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

Post by tintor » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 4:07 AM UTC

stubish wrote: post #837

tracerbulletx wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says "will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable" they have open sourced a number of things, Whisper most notably. Nothing about that is a promise to open source everything and they just need to say it wasn't applicable for ChatGPT or DallE because of safety.

I doubt the safety argument will hold up in court. Anything safe enough to allow Microsoft or others access too would be safe enough to release publicly. Our AI overlords are not going to respect an NDA. And for the public safety/disinformation side of things, I think it is safe to say that cat is out of the bag and chasing the horse that has bolted.

Post by gamblor956 » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 4:29 AM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #852

gamblor956 wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Articles of Incorporation: "The specific purpose of this corporation is to provide funding for research, development and distribution of technology related to artificial intelligence. The resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable." Based on this, it would be extremely hard to show that they are doing something v…

The "when applicable" is ambiguous, but IANAL. Does it become applicable to open source when "The resulting technology will benefit the public"? That seems the clearest read. If so, OpenAI would have to argue that open sourcing their models wouldn't benefit the public, which... seems difficult. They'd essentially have to argue that the public paying OpenAI to use an OpenAI-controlled model is more beneficial. Or does…

Post by sebastianconcpt » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 4:33 AM UTC

aleksandrh wrote: post #610

> Indeed, as the November 2023 drama was unfolding, Microsoft’s CEO boasted that it would not matter “[i]f OpenAI disappeared tomorrow.” He explained that “[w]e have all the IP rights and all the capability.” “We have the people, we have the compute, we have the data, we have everything.” “We are below them, above them, around them.” Yikes. This technology definitely needs to be open source, especially if we get to t…

Post by otterley » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 4:34 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #823

codexb wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Page 37 of the lawsuit has the certificate of incorporation. It says precisely what Musk claims it says. That’s the founding document he’s referencing.

> It says precisely what Musk claims it says. Almost. Musk uses an ellipsis in his copy in the text that elides some text that is rather detrimental to his claims: > In furtherance of its purposes, the corporation shall engage in any lawful act of activity for which nonprofit corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of Delaware.

Post by richardw » Sat, Mar 02, 2024, 4:39 AM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #847

richardw wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be too generous, but my interpretation is that the ground changed so fast that they needed to shift to continue the mission given the new reality. After ChatGPT, every for-profit and its dog is going hard. Talent can join the only Mother Teresa in the middle, or compete with them as they stupidly open all the source the second they discover anything. You can’t compete with the biggest labs in the world who ha…

> And you need to be in the game to have any influence over the eventual direction Effective altruism, eh?