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

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#161

Post by roody15 »

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…

“ To some extent, they may be right that open sourcing AGI would lead to too much danger.”

I would argue the opposite. Keeping AGI behind a walled corporate garden could be the most dangerous situation imaginable.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#162

Post by icpmacdo »

maxlamb wrote: post #144
Leary wrote: post #3

I guess Sam Altman finally somehow found Ilya Sutskever after saying he didn't know where he was and whether he was still working at OpenAI [1] [1] https://officechai.com/startups/sam-altman-is-unsure-if-ilya... .

Does it say he found him anywhere? All I see in the article are emails to him from 2016

He is a signatory

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#163

Post by bugglebeetle »

danenania wrote: post #147
bugglebeetle wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Meta, Mistral, Allen AI, and many others.

None of those are anywhere close to as easy for the average person to access as OpenAI’s offerings. And none are as good as GPT-4 afaik. There are many arguments one can make against OpenAI. I just don’t see how “they don’t want to make AI widely available” makes any sense at all. A world where OpenAI never existed would clearly be a world where AI is far less accessible to the average person.

There is no way to reconcile their founding statements and principles with what they’re doing now. They don’t even publish legitimate research papers any longer and barely even try to defend themselves as aligning with their prior mission.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#164

Post by chjj »

phire wrote: post #116
chjj wrote: post #72

I find it very strange that OpenAI would post this in the middle of a lawsuit. Shouldn't all of these emails come out in discovery anyway? Publishing this only benefits OpenAI if they're betting on the case never reaching discovery. It seems like they just want to publish very select emails which paint a certain picture. Also, DKIM signatures are notably absent, not that we could verify them anyway since the emails a…

If they just waited until discovery, it would be Musk's lawyers that control the narrative, choosing which parts of the emails to focus on publicly, which to ignore and what story to paint around it. As you say, this way, they get to control the narrative. Nothing strange at all. From what I can tell, Musk's lawsuit doesn't have a much of chance in the first place. I don't think he expects to win, it seems to be more…

OpenAI might think they're winning a PR battle by shaping a narrative here, but they are now locked into this narrative, possibly to their detriment in court. Just seems like a bad idea. I find it odd that their lawyers wouldn't steer them clear of something like this.

> I think OpenAI have quite wisely decided that the real battle here is the court of public opinion.

They've failed to win me over. As far as I can tell, their attempted PR victory hinges on a single email with a one-word reply from Musk. Their own emails are far more damning as they give a detailed explanation of why they believe AI should not be open.

To an observer who already dislikes Musk, I'm sure it's a PR win. To someone neutral or someone who dislikes both parties, it's a PR disaster.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#165

Post by mikeyouse »

baking wrote: post #110
mikeyouse wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think I screwed up. It has been a while, but it looks like I misread Part II, Section B, Line 10 as $70 million, not $70,000. Let me check the previous years to see if I'm thinking of something else. Thanks for double-checking this. I know they got $20 million from Open Philanthropy which qualifies as public support, so I am still wondering about the other $70 million, but it is not the smoking gun that I thought i…

Most rich people setup DAFs alongside their family foundations so that they can make large contributions to this type of org. without triggering disclosure or private foundation tests -- so e.g. Musk will create a DAF at Fidelity Charitable and give them $100M and collect the associated tax break in year 1 -- he can then direct Fidelity to grant $20M/year to OpenAI which will show up as Public Support since it's coming from another nonprofit entity and Fidelity maintains ultimate discretion over the funds.

Edit - Got curious and sure enough - this is the 28,000 page 990 filing for Fidelity Charitable: https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/110303001_202006_990_...

On page 205 there's a $3.5M donation to OpenAI from 2019.

Likewise here for SVCF on page 237 (https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/205205488_201912_990_...) - there's a $30M donation to OpenAI in 2019.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#166

Post by neom »

sidcool wrote: post #62
extheat wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not asking for money in the lawsuit, so what is it going to do? I thought it was for show in the first place, the goal was to hold them to their founding principles. Which are of course, pretty subjective. Top to bottom it's God complex over there and the secret justification for closed source was pretty ironic--we only found out this key unmentioned detail once the lawsuits start flying.

He is not asking for money because that would make it crystal clear he's after the money. In actuality, he is just bitter he missed the boat. He is not after the money, but the fame.

"For an award of restitution and/or disgorgement of any and all monies received by Defendants while they engaged in the unfair and improper practices described herein"

He claims he'll give all the money to charity, but he's certainly asking for money.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#167

Post by Aeolun »

Jensson wrote: post #38
LatticeAnimal wrote: post #18

> 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 (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes). That is surprisingly greedy & selfish to be boasting about in their own…

Yeah, they are basically saying that they called themselves OpenAI as a recruitment strategy but they never planned to be open after the initial hires.

They’re pretty open about that now though.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#168

Post by foreverobama »

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…

[dead]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#170

Post by travbrack »

lagt_t wrote: post #105
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…

Everytime they say LLMs are the path to AGI, I cringe a little.

how come?
Post reply on HN