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

531–540 of 642 posts

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

#531

Post by [deleted] »

philipallstar wrote: post #527
DeusExMachina wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I read around, this lawsuit raised an important question: can a non-profit become a for-profit company? To that extent, what Musk was happy or unhappy with is irrelevant. What is actually allowed by the law is more important. However, it seems that the lawsuit was not phrased that way and Musk just looked for damages to himself. In that frame it's not much of a surprise that things ended this way.

> can a non-profit become a for-profit company? Presumably a non-profit can move all its staff and its stuff into a for-profit anyway.

[deleted]

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

#532

Post by drob518 »

danaris wrote: post #284
robocat wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion? Makes me think of a inverted Zeno's paradox. Why do you need an extra dollar? I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A]. You need a fukton more than median wealth to be able to protect yourself against your own government. The type of person that enjoys chasing money doesn't stop. [A] via capital gains ta…

Yeah, no, this is bullshit. You can't just apply One Simple Rule like this ("more money is always better" / "more money never makes a difference"). There is, objectively , an amount of money above which another dollar, or another billion, will never make a meaningful difference in your overall lifestyle[0]. The amount isn't a single bright line, but like with so many things, there's an area below it where extra money…

Right. But why does everyone assume that a billionaire continues to work for the money? Besides, he doesn’t “work” for the money. He’s the primary shareholder in companies that he founded and funded. He gets another billion and another billion when everyone else puts an increasing value on his shares. Even if Elon “retired,” he’d still continue to get richer.

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

#533

Post by rreichman »

DeusExMachina wrote: post #509
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…

As I read around, this lawsuit raised an important question: can a non-profit become a for-profit company? To that extent, what Musk was happy or unhappy with is irrelevant. What is actually allowed by the law is more important. However, it seems that the lawsuit was not phrased that way and Musk just looked for damages to himself. In that frame it's not much of a surprise that things ended this way.

There is a well established procedure for these things, happens in hospitals etc. Not a new question a jury needs to address.

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

#534

Post by kakacik »

harrall wrote: post #455
hdndjsbbs wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone seriously still believe this? I thought as a society we had realized Musk is simply BSing whatever he feels like until it becomes untenable.

Musk is like that person on Facebook you know that is really good at then they post about their thoughts on some other topic and all you can respond with is “stay in your lane.” Musk has been successful is pure engineering efforts led by engineers he hired achieving the next big-but-not-too-big step. You ignore his thoughts on everything else.

Or... you maintain some moral integrity, and consider him POS despite all his deliveries. People clearly can be great and horrible at the same time, why the desperate need to paint everything black & white and ignore all the fine details of reality.

These people are all about massive ego trips and legacies. So let them build their legacy as they truly were with all the + and -, not some idealized, simplified image. Truth always deserves to be told, however inconvenient. Sort of moral imperative of a moral human being if you want.

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

#535

Post by ryan_j_naughton »

DeusExMachina wrote: post #525
andy_ppp wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would Musk have standing for asking that question about non-profit to for profit companies? I think this would be a role for the government rather than a private individual and the Trump admin is not exactly fond of enforcing regulations.

It does not matter what standing Musk has, the question is the important part, not the asker. You can accuse him of hipocrisy and that still makes no difference. He can still be the vehicle for the question to be asked. The role of the government is to make the laws, and to apply them when violation are reported. It is also to regulate new situations as they arise, for example, if a court decides the law allows a non…

There is a reason standing exists. We don't want a society where anyone can litigate the ill-defined "important questions of society" at will.

I agree with you that this is an important question.

I disagree with you that, "Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided"

Standing is itself a very important and critical concept. If anyone could sue over any “important” public issue without standing, courts would be asked to referee disputes that are normally handled by elections, legislation, agency rulemaking, oversight hearings, and public debate. We don't want the courts to be such arbiters of so many matters and want their purview to be more narrow by design.

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

#536

Post by Pingk »

rreichman wrote: post #533
DeusExMachina wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I read around, this lawsuit raised an important question: can a non-profit become a for-profit company? To that extent, what Musk was happy or unhappy with is irrelevant. What is actually allowed by the law is more important. However, it seems that the lawsuit was not phrased that way and Musk just looked for damages to himself. In that frame it's not much of a surprise that things ended this way.

There is a well established procedure for these things, happens in hospitals etc. Not a new question a jury needs to address.

Not related to the story, but that your go-to example of converting to a for-profit organisation is a hospital is horrifying to me

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

#537

Post by dragontamer »

fastball wrote: post #469
dragontamer wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are just a few months away from the 10 year anniversary of Elon's coast-to-coast full self driving promise made in 2016. If your idea of Elon Musks AI success is to lean on THAT side of Tesla... well, good luck with that.

Tesla is one of 3 companies currently operating a driverless taxi service.

Ah yes. The driverless cars with a safety driver at the wheel. So.... driverless.

You know that it's a public service and we literally can see the drivers, right?

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

#538

Post by sumeno »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #477
Nevermark wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this thinking at all. I share all the disillusionment and cynicism about Musk, shared here by others. But he has also done amazing things. When someone declares they are going to create a Martian colony, something literally "out of this world", and against all odds makes unbelievable progress for years, including re-usable rockets that return and land vertically, more efficient powerful engines, an…

People don’t look at the complexity of a human character. They take the easiest extreme and run with it. I was on another HN thread where practically everyone was calling Elon a psychopath. If you think objectively Elon is not a psychopath.

He has a higher body count than any serial killer who has ever lived with DOGE alone. He may or may not be clinically diagnosable, but he's a monster either way

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

#539

Post by ben_w »

sumeno wrote: post #538
threethirtytwo wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t look at the complexity of a human character. They take the easiest extreme and run with it. I was on another HN thread where practically everyone was calling Elon a psychopath. If you think objectively Elon is not a psychopath.

He has a higher body count than any serial killer who has ever lived with DOGE alone. He may or may not be clinically diagnosable, but he's a monster either way

While I share your opinion on his character, the first part of what you say is also true for almost everyone who wielded the kinds and scales power that was given to him via DOGE: Every battleship is a hospital not built, etc.

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

#540

Post by sigmoid10 »

Pingk wrote: post #536
rreichman wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a well established procedure for these things, happens in hospitals etc. Not a new question a jury needs to address.

Not related to the story, but that your go-to example of converting to a for-profit organisation is a hospital is horrifying to me

It's also not so easy. The for profit entity essentially has to buy all the previous entity's assets and assume liabilities. Since the assets are considered charitable trusts, the proceeds from the sale then need to go into a new charitable foundation. Regulators also need to approve that the assets were fairly valued and the entire process was free of conflicts of interest. Albeit complicated, the process is pretty straightforward for hospitals. But in OpenAI's case it seems more like they tried to jump through every legal loophole they found.
Post reply on HN