They founded OpenAI as a non-profit, concentrated on startup development, piped the resulting unpublished products into a for-profit sub-organization, then sold the developed product to another for-profit corporation.
If this is allowed, then anyone could startup a non-profit for development purposes, and operate development within a tax-friendly environment. Once development has matured, simply spin the developed product into a for-profit.
It seems as-if there are a lot of regulations that would have had to have been bent and completely broken for this to have occurred.
This looks to also implicate government involvement at both the state and the federal level... in addition to Microsoft. The amount of corruption needed to accomplish what they have was probably unimaginable.
I looked at the complaint a while back. I think the causes of action are bullshit for a number of reasons, including that Elon had
no expectation that openAI would not make some portion of its code not open-source. In fact, it was understood they could and it was obvious they were hedging toward a for profit from the start, when Elon put his money in.
He's also failed to allege any for profit activity by openAI. Working closely with Microsoft isn't enough, and even if the allegations are sufficient, why hasn't he sued Microsoft, especially given that his allegations are that openAI is now an alterego of Microsoft.
Finally, he put money into a nonprofit, not a for profit, but the relief he's seeking sounds to me like the type of relief a shareholder would seek via shareholder rights... "I invested and they breached the investment contract."
What I see is Elon either disparaging a competitor or attempting to acquiring their ip so he can use it in his for profit businesses.
I'll add that Elon hasn't alleged is fraud... that openAI made false representations in order to induce him to give them money and he reasonable relied on those representations.
I don't see how you win on a "I want my money back" claim against a non-profit unless you allege that they defrauded you. That they later changed their practices is not grounds for a refund. He donated money. It's gone. 🤷♂️
> Working closely with Microsoft isn't enough, and even if the allegations are sufficient, why hasn't he sued Microsoft, especially given that his allegations are that openAI is now an alterego of Microsoft.
If Microsoft was supplied exclusive source code, documentation, and instruction, then there can be no more that could have been done to pipe the developed code to Microsoft.
It doesn't appear as-if he's asking for a monetary judgement. It looks as though he's requesting that they honor the open-source commitment. To be clear, I'm not saying that Musk doesn't have ulterior motives.
grok is already up and running ... he is just trying to slow down the monopoly ... and the fact that they are lying about acheiving AGI which would effectively remove microsofts right to idk use it i guess idk
It could certainly be him trying to slow others down. His intentions probably aren't very noble. That said, slowing microsoft down probably wouldn't be a bad thing.
And don't think I'm supporting openAI or Microsoft. I have 486 linuxes. I just don't think he's really aiming for what the complaint alleges he is and I'm not convinced the actions are legally viable. Is it a political or business strategy? sure.
I do find it strange he didn't name Microsoft though. It seems like it should be a party given the allegations, which is another reason I think he has ulterior motivations and really doesn't intend to litigate through trial.
A non-profit can pick and choose who it works with as long as it's in furtherance of its purpose. A non-profit is not a non-profit because it doesn't generate revenue. It's a non-profit because the revenue it generates doesn't benefit its any private equity holders (and it generally serves some public purpose).
Nonetheless, officers of large non-profit, including those who founded the NP, can earn lucrative salaries. The question there isn't whether they're benefiting, but whether the salary is reasonable given the work and that employees value (maybe the officer is super-famous and brings in more donations, thus it would not be unreasonable to pay him more. You just can't tie the salary to the amount of donations).
The purpose of OpenAI used to be producing open source AI available to the public, but if it's close sourcing everything and selling it for profit then what purpose is left?
I agree about the salary thing and selling stuff, most charities do that.
No.... the purpose of open AI is to "SEEK to open source.... for the public WHEN APPLICABLE." This is musks allegation. This is why I said they were hedging.
@Humpleupagus@Eiregoat@n3f_X@Quentel Regardless of your shitty opinion, AI is a useful tool and it would be greatly beneficial to have this open sourced for anybody that wants it.
I code all of my legal documents in a type setter like an intelligent White man. You can have you gay gui "Microsoft Office" and voice assistants. It's designed to be used by stupid npcs. That's the point. AI will be the downfall of the White Man. Once it's created, the elites just need nigger slave labor. You're irrelevant and obsolete.
@Humpleupagus@Eiregoat@n3f_X@Quentel The gripe is valid, but misapplication of tech doesn't mean it's useless. Plenty application where AI outdoes classical approaches.
In all seriousness though, I suppose that there are applications for AI, but it's really not going to assist the average person in any meaningful way, and the investment and systems require to run it seems a bit excessive.
I mean, what I need is a calendar, a contacts list, a todo list, a way to keep track of time, and a way to read text and spreadsheet (and search as well), and send emails. The simpler, the better.
I literally keep all of my time via script I wrote that enters it into an sqlite database from command line. I can read and modify the database from there too. It's all of about 20 lines of bash scripting.
Contacts are also kept via a script. I can search them, navigate the results, and cut and paste the content using a key stroke, e.g. "E" pulls the email into the clipboard, "C" the cell phone number. I can send the clipboard between devices.
I use calcurse for my calendar. Its easy to read and simple to use.
It's all text based, and it looks nice with a riced terminal with some opacity. I rarely use more than 750mb of memory, even with a browser open. All of it syncs with my phone.
And they're argument will be that they were licensing in furtherance of their purpose and that anyone who worked with them would want an exclusive license given the high investment the associated for-profit would have to make. I.e. their argument is.... "this is how the market for licenses works."
Theybcould also add that given the security risks and the power of the tech, open sourcing was a security risk to the security of the systems in which the licenses would be used, and then point to how many windows computers exist.
So so long as they say "we might open source some of it, sometime," then they're in the clear?
If so, can I start up a charity clinic whose purpose is to provide medical care to the needy citizens of bumfucksville, but in practice I only ever see paying clients from jewopolis and conduct research which I sell to pfizer.
After all I might see a indigent patient at some point. Who knows when.
I think it's all bullshit, and maybe the IRS or california attorney general should look at it. I just don't think Elon has an right to bring the causes he did or acquire the relief he's seeking.
Not necessarily. A non-profit can dispose of assets in furtherance of its purpose. What if it sells IP, and then takes the money and invested it in furtherance of its purpose?
Even before OpenAI became a household name I remember reading about them "restructuring into a for-profit entity" and wondering how the hell it was even legal for them to do that.
Unless there is/was a misunderstanding, a conversion from non-profit to for-profit has not been made by OpenAI. They appear to be funneling developed IP from the non-profit into a for-profit subsidiary.
If that were to pass judicial scrutiny, then only a fool would ever fund product development (of any kind) outside of a non-profit ever again.
Add comment