Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

Post by emodendroket » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 9:50 PM UTC

justrealist wrote: post #564

emodendroket wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "for the good of the world", and in cases where it's not obvious how that should be applied the 5 of us would decide." It's hard not to be a bit cynical about such an arrangement.

Do you have a better suggestion? At the end of the day, someone has to make decisions. Who wouldn't nominate themselves?

Post by emodendroket » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 9:52 PM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #691

emodendroket wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing I've read about that whole kerfuffle suggests that "investors" were the main people the ousted board members cared about. Kind of seems like reading back significance not intended into the original text.

In a company (it may be complicated due to OpenAIs structure) the boards sole purpose is to represent all shareholders. If they don’t that’s usually asking for a SEC investigation or private law suit.

Post by gridspy » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 9:53 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #611

sema4hacker wrote: post #281

A NY Times article says "Though Mr. Musk has repeatedly criticized OpenAI for becoming a for-profit company, he hatched a plan in 2017 to wrest control of the A.I. lab from Mr. Altman and its other founders and transform into a commercial operation that would work alongside his other companies, including the electric carmaker Tesla, and make use of their increasingly powerful supercomputers, people familiar with his…

Same with Musk,'s warning about the dangers of AI but then he released one too.

Post by 14u2c » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 9:57 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #704

patcon wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I try to port your logic over into nuclear capacity it doesn't hold very well. Nuclear capacity is constrained, and those constraining it attempt to do so for reasons public good (energy, warfare, peace). You could argue about effectiveness, but our failure to self-annihilate seems positive testament to the strategy. Transparency does not serve us when mitigating certain forms of danger. I'm trying to remain hum…

The lack of nukes isn't because of restriction of information. That lasted about as long as it took to leak the info to Soviets. It's far more complicated than that. The US (and other nations) is not too friendly toward countries developing nukes. There are significant threats against them. Also perspective is an interesting thing. Non-nuclear countries like Iran and (in the past) North Korea that get pushed around b…

Post by brookst » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 10:02 PM UTC

starbugs wrote: post #590

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #580

Any competent lawyer is going to get Musk on the stand reiterating his opinions about the danger of AI. If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given. Not saying I agree that being closed source is in the public good, although one could certainly argue that accelerating the efforts of bad actors to catch…

> If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest If that was true, then they shouldn't have started off like that to begin with. You can't have it both ways. Either you are pursuing your goal to be open (as the name implies) or the way you set yourself up was ill-suited all along.