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

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

courthousenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by treesciencebot »

vineyardmike wrote: post #925
treesciencebot wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) They can give away the model but sell an API - but they can’t serve a model as cheap as Goog/Msft/Amzn who have better unit economics on their cloud and better pricing on GPUs (plus custom inference chips). Which has a simple solution, release the model weights with a license which doesn't let anyone to commercially host them (like AGPL-ish) without your permission. That is what Stability.ai does it.

But who cares? Like not morally-open-access-sounds-nice but actual impact. Open-access to these models is nice but only commercial enterprises can afford the compute requirements for a massive LLM. So an AGPL type model would just sit on the hard drives of like 30 people who have a hobby to heat their home with GPUs.

It allows for research to continue, which might eventually benefit everyone. The primary advantage in my mind is giving academy a chance to learn from it and community to build cool stuff on top of it.

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

#962

Post by jrflowers »

dorkwood wrote: post #937
jrflowers wrote: post #602

This is a good case. If openAI gives mr musk access to the gpt 4 weights he can tune it to solve the twitter bot problem

Musk already solved the Twitter bot problem. That was one of his main goals, and he did it by introducing the paid blue checkmark.

The blue checkmark made the bots post better ?

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

#963

Post by loceng »

belter wrote: post #948
loceng wrote: post #943

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite the specific line and source claiming "reported reason Elon Musk departed from the project"? Feels taken out of context from what I remembering reading before. Not sure I'd trust Washington Post to present a story accurately - whether the termination notices were relevant to the premise presented. Did he attend the Twitter deposition via video? Seems like a hit piece.

"...And Musk proposed a possible solution: He would take control of OpenAI and run it himself. Altman and OpenAI’s other founders rejected Musk’s proposal. Musk, in turn, walked away from the company — and reneged on a massive planned donation. The fallout from that conflict, culminating in the announcement of Musk’s departure on Feb 20, 2018..."

So you removed the context that the solution - for them betraying-violating the non-profit agreement - was for him to take it over and realign it back following its intended principles during OpenAI's formation-conception?

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

#964

Post by loceng »

asciii wrote: post #825
qwertox wrote: post #658

Whatever his reason may be (like resentment for jumping off the ship too soon and missing out, or standing in for humanity), I like what I read in the sense that it contains all the stuff that needs to be spoken about publicly, and the court seems to be the optimal place for this. It feels like Microsoft is misusing the partnership only to block other companies from having access to the IP. They said they don't need…

Elon kept funding the non-profit even though they had begun talks/investor discussions about the for-profit. I think an extra $3 million? Either way, I'm guessing he did not think the for-profit side would turn into a money printer.

He knew the discussion was in regards to for-profit? Companies like Microsoft probably constantly are being courted to fund non-profit orgs.

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

#965

Post by theptip »

dorkwood wrote: post #936
theptip wrote: post #865

An interesting nugget, Musk is here claiming that GPT-4 is already AGI, and therefore not covered by the MS licensing deal.

We're going to need a new acronym once AGI is taken to mean "a really good LLM", and not, you know, AGI.

I think the DeepMind taxonomy is good; recognize that AGI is too broad a term, so add levels to make it specific.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

“Competent AGI” (or a little earlier) would be my guess for where OpenAI would not hand it over to MS. Honestly if they displaced 10% of workers I think they might call that the threshold.

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

#966

Post by schappim »

JamisonM wrote: post #692
cljacoby wrote: post #522

Similar to the firing-unfiring of Sam Altman, so much of this seems to be boil down to OpenAI's puzzle-box organizational structure. It seems like the whole "capped for-profit within a non-profit" is not going to to work long term.

A non-profit with a for-profit subsidiary is actually pretty common and it is probably one of the more "normal" things OpenAI has done. https://www.marcumllp.com/insights/creating-a-for-profit-sub... My personal opinion is that not creating a for-profit wing would have made a even bigger mess. (But then I also think this suit is very obviously without merit and the complaint is written in a way that it sounds like la…

> A non-profit with a for-profit subsidiary is actually pretty common

Example: Raspberry Pi

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

#967

Post by seanhunter »

troupe wrote: post #438

If OpenAI became a non-profit with this in its charter: “resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person" I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.

Companies pivot all the time. You have to do more than show they are doing something different from what they originally said they would do if you want to win an investor lawsuit.

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

#968

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #839

"In March 2023, OpenAI released its most powerful language model yet, GPT-4. GPT-4 is not just capable of reasoning. It is better at reasoning than average humans. It scored in the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam for lawyers. It scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE Verbal Assessment. It even scored a 77% on the Advanced Sommelier examination." One could argue a common characteristic of the above exams is…

None of these exams are the basis for professional certification: passing them does not _on its own_ qualify anyone for any particular profession.

The Advanced Sommelier exam is part of a process that involves taking other exams and courses. The GRE Verbal is usually taken in combination with other GRE parts and used to apply for entry into a program where years of further study may be required. The UBE normally follows years of study in an approved program. (Back in the day, some people used to take the MBE, which is now a part of the UBE, while they were still in school because the exam was so easy: it was a standardised, multiple-choice test.)

The plaintiffs must make the argument that GPT-4 is "AGI" because the alleged agreement to form OpenAI was focused on "AGI" specifically, not simply development and improvement of LLMs. If OpenAI has not yet achieved AGI, then arguably the alleged agreement does not restrict whatever it is doing now. It only applies to "AGI".

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

#969

Post by dylan604 »

BytesAndGears wrote: post #918
dylan604 wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my main question, how open is Tesla's FSD "AI"? Why is it okay for his AI to be closed with a direct path of killing/harming people?

I think legally, because he didn’t take a bunch of money and promise the donors to make it open

Google started as “Don’t be evil”, but later changed. Did the early investors sue for that change in core belief? What about the bald face lie of FB’s “free and always will be” when they are robbing your privacy blind?

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

#970

Post by tarsinge »

tim333 wrote: post #820
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d offer that Musk hasnt shown any consistent principle motivating his behavior other than gathering power, in the face of stated motivations. So while he may genuinely believe what he is saying, the inherent philosophical conflicts in his consistent narcissistic actions, have poisoned any other possible position to such an extent that he has lost all moral credibility Revealed preferences never lie

He seems to broadly pursue projects he considers helpful to humanity like sustainable energy, the multiplanetary thing and setting up OpenAI. You can interpret people's motivations in different ways but it doesn't look like just power gathering to me. I mean if he was that power hungry you'd expect him to try to monopolize AI for himself rather than make it open.

This is proven false by many of his behaviors, like sabotaging high speed train projects with dumb car tunnels. This was a blatant misuse of his reputation at the time to make society worse for saving his business interests. Mars talks were nonsense. FSD was a lie. Tesla is a business success but in the end it’s just cars. It’s improving humanity as much as an iPhone. So no he is only after power, helping humanity is just his marketing angle for gullible geeks.
Post reply on HN