3 ms·

Headline is misleading and the tweets are delusional. The whole ycombinator topic he rants about has nothing to do with the lawsuit he filled. >> So as a membe

Headline is misleading and the tweets are delusional. The whole ycombinator topic he rants about has nothing to do with the lawsuit he filled. >> So as a member of the group ‘all of humanity,’ the reported beneficiaries of OpenAI, I have filed a claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duties. Breach of Fiduciary Duties is the umbrella my complaints generally fall under. The board members of OpenAI have a legal duty to serve the mission of the non-profit in good faith, to act prudently, and to obey the law, all of which they are not doing. OpenAI has constantly confirmed via public messaging their mission is to “benefit all of humanity;” the only logical conclusion to these statements is that all of humanity, you, me, and people on every continent, are beneficiaries of OpenAI’s mission. I firmly believe, and state in good faith, that every human being on the planet has standing to sue OpenAI for these egregious actions. Further, I look forward to hearing the legal team of OpenAI explain how this is not the case. If anyone has any illusions about the altruistic intentions of OpenAI, their explanation should put these illusions to bed.

belter 3y ago
[flagged]
- Zetobal 3y ago
  It seems like you asked chatgpt about something you misinterpreted in the first place.Thats a really good way to gaslight yourself. Look at the company structure of OpenAI... I am no fan of Sam either but come on.
  - belter 3y ago
    This is from the OpenAI pages "OpenAI LP’s primary fiduciary obligation is to advance the aims of the OpenAI Charter, and the company is controlled by OpenAI Nonprofit’s board. All investors and employees sign agreements that OpenAI LP’s obligation to the Charter always comes first, even at the expense of some or all of their financial stake." Whether this is what's really going on or not, it's up to the courts to sort it out, or maybe it'll get sorted out without going to court. Since there's some past beef with other big-name billionaires, curious reporters should check out if there's someone else footing the bill for what could be a really pricey lawsuit.
    - tensor 3y ago
      It takes a 30s google search to find the Wikipedia page which explains their transition to a "capped-profit" company. Irony of asking ChatGPT instead of a simple search indeed.
      - belter 3y ago
        The structure is well known, and is neither what is being argued in the lawsuit, or asked from ChatGPT. I am not commenting on the merits of it, that is for the courts. So what is your take? Are they on it for Profit or to save Humanity? Should we nominate already Sam Altman and Reid Hoffman for the Nobel Peace this year?
      - kordlessagain 3y ago
        There is a consistent inconsistency which is that people think because a model was trained “on the Internet” it “knows everything” on it. Hardly.
      - OnlineGladiator 3y ago
        The real irony is not noticing that this is the standard way people use ChatGPT and instead saying "you're using it wrong" - which is a convenient holier-than-thou argument that ignores the negative repercussions of this technology that we are literally observing and commenting on. If this is what ChatGPT mostly leads to - a wild amplification of fake news - then it's also ironic that OpenAI is claiming to make the world a better place. GP did a perfect job of using ChatGPT the way most of the world uses it - as a shortcut for doing any real research or work. This inevitably leads to misinformation being spread and it's palpable how often I see people cite ChatGPT's hallucinations as confirmation of their own bias. I really don't give a fuck about how people should use it compared to how they are using it. You cannot manifest a different reality with aphorisms. I'm not claiming this is a worthless technology with no positive benefits. I'm saying right now I can already observe enormous negative effects from this technology, and the upside seems relatively underwhelming.
        catchnear4321 3y ago
3327 3y ago
[dead]

belter 3y ago

[flagged]

Zetobal 3y ago
It seems like you asked chatgpt about something you misinterpreted in the first place.Thats a really good way to gaslight yourself. Look at the company structure of OpenAI... I am no fan of Sam either but come on.
- belter 3y ago
  This is from the OpenAI pages "OpenAI LP’s primary fiduciary obligation is to advance the aims of the OpenAI Charter, and the company is controlled by OpenAI Nonprofit’s board. All investors and employees sign agreements that OpenAI LP’s obligation to the Charter always comes first, even at the expense of some or all of their financial stake." Whether this is what's really going on or not, it's up to the courts to sort it out, or maybe it'll get sorted out without going to court. Since there's some past beef with other big-name billionaires, curious reporters should check out if there's someone else footing the bill for what could be a really pricey lawsuit.
  - tensor 3y ago
    It takes a 30s google search to find the Wikipedia page which explains their transition to a "capped-profit" company. Irony of asking ChatGPT instead of a simple search indeed.
    - belter 3y ago
      The structure is well known, and is neither what is being argued in the lawsuit, or asked from ChatGPT. I am not commenting on the merits of it, that is for the courts. So what is your take? Are they on it for Profit or to save Humanity? Should we nominate already Sam Altman and Reid Hoffman for the Nobel Peace this year?
    - kordlessagain 3y ago
      There is a consistent inconsistency which is that people think because a model was trained “on the Internet” it “knows everything” on it. Hardly.
    - OnlineGladiator 3y ago
      The real irony is not noticing that this is the standard way people use ChatGPT and instead saying "you're using it wrong" - which is a convenient holier-than-thou argument that ignores the negative repercussions of this technology that we are literally observing and commenting on. If this is what ChatGPT mostly leads to - a wild amplification of fake news - then it's also ironic that OpenAI is claiming to make the world a better place. GP did a perfect job of using ChatGPT the way most of the world uses it - as a shortcut for doing any real research or work. This inevitably leads to misinformation being spread and it's palpable how often I see people cite ChatGPT's hallucinations as confirmation of their own bias. I really don't give a fuck about how people should use it compared to how they are using it. You cannot manifest a different reality with aphorisms. I'm not claiming this is a worthless technology with no positive benefits. I'm saying right now I can already observe enormous negative effects from this technology, and the upside seems relatively underwhelming.
      - catchnear4321 3y ago

3327 3y ago

[dead]