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

Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 642 posts

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#411

Post by rubyn00bie »

scottyah wrote: post #383
stickfigure wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Year over year sales are declining. Stratospheric stock price is propped up by promise of selling humanoid robots, a technology (and market) which are unproven. I would not invest.

That's a no, it's business as usual except they have massive cash reserves.

Having approximately $44 billion in cash on hand is not a massive cash reserve for any company with the market cap of Tesla ($1.3 trillion). Even less so when you realize how capital intensive its current car and non-existent robot business is… The entire EV market is risky right now for margin compression as Chinese EV manufacturers are really pulling ahead. It’s pretty wild to see just how far they’ve progressed while the west mostly does nothing. Even Tesla hasn’t provided any real innovation in years in regards to their core business. And from what I can tell, they’re pretty much outright ignoring their auxiliary businesses.

If Optimus fails to impress, and gain traction, I’d seriously expect Tesla to end up a subsidiary of SpaceX within the next ten years as Elon tries to protect up his net worth.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#412

Post by wagwang »

bigbuppo wrote: post #344
charcircuit wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Evidence degrades Maybe in the past, but with modern technology that isn't always true. Statue of limitations comes from a time before even cameras existed.

The purpose of the law isn't revenge. Also, I see many other people in this thread confusing criminal law and civil law, which is a bit sad to see on a place like HN.

It absolutely is, if you arent going to punish someone who hurt my child then I will do it myself.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#413

Post by _carbyau_ »

latexr wrote: post #405
_carbyau_ wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but lets practice some empathy. Starting point: money can't buy happiness. So what to do to be happy? Extreme wealth removes most practical goals like buying things or going places and doing things. Not that you can't do them, but it's not a meaningful goal to work towards. They have to create their own meaning, whatever that is. A billionaire trying to create purpose for themselves can be boring, or weird. Whi…

Greedy narcissists are lacking in empathy, that’s what makes them greedy narcissists. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be empathetic, of course. Someone else’s lack of empathy does not excuse our own. However, consider that billionaires mostly reach that status by exploiting others. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, they all fit that mould. Being empathetic does not mean being a chump. I’m not going to shed a tear for the poor…

I wasn't trying to say all billionaires deserve an outpouring of defence for their actions. Merely that their actions are as human as the rest of us, just in a different context.

And like the rest of us, there are those who cope better or worse, who are morally better or worse. Police are another bunch of people judged similarly.

Which is to say, there are indeed woeful billionaires. Possibly most of them. But don't paint the humans all with the same brush, even if the way to fix society might be to do so legally.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#414

Post by fastball »

dragontamer wrote: post #387
fastball wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but Dojo clearly has a spiritual successor in the form of: whatever Tesla is currently using to train FSD models? Like... Tesla kills teams all the time. Sounds like many were absorbed into the rest of the org. Seems like a bit of a nothing-burger without the follow-up that Tesla is shutting down FSD ambitions in general (or similar).

Yeah. It's called NVidia GPUs. IE: Tesla spent over a $Billion building a team and custom building Dojo chips only to fire the entire team, throw away their chips and buy NVidia.

Are they replacing their onboard chips with NVidia chips?

AFAICT Tesla has increased investment in their own chip ambitions. Dojo specifically being cut is a massive failure if you are motivated to believe that, but otherwise it looks more like a subset of custom chip work that didn't pay off and the company has appropriately cut their losses. The onboard "AI2/3/4/5" chips are clearly the bigger investment (they can be found on every Tesla vehicle) and do not seem to be going anywhere at the moment.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#415

Post by j16sdiz »

ai-x wrote: post #294
bambax wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unfamiliar with the US legal system but do they really need a jury and a trial to determine whether the claims are barred by the statute of limitations? Couldn't this be decided by a judge before trial?

That's like saying can't the Judge decide who the killer was when he literally saw the video of shooting.

One still need to decide:

- if the video is real (not AI / edited / another event)

- if the subject the same person (twins, look alike, too bury to tell)

etc

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#416

Post by susiecambria »

jongjong wrote: post #393
granzymes wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My own thoughts: If I had been on the jury, I would have found against Musk on every point. His lawyers created a “3 phases of doubt” to try and sidestep the statute of limitations, but it was clearly bogus and he was on notice of OpenAI creating a for-profit in 2019. Musk was perfectly happy to have OpenAI be a for-profit, a non-profit with an attached for-profit (the current structure), or even just absorbed into T…

I think this is missing the main point that Musk was never the owner of OpenAI, neither was Sam, nor the employees. The owners are the American people. I presume Musk got a tax rebate from his donation, courtesy of the taxpayer; so did every other donor. The fact is, OpenAI was a non-profit belonging to the public and it was appropriated by the donors... Who already got their tax cuts. This is setting a precedent tha…

OpenAI Foundation is a corporation established in Delaware. It has received it's 501(c)3 status from the IRS which means donations are deductible to the fullest extent of the law (or some such; it's been a long time since I've had to write that). The American people do not own the foundation.

As for the OpenAI that is a public benefits corporation, I know nothing about all the ins and outs of that type of corporation.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#417

Post by [deleted] »

scottyah wrote: post #385
abustamam wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want extra money so I can pay for simple things like food and pay my mortgage and send my kid to a school, and help family members out. Realistically I probably need $5m and I'd be set for life. If I had $10m instead of $5m I don't see how my life would meaningfully change.

That's the difference between builders and consumers. People who are mostly consumers have a realistic number where they could stop contributing to society. Smalltime builders can imagine a lot of wealth, but at a certain point don't want to get too big. Big Dreamers are only limited by what they can imagine and make happen, and only infinite capital, labor, and time could achieve their dreams. Once you surround your…

[deleted]

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#418

Post by NikolaNovak »

aeternum wrote: post #354
andrei_says_ wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes wonder, what does one need a second 500 billion that the first 500 billion is not enough for?

Interestingly, during the trial he promised to donate any potential financial winnings to OpenAI's charity. A move that surprisingly didn't get much press.

I genuinely don't know how to make a non-sarcastic statement about Mr. Elon Musk's promises.

I especially struggle to not make a Venn diagram of people who still take Mr. Musk's promises seriously, and current state of American politics.

I simply cannot make a sentence about Mr. Musks promises that will pass Hacker News guidelines of being serious and productive.

...And that's how I feel about Mr. Musks promises, particularly those regarding donations and charities. I think the only way that promise by Mr Musk could've been made stronger, is if it were a Twitter poll :).

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#419

Post by [deleted] »

jongjong wrote: post #393
granzymes wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My own thoughts: If I had been on the jury, I would have found against Musk on every point. His lawyers created a “3 phases of doubt” to try and sidestep the statute of limitations, but it was clearly bogus and he was on notice of OpenAI creating a for-profit in 2019. Musk was perfectly happy to have OpenAI be a for-profit, a non-profit with an attached for-profit (the current structure), or even just absorbed into T…

I think this is missing the main point that Musk was never the owner of OpenAI, neither was Sam, nor the employees. The owners are the American people. I presume Musk got a tax rebate from his donation, courtesy of the taxpayer; so did every other donor. The fact is, OpenAI was a non-profit belonging to the public and it was appropriated by the donors... Who already got their tax cuts. This is setting a precedent tha…

[deleted]

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#420

Post by marcus_holmes »

jongjong wrote: post #409
marcus_holmes wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your reasoning here. You seem to be suggesting that non-profits are owned by the American people? Is there some part of this that I'm missing where this was true of OpenAI at some point?

I'm using the term 'owners' loosely here, but this is a much more reasonable interpretation than the interpretation that the donors are the owners.

I don't think you understand how non-profits work. Essentially they are exactly the same as for-profits, except they can't issue dividends. Ownership works exactly the same as for-profit companies.

A cynical take is that non-profits are for-salary; they still pay their owners, just using other means.

edit: no, my bad, apparently I misunderstood how non-profits work in the USA. Thanks for the correction :)

Post reply on HN