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

Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 159 posts

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#51

Post by ru552 »

trotro wrote: post #40
dude250711 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to justify current valuations by misrepresenting current model capabilities is a scam. A fair valuation of ~$5B each for Anthropic and OpenAI for the occasionally useful tools that they had created would be more reasonable.

These companies are selling subscriptions for what is basically AGI, yet you think they should have the same valuation as Crocs (yes, the footwear company) ?

Regardless of the marketing material, LLMs are still just using probabilities to guess what the next token is.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#52

Post by cma »

pdonis wrote: post #47
ryandrake wrote: post #20

"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers." There's really nobody for normal people to root for in this battle. They're fighting over who gets to wield the dick that is going to screw us all.

While I have a great deal of sympathy for this point of view, I think the article makes an interesting observation that suggests it actually doesn't matter whether these people are intentionally trying to screw everybody or not--the actual problem is much bigger even than that: To claim that OpenAI’s mission of cultivating beneficial A.I. was compromised by Sam Altman is to let the entire industry off the hook. Yes,…

Leaked emails I think showed the open source part at the heart of the concept of OpenAI was never serious and was just to help recruit.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#53

Post by goldenarm »

pj_mukh wrote: post #19

This is a weird fantasy among the literati that AI is a "scam", that we can "expose" them with lots of palace intrigue coverage and SBF or Elizabeth Holmes them away and then everything will be right in the world. Some of the best models are Chinese and Open-source and so-so good and Sam Altman is wholly irrelevant to them. Some folks are in for a very rude awakening.

Using unlicensed intellectual property to build a plagiarism machine that is wrong 10% of the time, could be interpreted as a scam by many folks.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#54

Post by reenorap »

ryandrake wrote: post #20

"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers." There's really nobody for normal people to root for in this battle. They're fighting over who gets to wield the dick that is going to screw us all.

I read this quote from a bottle cap of Honest Tea. I’ve used it so many times since then because it speaks so much truth about life today.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#55

Post by reenorap »

heipei wrote: post #43
dude250711 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to justify current valuations by misrepresenting current model capabilities is a scam. A fair valuation of ~$5B each for Anthropic and OpenAI for the occasionally useful tools that they had created would be more reasonable.

$5B valuation on a $30B run rate for Anthropic?

40B ARR and profitable next month.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#56

Post by Curosinono »

hawkice wrote: post #39
Curosinono wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't illegal so there is some reason why the USA allowed it. And as mentioned, they agreeed that they will not get the capital openai needs, so what did the USA people loose? A company which whouldn't have been able to do what they are known for anyway. Again i'm not protecting the rich, i just don't think there is a real scandal and its not the same as the other 2 the newyorker mentioned

Their stated non-profit goal was to benefit all of humanity. Changing OpenAI to benefit their financial backers in a formal sense could be a loss of nearly unbounded value.

As i wrote in my prev argument, they assumed that as non profit, they wouldt' get the capital needed to even be a frontier lab.

So nothing to loose if their model wouldn't have worked anyway.

And at the current state, its better anyway that China is pushing the non-profit/humantariy aspect of open models.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#58

Post by pdonis »

cma wrote: post #52
pdonis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I have a great deal of sympathy for this point of view, I think the article makes an interesting observation that suggests it actually doesn't matter whether these people are intentionally trying to screw everybody or not--the actual problem is much bigger even than that: To claim that OpenAI’s mission of cultivating beneficial A.I. was compromised by Sam Altman is to let the entire industry off the hook. Yes,…

Leaked emails I think showed the open source part at the heart of the concept of OpenAI was never serious and was just to help recruit.

I don't know that the hypothetical I described requires that the open source part was sincere. The article focuses on Altman's belief that someone was going to develop AI and he thought it would be bad if Google did it first--meaning, by implication, that it would be good if an organization that he started did it first. But what if it turns out to be bad no matter who did it first?

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#59

Post by [deleted] »

heipei wrote: post #43
dude250711 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to justify current valuations by misrepresenting current model capabilities is a scam. A fair valuation of ~$5B each for Anthropic and OpenAI for the occasionally useful tools that they had created would be more reasonable.

$5B valuation on a $30B run rate for Anthropic?

[deleted]

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#60

Post by zozbot234 »

lokar wrote: post #16
vlucas wrote: post #8

Sam didn't "win" the case in the sense that most people will think of when reading this headline. In the 20th paragraph of the linked article, finally getting to the actual reason: > On Monday, the jury took only two hours to reach its verdict. Musk’s complaint, the panel found, had indeed exceeded the statute of limitations Musk is appealing. This fight is far from over.

What is the substance of the appeal? IANAL, but AIUI, it's pretty hard to appeal a finding of fact from a jury.

The substantive point of law will most likely be that OpenAI's salami slicing tactic for becoming a for-profit does not properly fall under the statute of limitations. To think otherwise is basically no different than arguing that you can rob a person twice and not be prosecuted for the second robbery because of "double jeopardy".
Post reply on HN