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

Post by paulddraper » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 4:44 AM UTC

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #833

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.

What about damages. How difficult to show. In case anyone is confused I am referring to 126, 132 and 135. Not 127. "126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount that is presently unknown, but that substantially exceeds this Courts jurisdictional minimum of $35,000, and, if necessary, will be proven at trial. 127. Plaintiff also seeks and is entitled to spec…

Post by justanotherjoe » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 5:06 AM UTC

xcv123 wrote: post #868

atleastoptimal wrote: post #848

Sour grapes. This is a power move. Elon wants to be the sole savior of humanity who just so happens to have more power than anyone in history. No coincidence this came out soon after OpenAI announced its partnership with Figure, making them a direct competitor to Tesla Optimus + Xai.

How did you come to this idiotic conclusion after reading the article? Elon Musk cofounded OpenAI as a non-profit organization in 2015 and provided the majority of funding until 2020. It wouldn't exist without his funding. Sam Altman lied and now GPT-4 is closed source and is controlled by Microsoft. How does that benefit humanity? OpenAI was meant to be open, sharing their research with all of humanity. Sam Altman i…

Post by paulddraper » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 5:08 AM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #796

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…

I have absolutely zero reason to believe "AI" is better of in the hands of Altman, Brockman etc and most of the public would feel similar.

Post by canjobear » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 5:13 AM UTC

tracerbulletx wrote: post #824

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…

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.

Post by paulddraper » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 5:18 AM UTC

anotherhue wrote: post #617

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…

> A powerful technology is a danger to society if only a few people possess it. By giving it to everyone, you even the playing field. Except nukes. Only allies can have nukes.