Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI and Elon Musk

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#91

Post by Jensson »

repler wrote: post #89
devsda wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built.(even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes). "OpenSource". Open in open source means everyone should benefit from the fruits of source after it is built but it's totally OK to not share the source(Even though calling ourselves open is the ri…

isn’t this the old: free as in speech, not as in beer

OpenAI isn't free either way, they don't let you do porn etc with their models.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#92

Post by andsoitis »

uncomputation wrote: post #70
Reubend wrote: post #13

Their evidence does a nice job of making Musk seem duplicitous, but it doesn't really refute any of his core assertions: they still have the appearance of abandoning their core mission to focus more on profits, even if they've elaborated a decent justification of why that's necessary to do. Or to put it more simply: here they explain why they had to betray their core mission. But they don't refute that they did betra…

> they don't refute that they did betray it They do. They say: > Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...” Whether you agree with this is a different matter but…

> everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...

everyone... except scientists and the scientific community.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#93

Post by mlsu »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #86
magnio wrote: post #6

> Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...”, to which Elon replied: “Yup”. Wow the most open OpenAI has ever been is when someone sue them. On the other hand, th…

> this shows Elon doesn't care jackshit about the lack of openness from OpenAI. He's just mad only that he walked away from a monumental success. Yup he's pretty transparently lying here. He committed to fund for $1B dollars. Then when they wouldn't make him CEO and/or roll the company into Tesla he refused his commitment after paying out only 4% of it. Claimed the company would fail and only he could save them (agai…

Whether it is Elon or Altman that controls it has nothing to do with how open or not openAI is. And it has become very clear that OpenAI is nothing but Microsoft in a trenchcoat.

No matter his motives, I applaud this lawsuit. Who cares if his talk doesn't match his action? His action, here, is good.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#94

Post by Jensson »

hackerlight wrote: post #73
Jensson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon makes plenty of companies, him making an AI company that he was in control of doesn't look bad or strange at all.

He was pushing them to do the thing he's suing them over. > Message to Elon: "A for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream" > Elon: You are right ... and Tesla is the only path. Then 3 weeks later Elon gets kicked off the board, probably after a fight where he tried to make OpenAI become for-profit under Tesla. How can you not see how conniving this man is? The lawsuit is either a revenge play or…

Oh, I read that as if it was the founding stage, not 2 years later. Yeah I agree it puts things in perspective a bit.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#95

Post by mikeyouse »

baking wrote: post #28

> Elon said we should announce an initial $1B funding commitment to OpenAI. In total, the non-profit has raised less than $45M from Elon and more than $90M from other donors. This is not reflected in their 990's. They claim $20 million in public support and $70 million in "other income" which is missing the required explanation. Also, why are none of the current board members of OpenAI included as authors here? Is th…

A bunch of what you wrote isn't accurate..

Here's the 2020 990 which shows the first 5 years of the org's existence (including the time at question for this suit): https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/810861541_202012_990_...

Page 15 is Schedule A Pt 2 which shows the total contributions by year. They did indeed raise ~$133M over that time frame. Row 5 shows the contributions from any 1 person who contributed more than 2% of their total funding (this excludes other nonprofits) -- so the $41M there is definitely Musk. So his share was only ~30% of the total and the other 70% was public support which you can confirm in Section C at the bottom of that page.

"Public support" includes other nonprofits - and it's fine of e.g. Musk 'laundered' other funding via a DAF or something at a different nonprofit since the funds belong to that nonprofit and they have ultimate discretion over the grant.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#96

Post by wokwokwok »

andsoitis wrote: post #39

why respond?

agree, this seems like a super bitchy kind of he-said-she-said cat fight and the update doesn't make any meaningful contribution other than 'no you didnt!! See, I have emails to prove it!'.

Yeah yeah, put it in the court documents if it's relevant.

This is drama for drama's sake / PR positioning for ??? reasons (someones ego).

I thought OpenAI was playing the 'we're grown ups' game now?

...guess not.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#97

Post by resonious »

magnio wrote: post #6

> Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...”, to which Elon replied: “Yup”. Wow the most open OpenAI has ever been is when someone sue them. On the other hand, th…

Yeah seems pretty cut and dry. It'd feel pretty bad to see OpenAI doing what they're doing now after saying things like "My probability assessment of OpenAI being relevant to DeepMind/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%."

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#98

Post by devsda »

repler wrote: post #89
devsda wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built.(even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes). "OpenSource". Open in open source means everyone should benefit from the fruits of source after it is built but it's totally OK to not share the source(Even though calling ourselves open is the ri…

isn’t this the old: free as in speech, not as in beer

"Free as in beer" : I doubt anybody is expecting OpenAI to give away their work for free or give free credits/tokens forever. Even when they do, it is no different from a free tier of any other *closed* commercial products.

"Free as in speech" : I'm not sure which part of openAI's actions show commitment to this part.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#99

Post by throwup238 »

elif wrote: post #56
Reubend wrote: post #13

Their evidence does a nice job of making Musk seem duplicitous, but it doesn't really refute any of his core assertions: they still have the appearance of abandoning their core mission to focus more on profits, even if they've elaborated a decent justification of why that's necessary to do. Or to put it more simply: here they explain why they had to betray their core mission. But they don't refute that they did betra…

>they may be right that open sourcing AGI would lead to too much danger. I think this part is proving itself to be an understandable but false perspective. The hazard we are experiencing with LLM right now is not how freely accessible and powerfully truthy it's content is, but it is precisely the controls upon it which are trying to be injected by the large model operators which are generating mistrust and a poor und…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN