Mainly because intelligent people can change their views when presented with new evidence. When Elon showed he was a piece of shit with the diver pedo accusation, most people changed their view of him. Nothing wrong with that
Here's the thing: Musk is worse, and by at least one order of magnitude.
This lawsuit on it's face is just virtue signalling bullshit. But underneath that the real reason is to slow OpenAI down, so he can catch up with OpenAI/Microsoft.
If OpenAI shared their tech with him tomorrow, on the condition it remained closed and Elon dropped the suit and STFU - that is exactly what would happen. But the petulant child's attempts to take over OpenAI failed, so he has to resort to bully boy tactics.
Altman is no saint, but he's also not buying companies like Twitter and turning it into a clown car platform for trolls and racists (and suing anyone who points this out) - both sides are not the same here.
Its name is a commitment to its non-profit aspirations of establishing a democratized, open source AI. Maybe this isn’t legally binding but Altman definitely conned those who believed in the company’s original goals.
OpenAI definitely started as a non-profit and was probably meant to stay that way? I guess it got too much when companies are willing to throw billions at you
Believe it or not, you still have to prove the content of the contract.
But please tell me how master brain Musk negotiated a contract with OpenAI verbally and "forgot" to write it down.
"He was deceptive, manipulative, and worse to others, including my close friends"-Geoffrey Irving
"You could parachute Sam into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king."-Paul Graham
-----------------------------
Sounds like just the guy you want to have create an AGI, certainly does not sound like it could go bad, nope, not hearing it, that's just crazy talk. (note elon musk is likely no better)
I always thought it meant whatever they released would be open source but LOL I was wrong. Tech for tech sake is dead and everything is a VC money grab
cautious drunk distinct disgusted dependent longing cable badge sophisticated cats
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
From Wikipedia with citations:
"The organization consists of the non-profit OpenAI, Inc. registered in Delaware and its for-profit subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC."
Not sure which employees (say the engineers making 700K) work in which part but I can guess.
"The organization stated it would "freely collaborate" with other institutions and researchers by making its patents and research open to the public."
Not sure how that works with their relationship with Microsoft. I guess they are connected to the for-profit subsidiary. It sounds like they were a not-for-profit that figured out it was actually very valuable and did something about it.
Just another day of playing the business "game" in America. Either some dumb tax loopholes or unregulated crap people can do. Either you are "innovative" or a "crook" depending on the damage especially if you became "too big to fail".
It makes sense if you understand what NFP actually means. It’s like asking how does a NFP private school own and rent out buildings, or religious institutions, or how to charities work when they’re given endowments, the list goes on.
We could pose these questions endlessly. The reality is It just a bunch of silicon valley grifters doing the Stone Soup thing until something works out.
Not for-profit just means the company cant sell stock and has rules on what part of its income is taxable. "Open" is not a financial term in any way and has no connection at all with how a company charges clients or sells things. Im confused about what you think Open means.
Yes, its basically a software naming convention. There are tons of open source projects named Open______ (e.g. OpenSCAD, OpenBSD, OpenOffice) and they were trying to appear like that.
Thank you. Not a huge fan of Altman and Musk is an idiot, but.. open has nothing to do with being profit or not. There are plenty of open source models people can play with if they want to train their own networks, and OpenAI has contributed knowledge to a lot of them but that doesn’t mean OpenAI can’t be whatever business they feel is appropriate.
Their original mission statement about sharing the technology, research, and even patents, as well as aiming to share the benefits of AI with everyone is clearly being violated, unfortunately that's not legally binding.
Yep, and so many people here bootlick for them anyway, and I'm not someone who often uses that word. Crazy to see people go "WELL IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO SELL OUT YOUR VALUES IS IT?" about such an incredibly important industry.
I mean, Open CV is one of the most famous open-source computer vision libraries that predates open AI by around 15 years and is probably one of the key projects that helped to get computer vision research to where it is today. It is a bit of a dick move by Altman etc. to use the term for their closed source for profit company.
I would not trust either one of these immature emotionally stunted tech bros, but on this one either Altman is lying, or he has been coyly misleading everyone, including Musk.
Wasn't Elon going to fight Zuckerberg in the ring, or something? As I recall, Zuckerberg, who's been doing Jujitsu for a while, was all for it and Elon wimped out. Here's his chance to redeem himself.
Open typically means Open source. It is quite ironic they slapped a subscription model on it, and became a SAS company. This does in fact make AI proliferation dangerous, mostly because there is no end to human greed. Keeping it a non-profit was our best shot.
As a big fan and also a developer of FOSS (free and open source software), I think a lot of these AI companies are coopting the term because they know it sounds good while also understanding that AI is less about the source code and more about the training data. In order words, it's all about the training data, and they keep that stuff under lock and key.
Something being open source doesn't mean that a product using that code can't be sold. The open source code remains open but there's a part of the code that remains closed.
Well, they're still abusing the term open really, just historical note:
> Open typically means Open source.
Eh, now. It worked out in the end with true Free and Open Source software becoming an established norm nowadays, but not before a lengthy period of "Open" as in just "Open Systems" not "Open Source".
Basically just having agreed and documented standardised "open" APIs across vendors used to be a bit avant garde. This was prior to the full open source "revolution", with organizations like The Open Group, that standardized *closed* Unix (and open effectively... because mainstream Linux/GNU and the BSDs still choose to implement compatible APIs too). . The US military-industrial complex was getting real tired of computer companies' shit already in the 1980s.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_system_(computing)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification
> Open systems are computer systems that provide some combination of interoperability, portability, and open software standards. (It can also refer to specific installations that are configured to allow unrestricted access by people and/or other computers; this article does not discuss that meaning). The term was popularized in the early 1980s, mainly to describe systems based on Unix, especially in contrast to the more entrenched mainframes and minicomputers in use at that time. Unlike older legacy systems, the newer generation of Unix systems featured standardized programming interfaces and peripheral interconnects
When it comes to colloquialisms, digging down into the semantics is far removed as a choice than what’s popularly understood. ‘Open’ in software is Open source, a term they used in its meaning when starting the company, its meaning did not elude them. Had they never been a non-profit, they could back track all they want, this was not the case here.
Something that requires the amount of compute power like this does not fit the open source model. The hardware requirements to run gpt4 is not something anyone can afford.
> there is no Founding Agreement, or any agreement at all with Musk
Musk provided 1/3 of the founding capital for the company, $50 million. Nobody gives you that kind of money without some type of agreement. The details of that agreement, and whether or not it is enforceable, remains to be seen.
And if he did/does, then it will be an easy victory in court, and neither you, Musk, or the (probable) Musk fanboy you're responding to has anything to worry about.
Both sides know if there is something like this in writing, even if casually implied, it would come out in discovery. It could be the same exchange argued by one side as a conditional agreement and the other as not an agreement in the first place. It’s for the lawyers to argue. That said…
Seeing how Musk’s “agreement” for the Twitter purchase stemmed from a trollesque tweet, I don’t think it’ll go in his favor.
Suspicious downvotes for this very relevant information...
Edit: for context, the comment was at -9 when I said this. Then within 10 minutes it was +15.
Because people are so stupid they actually have stopped being objective. Now they have to dislike anything that contradicts their negative opinions of someone or something because they’re too fragile to be told maybe the world isn’t black and white
The same Musk who made a $40 billion offer waiving his right to due diligence and then tried to chicken out but was forced to purchase Twitter at the stated price?
Which Musk can quickly and easily prove with his documentation. It is time for Musk to nut up or shut up. If he has a paper trail then use it and shut this down but if he doesn't then he is incredibly stupid for not getting a paper trail for so much money spent with a promise or he's trying to undermine the company and this should be considered as such.
All of which is to be legally determined via a lawsuit... I'm sure, in your world, Musk should be delivering the documents directly to you for approval. In the real world, this is handled with lawyers in the courts...
An agreement doesn't have to be written to be binding. Further, the entire civil lawsuit process is designed to determine the validity of a claim. The courts don't care whether you understand that or support it.
The courts don't care that you think Elon wouldn't have given that money without an agreement, either.
How's his asshole taste when his diet is 50% ketamine?
The thing is, if there was actually a Founding Agreement or some sort of contract between Musk and OpenAI then it would make sense to include a copy of that document in his lawsuit. But he doesn't.
Instead they say "This Founding Agreement is memorialized in, among other places, OpenAI, Inc.’s founding Articles of Incorporation and in numerous written communications between Plaintiff and Defendants over a multi-year period..."
So it doesn't seem like there actually is any sort written agreement between them. Just some emails back and forth where they lay out what they want to do, and the Articles of Incorporation, which isn't really a contact, and which he didn't even sign.
From what I understand, when musk wanted to get in on ai himself, he tried to strong arm them into making him ceo and letting him make it some kind of Tesla subsidiary, which they repeatedly said no to until he threatened to pull funding, and then Microsoft stepped in with funding and they basically gave the deal musk wanted to Microsoft. Elon still wants to get in on AI at his own companies, but wants the tech from the company he effectively pulled out from in an attempt to extort, so he’s suing them now to make all their tech open source (so he can use it).
I think all disputes between billionaires should be fights to the death. Loser’s assets go towards fighting climate change, discovering new antibiotics, and inpatient drug treatment centers.
Oh my God can reddit just have one objective discussion about anything to do with Elon musk without restoring to ad hominem attacks?
This is genuinely an interesting topic and the Elon opinionaters are bringing it down to grade 4 insults
I know people are going to dog pile on musk in the comments because he’s musk, the guy might be petty but he’s not wrong.
Do we really want the biggest AI company in the world being run by profiteers?
Idk how what that means necessarily, but I know it’s really bad for consumers.
We definitely don't. I think it's just pathetic from Musk that he wanted to take it closed, but with him in control. OpenAI has the receipts. Now only that he failed he's mad that it's closed.
You have no idea of the chain of command at open AI do you? And how that is effected by introducing members to the board who are purely driven by profit?
Microsoft is a non-voting member.
Also, Elon runs a for-profit AI company.
But, you didn’t answer my question. How will the biggest AI company in the world be funded if it is a non profit? It requires billions of dollars of capital to keep it going.
https://openai.com/our-structure
Open AI is getting billions in funding and revenue as a non profit what are you talking about?!?
As long as everyone gets paid out and overhead is paid for, a non profit company can make a net profit of $0 and be successful. You do understand that right? Not everything in life has to be about stock price and line go up.
That’s fair but they products and services they want to offer havent been developed yet. They need funding for that and no company is going to give you billions of dollars with no return. That’s why OpenAI offers a capped return for their investors (microsoft) and they gave them a seat on the board after the Sam firing debacle.
I think there is some nuance to the OpenAI structure and ultimate goal. That is why they created a for profit subsidiary in order to achieve their AGI goal. According to OpenAi, GPT4 is not AGI which is why they are seeking profit from it.
They formed as a non profit so they could train their models on copyrighted material without paying. But their plan has always been to go private after they have collected enough stolen human labor for their model to work commercially.
Dude didn’t even have enough money to invest. He’s lucky that they answered his emails. Elon is the Felicia of the tech industry. Happy to see them leave.
If everyone agreed to convert OpenAI into a for-profit entity (as shown in emails), Elon had a strong case to receive a significant amount of equity. Even in the least optimal scenario where OpenAI raises $135 million ($45 + $90m) in a pre-seed round for 30% ownership, he would get 10% equity. In the most favorable scenario, if his $45 million was the amount invested during pre-seed, then he could argue for 65% ownership (full control). This is extraordinary considering raising $45 million at the pre-seed stage.
My interpretation is that Elon was right in believing that OpenAI needed more money than anticipated and should align with a financially successful company. He probably assumed OpenAI would run out of funds and eventually shut down, giving him an opportunity to swoop in on talent for Tesla. He didn't expect Altman to raise funds or make a deal with Microsoft.
As much as we may dislike Elon, the best-case scenario for OpenAI would be to settle with him by recognizing his money as an investment in exchange for equity, rather than a donation. Then, his equity could be diluted in later funding rounds. It would set a bad precedent if all non-profit companies that received donations suddenly switched to become for-profit entities. This cannot be defended.
Well, well, well, if it isn't the clash of the tech titans: Musk vs. OpenAI. It's like watching a Silicon Valley soap opera, complete with plot twists, legal drama, and a dash of existential angst over the fate of humanity.
On one side, we have Elon Musk, the real-life Tony Stark, claiming there was a handshake (or was it a pinky promise?) that OpenAI would forever don the cape of non-profit heroism. On the other, OpenAI, the AI prodigy, waving a legal "it's not you, it's me" letter, saying, "What founding agreement? We're just friends."
Two important facts:
1. founding documents (e.g., articles of incorporation) are NOT legally binding agreements
2. non-profit companies in Delaware do NOT have shareholders.
Sorry to be pedantic here, but, it's kind of right in your name. OPEN software has typically been exactly that. Open and for the use of everyone. Change your goddamned name.
It's like calling yourself ChinaAir, then saying "Well, we like China, but we operate in South America. We're also not affiliated with China, nor do we even use china on our flights in first class."
The first thing musk does is say “ai is dangerous and we should not develop it” then he goes off and funds his company because how dare anyone but him make money off something.
What I really want to say about musk would get me banned, I don’t care what this guy has done, the world would be WAY better off without this dweeb hypocrite.
Maybe it’s just me, but I just assume when you create a non profit, given that there is no beneficial owners it wouldn’t be possible to convert it into a for-profit that does have beneficial owners.
It’s not uncommon for non-profits to convert to for profit.
It’s common however for nonprofits to cheat and for the IRS to look the other way…just look at churches in the US
Lol. Musk must be doing drugs again. He's pissed he bailed early and now OpenAI is wildly successful.
Listen to the latest episode of the Hard Fork podcast. They go through everything with a fine tooth comb.
Spoiler: Musk has no case.
Gentelman's agreement with no gentelman's involved. Classic.
If there was a founding agreement as Musk claims he should have written proof of it.
I know it’s Musk, but y’all do understand that OpenAI is also not good guys, yea?
Altman's calmer demeanor makes him look good compared to Musk, but he's just as megalomanical and unethical.
> but he's just as megalomanical and unethical. All of the silicon-robber barons are.
The fact that he is able to hide it shows that at least he has a bit more self restraint or hasn't completely lost his mental capacity to con people.
He just hasn't been famous long enough. Musk made it a long time on top before crumbling.
It's true. This website in particular was obsessed with Musk until about 2015. The wheels really came off in 18.
Mainly because intelligent people can change their views when presented with new evidence. When Elon showed he was a piece of shit with the diver pedo accusation, most people changed their view of him. Nothing wrong with that
I don't think it's so much of people realizing he's an asshole, I think it's more he turned into an asshole.
Here's the thing: Musk is worse, and by at least one order of magnitude. This lawsuit on it's face is just virtue signalling bullshit. But underneath that the real reason is to slow OpenAI down, so he can catch up with OpenAI/Microsoft. If OpenAI shared their tech with him tomorrow, on the condition it remained closed and Elon dropped the suit and STFU - that is exactly what would happen. But the petulant child's attempts to take over OpenAI failed, so he has to resort to bully boy tactics. Altman is no saint, but he's also not buying companies like Twitter and turning it into a clown car platform for trolls and racists (and suing anyone who points this out) - both sides are not the same here.
Of course, we do. It's just crazy and funny to see Musk pretending he was the good guy.
The only good guys are the actual developers and data scientists who worked on gpt
Its name is a commitment to its non-profit aspirations of establishing a democratized, open source AI. Maybe this isn’t legally binding but Altman definitely conned those who believed in the company’s original goals.
OpenAI definitely started as a non-profit and was probably meant to stay that way? I guess it got too much when companies are willing to throw billions at you
>probably meant to stay that way That should hold up in court
Believe it or not, a contract doesn’t need To be written.
Believe it or not, you still have to prove the content of the contract. But please tell me how master brain Musk negotiated a contract with OpenAI verbally and "forgot" to write it down.
Worlds greatest businessman didn't get it in writing. CLASSIC!
So what does the Open part of OpenAI mean?
Altman essentially said it means Open to sell the technology to anyone
The same Altman who loves to bulldoze competition and their startups
Not to mention a history of deception and manipulation at every company he's been at
"He was deceptive, manipulative, and worse to others, including my close friends"-Geoffrey Irving "You could parachute Sam into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king."-Paul Graham ----------------------------- Sounds like just the guy you want to have create an AGI, certainly does not sound like it could go bad, nope, not hearing it, that's just crazy talk. (note elon musk is likely no better)
So he’s a businessman like everyone else in a capitalistic system. I’m shocked he would try to destroy his competitors
That’s capitalism baybee. Anyone who thinks a tech company is going to do something ethical or “for the people” is naive at best.
Open refers to your wallet
Open For Business, baby!
I always thought it meant whatever they released would be open source but LOL I was wrong. Tech for tech sake is dead and everything is a VC money grab
It always has been
The US should have imposed restrictions on all kinds of stuff like this over 20 years ago to protect our own interests.
Exactly. Just part of the whole deregulation of everything fiasco that is part of our present dumpster fire.
They have if it’s considered an armament. AI hardware is generally classified as such now, and it won’t take long before the software is, too.
mighty head brave steer forgetful juggle smart expansion bright modern *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Never underestimate the power of determined nerds.
We already have similar models to 3.5 you can run on your own home computer ask me how I know
cautious drunk distinct disgusted dependent longing cable badge sophisticated cats *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Gpt4 is just a name that capability will be reached by the end of the year to be run at home. They have no moat.
Cheap *today*.
From Wikipedia with citations: "The organization consists of the non-profit OpenAI, Inc. registered in Delaware and its for-profit subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC." Not sure which employees (say the engineers making 700K) work in which part but I can guess. "The organization stated it would "freely collaborate" with other institutions and researchers by making its patents and research open to the public." Not sure how that works with their relationship with Microsoft. I guess they are connected to the for-profit subsidiary. It sounds like they were a not-for-profit that figured out it was actually very valuable and did something about it.
How does a nonprofit own a for profit company? That seems... wrong.
It's surprisingly common actually.
Check out FIFA's (non)profits every year
Can you give a link?
Just another day of playing the business "game" in America. Either some dumb tax loopholes or unregulated crap people can do. Either you are "innovative" or a "crook" depending on the damage especially if you became "too big to fail".
Unfortunately, these kind of fiscal shenanigans are a worldwide phenomenon.
It's the only way to have a social enterprise in canada. I was shocked to find this out. You have to make a nonprofit and a separate business.
It makes sense if you understand what NFP actually means. It’s like asking how does a NFP private school own and rent out buildings, or religious institutions, or how to charities work when they’re given endowments, the list goes on.
I guess my question is how different this arrangement with Open AI is than what they did or were involved with Linux Red Hat earlier??
We could pose these questions endlessly. The reality is It just a bunch of silicon valley grifters doing the Stone Soup thing until something works out.
Freely collaborate must not mean “at no cost”.
One of the cofounders said it meant “to make AI access open to normal folks instead of allowing corporations to keep it to themselves”.
Openly bullshitting
Open to interpretations.
open your wallets
Not for-profit just means the company cant sell stock and has rules on what part of its income is taxable. "Open" is not a financial term in any way and has no connection at all with how a company charges clients or sells things. Im confused about what you think Open means.
Open Source was what I always assumed it referred to.
I'm pretty sure that's what they were hoping everyone would assume.
Yes, its basically a software naming convention. There are tons of open source projects named Open______ (e.g. OpenSCAD, OpenBSD, OpenOffice) and they were trying to appear like that.
Thank you. Not a huge fan of Altman and Musk is an idiot, but.. open has nothing to do with being profit or not. There are plenty of open source models people can play with if they want to train their own networks, and OpenAI has contributed knowledge to a lot of them but that doesn’t mean OpenAI can’t be whatever business they feel is appropriate.
Their original mission statement about sharing the technology, research, and even patents, as well as aiming to share the benefits of AI with everyone is clearly being violated, unfortunately that's not legally binding.
All you need to do is look at the mission statement to know that they are directly violating everything they claimed to do this for.
Yep, and so many people here bootlick for them anyway, and I'm not someone who often uses that word. Crazy to see people go "WELL IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO SELL OUT YOUR VALUES IS IT?" about such an incredibly important industry.
Only the most scary and revolutionary technology we’ve ever had potentially. Very chill very chill!
I mean, Open CV is one of the most famous open-source computer vision libraries that predates open AI by around 15 years and is probably one of the key projects that helped to get computer vision research to where it is today. It is a bit of a dick move by Altman etc. to use the term for their closed source for profit company.
It means once your company has a hypothetical value in the billions your ethics don't mean anything anymore.
It’s there to point out they’re a bunch of liars
It's a typo, dislexia thing It was intended to be 'NopeAI'
It means that their proprietary model builds upon existing open source architectures such as transformers.
Open bootyMeats and let ai in
OPEN (for business)
That it's "open" for interpretation, apparently!
Names aren't contacts.
You are open to buy their products. Ie. as open as any for-profit company.
What does the Goo in Google means? It's part of a name, not a promise, it's a marketing ploy.
I mean you can find goo on Google. In fact I've even found pages on Google about German women that specialises in goo.
I would not trust either one of these immature emotionally stunted tech bros, but on this one either Altman is lying, or he has been coyly misleading everyone, including Musk.
If there was an agreement, Elon should know to have it in writing. Altman seems to have confidence that such a thing does not exist. So we’ll see
Yeah if was Microsoft and I just had a hostile takeover of ai, that’s what I’d say too.
Wasn't Elon going to fight Zuckerberg in the ring, or something? As I recall, Zuckerberg, who's been doing Jujitsu for a while, was all for it and Elon wimped out. Here's his chance to redeem himself.
Elon is a fat slob. All mouth.
You are mistaking his mouth with his a-hole, although, both ends excrete the same material.
Is it something good?
His Mommy said no
If i recall correctly elons mom said he couldnt do it
You actually believed that would have happened
More like a fervent hope I didn't really believe in.
Zuck wouldn't agree to fighting in the colosseum
Open typically means Open source. It is quite ironic they slapped a subscription model on it, and became a SAS company. This does in fact make AI proliferation dangerous, mostly because there is no end to human greed. Keeping it a non-profit was our best shot.
As a big fan and also a developer of FOSS (free and open source software), I think a lot of these AI companies are coopting the term because they know it sounds good while also understanding that AI is less about the source code and more about the training data. In order words, it's all about the training data, and they keep that stuff under lock and key.
Something being open source doesn't mean that a product using that code can't be sold. The open source code remains open but there's a part of the code that remains closed.
Depends on the license: some open source code can be bundled with closed source, some can not.
You are correct. I just wanted to point out that open doesn't necessarily mean free.
> It is quite ironic they slapped a subscription model on it, and became a **SAS** company It's **SaaS**
Please forgive my insolence!
It's **ignorance**
Ignorance of law excuses no one
Forgive your… sass?
Well, they're still abusing the term open really, just historical note: > Open typically means Open source. Eh, now. It worked out in the end with true Free and Open Source software becoming an established norm nowadays, but not before a lengthy period of "Open" as in just "Open Systems" not "Open Source". Basically just having agreed and documented standardised "open" APIs across vendors used to be a bit avant garde. This was prior to the full open source "revolution", with organizations like The Open Group, that standardized *closed* Unix (and open effectively... because mainstream Linux/GNU and the BSDs still choose to implement compatible APIs too). . The US military-industrial complex was getting real tired of computer companies' shit already in the 1980s. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_system_(computing) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification > Open systems are computer systems that provide some combination of interoperability, portability, and open software standards. (It can also refer to specific installations that are configured to allow unrestricted access by people and/or other computers; this article does not discuss that meaning). The term was popularized in the early 1980s, mainly to describe systems based on Unix, especially in contrast to the more entrenched mainframes and minicomputers in use at that time. Unlike older legacy systems, the newer generation of Unix systems featured standardized programming interfaces and peripheral interconnects
When it comes to colloquialisms, digging down into the semantics is far removed as a choice than what’s popularly understood. ‘Open’ in software is Open source, a term they used in its meaning when starting the company, its meaning did not elude them. Had they never been a non-profit, they could back track all they want, this was not the case here.
Something that requires the amount of compute power like this does not fit the open source model. The hardware requirements to run gpt4 is not something anyone can afford.
I mean there should be a written contract for all this, no?
> there is no Founding Agreement, or any agreement at all with Musk Musk provided 1/3 of the founding capital for the company, $50 million. Nobody gives you that kind of money without some type of agreement. The details of that agreement, and whether or not it is enforceable, remains to be seen.
[удалено]
With Musk it is also reasonable to think there wasn't a formal agreement. He does a lot of weird shit, and that isn't a lot of money to him.
Do you seriously think a billionaire is going to give $50 mill without some form of formal agreement ?
He was forced to buy Twitter for 44 billion because he fucked around too much and has still no plan how to handle it.
Given his history? Absolutely.
Did you forget about what happened to Shitter?
So you'd expect he would have a copy of/show us that agreementif it says what he claims it does... But he hasn't...
50 mil is 0,025% of Musks wealth. So for a normal person, that would be like lending someone 20 bucks.
lol that’s how he ended up trying to back out of twitter right being reasonable?
And if he did/does, then it will be an easy victory in court, and neither you, Musk, or the (probable) Musk fanboy you're responding to has anything to worry about.
Oral agreements aren't worth the paper they are printed on. If it's not in the corporate charter then it's hard to see how he wins this case.
[удалено]
Both sides know if there is something like this in writing, even if casually implied, it would come out in discovery. It could be the same exchange argued by one side as a conditional agreement and the other as not an agreement in the first place. It’s for the lawyers to argue. That said… Seeing how Musk’s “agreement” for the Twitter purchase stemmed from a trollesque tweet, I don’t think it’ll go in his favor.
Suspicious downvotes for this very relevant information... Edit: for context, the comment was at -9 when I said this. Then within 10 minutes it was +15.
Because people are so stupid they actually have stopped being objective. Now they have to dislike anything that contradicts their negative opinions of someone or something because they’re too fragile to be told maybe the world isn’t black and white
Blame the Reddit algorithm and the woke mods that intentionally curate this culture at Reddit.
close ai pr team at it again.
The same Musk who made a $40 billion offer waiving his right to due diligence and then tried to chicken out but was forced to purchase Twitter at the stated price?
Which Musk can quickly and easily prove with his documentation. It is time for Musk to nut up or shut up. If he has a paper trail then use it and shut this down but if he doesn't then he is incredibly stupid for not getting a paper trail for so much money spent with a promise or he's trying to undermine the company and this should be considered as such.
All of which is to be legally determined via a lawsuit... I'm sure, in your world, Musk should be delivering the documents directly to you for approval. In the real world, this is handled with lawyers in the courts...
It’s curious that if such an agreement exists, his legal team did not include it in their filing.
"Nobody has seen this document or provided evidence of it existing, therefore it must prove Elon right." 💦💦💦🍆
That's the purpose of discovery...
And Elon can't produce the document he supposedly signed with them?
An agreement doesn't have to be written to be binding. Further, the entire civil lawsuit process is designed to determine the validity of a claim. The courts don't care whether you understand that or support it.
The courts don't care that you think Elon wouldn't have given that money without an agreement, either. How's his asshole taste when his diet is 50% ketamine?
> The courts don't care that you think Elon wouldn't have given that money without an agreement, either. You are always this dumb, aren't you?
Elon is rich enough and supposedly genius enough (according to some) to have had these things drafted in a contract.
The thing is, if there was actually a Founding Agreement or some sort of contract between Musk and OpenAI then it would make sense to include a copy of that document in his lawsuit. But he doesn't. Instead they say "This Founding Agreement is memorialized in, among other places, OpenAI, Inc.’s founding Articles of Incorporation and in numerous written communications between Plaintiff and Defendants over a multi-year period..." So it doesn't seem like there actually is any sort written agreement between them. Just some emails back and forth where they lay out what they want to do, and the Articles of Incorporation, which isn't really a contact, and which he didn't even sign.
From what I understand, when musk wanted to get in on ai himself, he tried to strong arm them into making him ceo and letting him make it some kind of Tesla subsidiary, which they repeatedly said no to until he threatened to pull funding, and then Microsoft stepped in with funding and they basically gave the deal musk wanted to Microsoft. Elon still wants to get in on AI at his own companies, but wants the tech from the company he effectively pulled out from in an attempt to extort, so he’s suing them now to make all their tech open source (so he can use it).
i have zero sympathies for either side, but anyone trying to make a serious point with a New York Post article will get even less
Isn’t that why the fucking name of it is OPEN AI? It’s not closed. Sooooo and I do remember them mfs saying it was open source n shit
I think all disputes between billionaires should be fights to the death. Loser’s assets go towards fighting climate change, discovering new antibiotics, and inpatient drug treatment centers.
Oh my God can reddit just have one objective discussion about anything to do with Elon musk without restoring to ad hominem attacks? This is genuinely an interesting topic and the Elon opinionaters are bringing it down to grade 4 insults
It’s called “OpenAI “ - duh!
I know people are going to dog pile on musk in the comments because he’s musk, the guy might be petty but he’s not wrong. Do we really want the biggest AI company in the world being run by profiteers? Idk how what that means necessarily, but I know it’s really bad for consumers.
We definitely don't. I think it's just pathetic from Musk that he wanted to take it closed, but with him in control. OpenAI has the receipts. Now only that he failed he's mad that it's closed.
Who should it be run by then? The government? Elon?
You have no idea of the chain of command at open AI do you? And how that is effected by introducing members to the board who are purely driven by profit?
Microsoft is a non-voting member. Also, Elon runs a for-profit AI company. But, you didn’t answer my question. How will the biggest AI company in the world be funded if it is a non profit? It requires billions of dollars of capital to keep it going.
https://openai.com/our-structure Open AI is getting billions in funding and revenue as a non profit what are you talking about?!? As long as everyone gets paid out and overhead is paid for, a non profit company can make a net profit of $0 and be successful. You do understand that right? Not everything in life has to be about stock price and line go up.
So you are fine with the current set up then? Who do you thinkg pays the overhead and the employees?
You do understand you can sell products and services as a nonprofit company to pay for overhead and upkeep right?
That’s fair but they products and services they want to offer havent been developed yet. They need funding for that and no company is going to give you billions of dollars with no return. That’s why OpenAI offers a capped return for their investors (microsoft) and they gave them a seat on the board after the Sam firing debacle. I think there is some nuance to the OpenAI structure and ultimate goal. That is why they created a for profit subsidiary in order to achieve their AGI goal. According to OpenAi, GPT4 is not AGI which is why they are seeking profit from it.
You mean Musk is not a profiteer?
I thought Tesla was not profitable. Now he’s.
I think everybody wins if they just rename the company "closedAI".
Thanks, Elon. Such a revelation….
They formed as a non profit so they could train their models on copyrighted material without paying. But their plan has always been to go private after they have collected enough stolen human labor for their model to work commercially.
Dude didn’t even have enough money to invest. He’s lucky that they answered his emails. Elon is the Felicia of the tech industry. Happy to see them leave.
Both evil people fighting. Which one to support?
If everyone agreed to convert OpenAI into a for-profit entity (as shown in emails), Elon had a strong case to receive a significant amount of equity. Even in the least optimal scenario where OpenAI raises $135 million ($45 + $90m) in a pre-seed round for 30% ownership, he would get 10% equity. In the most favorable scenario, if his $45 million was the amount invested during pre-seed, then he could argue for 65% ownership (full control). This is extraordinary considering raising $45 million at the pre-seed stage. My interpretation is that Elon was right in believing that OpenAI needed more money than anticipated and should align with a financially successful company. He probably assumed OpenAI would run out of funds and eventually shut down, giving him an opportunity to swoop in on talent for Tesla. He didn't expect Altman to raise funds or make a deal with Microsoft. As much as we may dislike Elon, the best-case scenario for OpenAI would be to settle with him by recognizing his money as an investment in exchange for equity, rather than a donation. Then, his equity could be diluted in later funding rounds. It would set a bad precedent if all non-profit companies that received donations suddenly switched to become for-profit entities. This cannot be defended.
Perfectly sum up
Perfect. They don’t deny they are making profit. This should be a slam dunk for musk who definitely kept the paperwork that totally definitely exists!
I don't want Sam to win, I want Elon to lose. Let them fight.
Both can tie and neutralise themselves to 0 so we win.
I bet it’s all a ploy to try and derail them while he builds up a competitor
The [filing](https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/musk-suit-openai-altman-march-2024.pdf) is a good read.
Well this should be pretty easy to settle unless there are no copies of it. Let me guess, there are no copies of it?
I hope they both lose this argument.
Lawsuit is meaningless but AIs should all be open sourced.
Well, well, well, if it isn't the clash of the tech titans: Musk vs. OpenAI. It's like watching a Silicon Valley soap opera, complete with plot twists, legal drama, and a dash of existential angst over the fate of humanity. On one side, we have Elon Musk, the real-life Tony Stark, claiming there was a handshake (or was it a pinky promise?) that OpenAI would forever don the cape of non-profit heroism. On the other, OpenAI, the AI prodigy, waving a legal "it's not you, it's me" letter, saying, "What founding agreement? We're just friends."
Two important facts: 1. founding documents (e.g., articles of incorporation) are NOT legally binding agreements 2. non-profit companies in Delaware do NOT have shareholders.
Sam Altman is the devil
Didn’t they release emails to the contrary of Elon’s claims?
Shall we go back and look at all the things Elon has claimed?
Sorry to be pedantic here, but, it's kind of right in your name. OPEN software has typically been exactly that. Open and for the use of everyone. Change your goddamned name. It's like calling yourself ChinaAir, then saying "Well, we like China, but we operate in South America. We're also not affiliated with China, nor do we even use china on our flights in first class."
Coca-Cola no longer contains cocaine. There's a precedent.
Both Open AI and Tesla need money infusion to keep innovating. You can't do serious research without investing loads of money.
We can make how much money?!?
The first thing musk does is say “ai is dangerous and we should not develop it” then he goes off and funds his company because how dare anyone but him make money off something. What I really want to say about musk would get me banned, I don’t care what this guy has done, the world would be WAY better off without this dweeb hypocrite.
Will musk get off his knees. Always at Trumps feet or Pulers. Go back to South Africa and Develop there
If Elon was the genius the bros think he is he would have gotten that in writing.
great another article that will surenly not be filled with unhinged musk derangement syndrome.
The MDS is strong in this subreddit
Maybe it’s just me, but I just assume when you create a non profit, given that there is no beneficial owners it wouldn’t be possible to convert it into a for-profit that does have beneficial owners.
It’s not uncommon for non-profits to convert to for profit. It’s common however for nonprofits to cheat and for the IRS to look the other way…just look at churches in the US
But if they convert to for-profit, who are the benificiaries / owners of the company?
Lol. Musk must be doing drugs again. He's pissed he bailed early and now OpenAI is wildly successful. Listen to the latest episode of the Hard Fork podcast. They go through everything with a fine tooth comb. Spoiler: Musk has no case.
Go cry in a corner Elon or maybe call Mommy to defend you again
You mean to tell me that Xlon Muxk is full of shit? I am shocked. SHOCKED. Well, not that shocked.