wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says "will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable" they have open sourced a number of things, Whisper most notably. Nothing about that is a promise to open source everything and they just need to say it wasn't applicable for ChatGPT or DallE because of safety.

I doubt the safety argument will hold up in court. Anything safe enough to allow Microsoft or others access too would be safe enough to release publicly. Our AI overlords are not going to respect an NDA. And for the public safety/disinformation side of things, I think it is safe to say that cat is out of the bag and chasing the horse that has bolted.

Post by jasonfarnon » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 2:12 AM UTC

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.

Post by ethbr1 » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 2:29 AM UTC

richardw wrote: post #840

stubish wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I might be too generous, but my interpretation is that the ground changed so fast that they needed to shift to continue the mission given the new reality. After ChatGPT, every for-profit and its dog is going hard. Talent can join the only Mother Teresa in the middle, or compete with them as they stupidly open all the source the second they discover anything. You can’t compete with the biggest labs in the world who ha…

Post by gitaarik » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 2:30 AM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #486

Bjorkbat wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I definitely disagree with the statement that GPT-4 is an AGI, but OpenAI themselves define an AGI in their charter as an AI that is better than the median human at most economically valuable work. Even when taking that into consideration I don't consider GPT-4 to be an AGI, but you can see how someone might make attempt to make a convincing argument. Personally though, I think this definition of AGI sets the…

My software engineer job officially says I need to be able to life up to 50 lbs but it seems unlikely that this is actually necessary in practice.