21–30 of 642 posts
> A nine-person jury found that Elon Musk did not bring his lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman until after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations. Intersting outcome. So it's more of a dismissal on technical grounds rather than a complete loss.
[flagged]
> OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.
> Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact. We believe AI should be an extension of individual human wills and, in the spirit of liberty, as broadly and evenly distributed as possible.
---
https://web.archive.org/web/20180323231344/https://openai.co...
> We publish at top machine learning conferences, open-source software tools for accelerating AI research, and release blog posts to communicate our research. We will not keep information private for private benefit, but in the long term, we expect to create formal processes for keeping technologies private when there are safety concerns.
---
It's about open research.
The strongest evidence against Musk was Musk. His own 2017 emails supporting for-profit chats made the "betrayal" narrative very hard to sell.
e.g the twitter thing - forced to buy when he didn't want.
Advice for Elon: you can actually use ChatGPT on the web or the desktop app to schedule reminders for you, like "file lawsuit against OpenAI."
Reached for comment by TechCrunch, Musk’s lead counsel Marc Toberoff said, “One word: Appeal.” One wonders on what grounds? In the UK, in a civil case like this, the judge I think comments on the likelihood of an appeal avenue once the verdict has been reached.
On the grounds of "I have infinite money and lawyers to drag this thing out forever, whether I'll win or not."
Reached for comment by TechCrunch, Musk’s lead counsel Marc Toberoff said, “One word: Appeal.” One wonders on what grounds? In the UK, in a civil case like this, the judge I think comments on the likelihood of an appeal avenue once the verdict has been reached.
Invent a time machine; send a lawyer back to file a new lawsuit within the statute of limitations.
[flagged]
He lost in the sense that he filed a lawsuit and that lawsuit was dismissed. It seems like a reasonable way to use the word, no?