12 ms·
Wouldn't you have to prove damages in a lawsuit like this? What damages does Musk personally suffer if OpenAI has in fact broken their contract?
by BitWiseVibe 3y ago
Wouldn't you have to prove damages in a lawsuit like this? What damages does Musk personally suffer if OpenAI has in fact broken their contract?
- tw600040 3y agothat AGI, instead of benefitting the whole world, in which Musk is a part of, will end up only benefitting Microsoft, which he isn't a part of?
- AlbertCory 3y agoI don't think that qualifies as "standing", but IANAL.
- jlmorton 3y agoI think the missing info here is that Musk gave the non-profit the initial $100 million dollars, which they used to develop the technology purportedly for the benefit of the public, and then turned around and added a for-profit subsidiary where all the work is happening.
- AlbertCory 3y agoHe has plenty of standing, but the "supposed to benefit all mankind" argument isn't it. If that were enough, everyone not holding stock in MSFT would have standing, and they don't.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoHe was also a founding donor, so there is that. If I have a non-profit legally chartered save puppies, you give me a million dollars, then I buy myself cars and houses, I would expect you have some standing.
- AlbertCory 3y agoNote that I didn't say he lacks standing. Just that your argument wasn't it.
- sroussey 3y agoNo, they spent $1m saving puppies, then raised more funds and did other things. That money Musk donated was spent almost a decade ago. He has a competitor now that is not very good, so he is suing to slow them down.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoIt is more complex than that because they cant change what they do on a whim. no-profits have charters and documents of incorporation, which are the rules they will operate by both now and moving forward. Why do you think that money was spent a decade ago? Open AI wasn't even founded 10 years ago. Musk's funding was the lions share of all funding until the Microsoft deal in 2019
- sroussey 3y agoBecause it was started 9 years ago and AI research is expensive.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoThe reality was different. Prior to MSFT, Open AI ran a lean company operating within the the budget of Musk funding, focusing on science and talent. For example, in 2017, their annual compute spend was <$8 million compared to like 450 million for deep mind. Big spend only came after MSFT, which invested $1B and then $10B, primarily in the form of credit for compute.
- PepperdineG 3y agoDisputing the activities under a Delaware charter would seem to fall under the jurisdiction of the Delaware Chancery Court, not the California court Musk went to. Delaware is specifically known for it being easy for non-profits to easily tweak their charters over time: For example, it can mean that a founder’s vision for a private foundation may be modified after his or her death or incapacity despite all intentions to the contrary. We have seen situations where, upon a founder’s death, the charitable purpose of a foundation was changed in ways that were technically legal, but not in keeping with its original intent and perhaps would not have been possible in a state with more restrictive governance and oversight, or given more foresight and awareness at the time of organization. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-november/the-delaware-advantage/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/bu...
- dmix 3y ago"AGI"
- WolfeReader 3y agoThis is no AGI. An AGI is supposed to be the cognitive equivalent of a human, right? The "AI" being pushed out to people these days can't even count.
- emodendroket 3y agoI would agree but the filing is at pains to argue the opposite (seemingly because such a determination would affect Microsoft's license).
- yaomingite 3y agoThe AI is multiple programs working together, and they already pass math problems on to a data analyst specialist. There's also an option to use a WolframAlpha plugin to handle math problems. The reason it didn't have math from the start was that it was a solved problem on computers decades ago, and they are specifically demonstrating advances in language capabilities. Machines can handle math, language, graphics, and motor coordination already. A unified interface to coordinate all of those isn't finished, but gluing together different programs isn't a significant engineering problem.
- riku_iki 3y ago> The AI is multiple programs working together, and they already pass math problems on to a data analyst specialist. There's also an option to use a WolframAlpha plugin to handle math problems. is quality of this system good enough to qualify for AGI?..
- baobabKoodaa 3y agoYou know what's not a "unified interface" in front of "different programs glued together"? A human. By your own explanation, the current generation of AI is very far from AGI, as it was defined in GP.
- yaomingite 3y agoThe brain does have specialized systems that work together.
- boole1854 3y agoHe doesn't have access to the GPT-4 source code and data because they decided to keep that proprietary.
- cynusx 3y agoThey will probably try to unearth that in the discovery phase
- laristine 3y agoYou can sue for many reasons. For example, when a party breaks a contract, the other party can sue to compel the contract to be performed as agreed.
- otterley 3y agoSpecific performance is a last resort. In contract law, the bias is towards making the plaintiff whole, and frequently there are many ways to accomplish that (like paying money) instead of making the defendant specifically honor the terms of the original agreement.
- nsomaru 3y agoNot sure about English law but in Roman law (and derived systems as in South Africa) the emphasis is on specific performance as a first resort — the court will seek to implement the intention of the parties embodied in the contract as far as possible. Cancellation is a last resort.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Not sure about English law but in Roman law This is actually American law, neither English nor Roman. While it is derived from English common law, it has an even stronger bias against specific performance (and in fact bright-line prohibits some which would be allowed in the earlier law from which it evolved, because of the Constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude.)
- otterley 3y agoThis is correct!
- laristine 3y agoThat's very interesting, thanks! I just learned that courts actually tend to grant monetary damages more frequently than specific performance in general. However, I have always maintained that making the plaintiff whole should bias toward specific performance. At least that's what I gathered from law classes. In many enterprise partnerships, the specific arrangements are core to the business structures. For example, Bob and Alice agreed to be partners in a millions-dollar business. Bob suddenly kicked Alice out without a valid reason, breaching the contract. Of course, Alice's main remedy should be to be back in the business, not receiving monetary damage that is not just difficult to measure, but also not in Alice's mind or best interest at all.
- KeplerBoy 3y agoA non-profit took his money and decided to be for profit and compete with the AI efforts of his own companies?
- a_wild_dandan 3y agoYeah, OpenAI basically grafted a for-profit entity onto the non-profit to bypass their entire mission. They’re now extremely closed AI, and are valued at $80+ billion. If I donated millions to them, I’d be furious.
- api 3y agoIt's almost like the guy behind an obvious grift like Worldcoin doesn't always work in good faith. What gives me even less sympathy for Altman is that he took OpenAI, whose mission was open AI, and turned it not only closed but then immediately started a world tour trying to weaponize fear-mongering to convince governments to effectively outlaw actually open AI.
- mherrmann 3y agoI have no specific sympathy for Altman one way or the other, but: Why is Worldcoin a grift? And I believe his argument for it not being open is safety.
- Spooky23 3y ago“Now that I have a powerful weapon, it’s very important for safety that people who aren’t me don’t have one”
- BobaFloutist 3y agoAs much as it's appealing to point out hypocrisy, and as little sympathy for Altman, I honestly think that's a very reasonable stance to take. There're many powers with which, given the opportunity, I would choose to trust only exactly myself.
- Kranar 3y agoThe statement of claims is full of damages. It claims that Musk donated 44 million dollars on the basis of specific claims made by the plaintiffs as well as the leasing of office space and some other contributions Musk made.
- riku_iki 3y agoit sounds like small amount in grand scheme of things..
- bitcurious 3y agoUnless you consider it as funding in a seed round. These days, OpenAI is worth double digit billions at the very least. If Musk funded the venture as a startup, he’d have increased his net worth by at least a few billion.
- riku_iki 3y agoit was not his intention to spend these money on funding some startup with expectation of future profit, otherwise he would invest this money into some startup instead of non-profit OpenAI, or even requested OpenAI equity. Imo(non-expert) court unlikely will buy such approach.
- TeeMassive 3y agoI didn't read the suit, but they used (and abused?) Twitter's api to siphon data that was used to train an AI which that made them very very rich. That's just unjust enrichment. Elon's money paid for the website and using the API at that scale cost Twitter money while they got nothing out of it.
- zoogeny 3y agoI don't know how comparable it would be, but I imagine if I donated $44 million to a university under the agreement that they would use the money in a particular way (e.g. to build a specific building or to fund a specific program) and then the university used the money in some other way, I feel I ought to have some standing to sue them. Of course, this all depends on the investment details specified in a contract and the relevant law, both of which I am not familiar with.
- mikeyouse 3y agoYeah - Had you donated the funds as "restricted funding" in the nonprofit parlance, they would have a legal requirement to use the funds as you had designated. It seems that Musk contributed general non-restricted funding so the nonprofit can more or less do what they want with the money.. Not saying there's no case here, but if he really wanted them to do something specific, there's a path for that to happen and that he didn't take that path is definitely going to hurt his case.
- SoftTalker 3y agoA non-profit is obligated to use any donated funds for its stated non-profit purpose. Restricted donations are further limited.
- mikeyouse 3y agoRight - but OpenAI's nonprofit purpose is extremely broad; "OpenAIs mission is to build general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. OpenAI believes that artificial intelligence technology has the potential to have a profound, positive impact on the world, so our goal is to develop and responsibly deploy safe AI technology, ensuring that its benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible." So as long as the Musk bucks were used for that purpose, the org is within their rights to do any manner of other activities including setting up competing orgs and for-profit entities with non-Musk bucks - or even with Musk bucks if they make the case that it serves the purpose. The IRS has almost no teeth here, these types of "you didn't use my unrestricted money for the right purpose" complaints are very, very rarely enforced.
- AlwaysRock 3y agoIt's worth reading the actual filing. It's very readable. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/musk-v-altman-openai-complaint-sf.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/mu...
- QuantumG 3y agoIt's literally the title.
- AlwaysRock 3y agoThe title does not go into detail of the suit claims, which is what the comment I responded to asked about.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Wouldn't you have to prove damages in a lawsuit like this? Not really; the specific causes of action Musk is relying on do not turn on the existence if actual damages, and of the 10 remedies sought in the prayer for relief, only one of them includes actual damages (but some relief could be granted under it without actual damages.) Otherwise, its seeking injuctive/equitable relief, declaratory judgement, and disgorgement of profits from unfair business practices, none of which turn on actual damages.
- delfinom 3y agoNon-profit status is a government granted status and the government is we the people. Abuse of non-profit status is damaging to all citizens.
- prepend 3y agoThe damages are clearly the valuation of the current organization vs the percent of original funding Musk provided. The exact amount will be argued but it will likely be in the billions given OpenAI’s recent valuations.
- thepasswordis 3y agoCould they just give him back the $60M or whatever? That seems like nothing to them, or Elon.
- robbrown451 3y agoImagine if a regular for profit startup did that. It gets 60 million in initial funding, and later their valuation goes up to 100 billion. Of course they can't just give the 60 million back. This is different and has a lot of complications that are basically things we've never seen before, but still, just giving the 60 million back doesn't make any sense at all. They would've never achieved what they've achieved without his 60 million.
- stubish 3y agoHow much money have competitors been spending to keep up, reproducing the technology that was supposed to be released to the public benefiting everyone. All of that could conceivably be claimed as damages. Money they should not have needed to spend. Even all of the money spent to access ChatGPT. Because, if OpenAI had been releasing their tech to the public, the public would not have had to pay OpenAI to use it. Or the value of OpenAI-for-profit itself could be considered damages in a class action. Because it gained that value because of technology withheld from the public, rather than releasing it and allowing the public to build the for-profit businesses around the tech. Lots of avenues for Musk and others' lawyers to get their teeth into, especially if this initial law suit can demonstrate the fraud.
- xcv123 3y agoThey scammed him out of tens of millions of dollars and a significant amount of his time and energy.