6 ms·

This looks bad for OpenAI (although it's been pretty obvious that they are far from open for a long time). But it looks 10x worse for Elon. At least for the pu

This looks bad for OpenAI (although it's been pretty obvious that they are far from open for a long time). But it looks 10x worse for Elon. At least for the public image, he desperately try to maintain. > As we discussed a for-profit structure in order to further the mission, Elon wanted us to merge with Tesla or he wanted full control. > In late 2017, we and Elon decided the next step for the mission was to create a for-profit entity. Elon wanted majority equity, initial board control, and to be CEO. In the middle of these discussions, he withheld funding,

extheat 3y ago
It was his money to give, he's not obligated to giving it out without some form of control. But yes that does seem pretty excessive, he basically wanted to pull a Tesla there.
pama 3y ago
Do you mind elaborating why you think it looks bad for OpenAI? I didn't see anything that diminishes their importance as an entity or hurts them in respect to this lawsuit or their reputation. In their internal emails from 2016 they explain what they mean by open.
- TheAlchemist 3y ago
  Bad as to the credibility of the image they tried to sell in the beginning. If we agree it's a for profit company, and all this 'Open' stuff is just PR, then yes - it's not looking bad. It's just business.
  - pama 3y ago
    I hear people complain about the 'Open' a lot recently, but I'm not sure I understand this type of concern. Publications, for companies, are always PR and recruitment efforts (independent of profit or nonprofit status). I recall that OpenAI were very clear about their long term intentions and plans for how to proceed since at least February of 2019 when they announced GPT2 and withheld the code and weights for about 9 months because of concerns with making the technology immediately available to all. In my own mind, they've been consistent in their behavior for the last 5 years, probably longer though I didn't care much about their early RL-related recruitment efforts.
    - mac-attack 3y ago
      With all due respect, they are not doing a sleight of hand while selling widgets... they are in the process of reshaping society in a way that may have never been achieved previously. Finding out that their initial motives were a facade doesn't portend well for their morality as they continue to gain power.
      - pama 3y ago
        I still don’t understand why you think their initial motives were a facade. They have always been trying to get to AGI that will be useable by a large fraction of society. I am not sure this means they need to explain exactly how things work at every step along the way or to help competitors also develop AGI any more than Intel or Nvidia had to publish their tapeouts in order for people to buy their chips or for competitors to appear. If OpenAI instead built AI for the purpose of helping them solve an internal/whimsical project then that would not be “open” by any reasonable definition (and such efforts exist, possibly by ultra wealthy corporations but also by nations, including for defense purposes.)
        leereeves 3y ago
        At one time their mission statement said: > OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact. That's obviously changed to "let's make lots of money", which should not be any "non-profit" organization's mission.
        pama 3y ago
        I still do not see the point that you are trying to make. Do you think that their current path is somehow constrained (instead of unconstrained) by a need to generate financial returns? I haven’t seen any evidence of a change to the core mission described in the statement.
Jensson 3y ago
Elon makes plenty of companies, him making an AI company that he was in control of doesn't look bad or strange at all.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  He was pushing them to do the thing he's suing them over. > Message to Elon: "A for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream" > Elon: You are right ... and Tesla is the only path. Then 3 weeks later Elon gets kicked off the board, probably after a fight where he tried to make OpenAI become for-profit under Tesla. How can you not see how conniving this man is? The lawsuit is either a revenge play or a play to take down xAI's competition.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Oh, I read that as if it was the founding stage, not 2 years later. Yeah I agree it puts things in perspective a bit.
  - boringg 3y ago
    Kicked off the board? Thats news to me.
    - hackerlight 3y ago
      > In late 2017, we and Elon decided the next step for the mission was to create a for-profit entity. Elon wanted majority equity, initial board control, and to be CEO. In the middle of these discussions, he withheld funding. Reid Hoffman bridged the gap to cover salaries and operations. I misspoke. He may have just resigned from the board when he didn't get what he wanted.
      - boringg 3y ago
        Indeed he did resign - which is a significant difference.
- TheAlchemist 3y ago
wseqyrku 3y ago
They both are all about publicity and that's the name of the game. Doesn't matter who wins at the end, it's going to be absolutely all out in the Open. Hey.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
The difference is OpenAI had a reputation to protect, Musk can't sink any lower at this point, and his stans will persist. The fact that they slinging mud at each other just proves the mutual criticism though, and provides an edifying spectacle for the rest of us.
- blackoil 3y ago
  > The difference is OpenAI had a reputation to protect OpenAI changed its stance about five years ago. In meanwhile they got billions in investment, hired best employees, created very successful product and took leadership position in AI. Only narrative remaining was that they somehow betrayed original donors by moving away from the charter. This shows that is not the case; original donor(s) are equally megalomaniac and don't give a fuck about the charter.
- TheAlchemist 3y ago
  > Musk can't sink any lower at this point, and his stans will persist. You sure about that ? For now they are largely looking away (and boy it's hard !) from his 'far right' adventures. But it was just reported that he met with Trump. And it's pretty clear that if Trump is elected and does cancel EV subsides as he says he will do, Tesla is dead and he knows it. So now, we have both of those guys, having something each other wants - Trump wants Musks money now, and Musk wants ... taxpayer money once Trump is elected. I bet, Musk reputation can and will go much much lower in coming months.
  - zarathustreal 3y ago
    Just a word of advice regarding the effect of associating with Trump: don’t make the mistake of thinking everyone holds the same opinion as you
    - yellow_lead 3y ago
      The effect of sucking up to someone who previously said this about you might be even worse: "When Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many subsidized projects, whether it's electric cars that don't drive long enough, driverless cars that crash, or rocketships to nowhere, without which subsidies he'd be worthless, and telling me how he was a big Trump fan and Republican..."
tjertj 3y ago
[flagged]
BeetleB 3y ago
There's nothing new here, though. That he demanded control of OpenAI has been well reported in the past.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  It's not just that Elon wanted control, it's that Elon wanted it to become closed and for-profit. This exposes Elon as a bald-faced hypocrite with cynical intentions motivating the lawsuit. Sam's reticence to publicly defend himself until now has backfired. Elon has fully controlled the public narrative and perception forming and it is hard to dislodge perceptions after they've settled.
VeejayRampay 3y ago
I'm really confused that people would think that this makes Elon Musk look bad I mean, it was not the conspiracy-infused, anti-vaccine, pro-Russia, antisemitic vibe about him, no, but those emails that crossed the line

extheat 3y ago

It was his money to give, he's not obligated to giving it out without some form of control. But yes that does seem pretty excessive, he basically wanted to pull a Tesla there.

pama 3y ago

Do you mind elaborating why you think it looks bad for OpenAI? I didn't see anything that diminishes their importance as an entity or hurts them in respect to this lawsuit or their reputation. In their internal emails from 2016 they explain what they mean by open.

TheAlchemist 3y ago
Bad as to the credibility of the image they tried to sell in the beginning. If we agree it's a for profit company, and all this 'Open' stuff is just PR, then yes - it's not looking bad. It's just business.
- pama 3y ago
  I hear people complain about the 'Open' a lot recently, but I'm not sure I understand this type of concern. Publications, for companies, are always PR and recruitment efforts (independent of profit or nonprofit status). I recall that OpenAI were very clear about their long term intentions and plans for how to proceed since at least February of 2019 when they announced GPT2 and withheld the code and weights for about 9 months because of concerns with making the technology immediately available to all. In my own mind, they've been consistent in their behavior for the last 5 years, probably longer though I didn't care much about their early RL-related recruitment efforts.
  - mac-attack 3y ago
    With all due respect, they are not doing a sleight of hand while selling widgets... they are in the process of reshaping society in a way that may have never been achieved previously. Finding out that their initial motives were a facade doesn't portend well for their morality as they continue to gain power.
    - pama 3y ago
      I still don’t understand why you think their initial motives were a facade. They have always been trying to get to AGI that will be useable by a large fraction of society. I am not sure this means they need to explain exactly how things work at every step along the way or to help competitors also develop AGI any more than Intel or Nvidia had to publish their tapeouts in order for people to buy their chips or for competitors to appear. If OpenAI instead built AI for the purpose of helping them solve an internal/whimsical project then that would not be “open” by any reasonable definition (and such efforts exist, possibly by ultra wealthy corporations but also by nations, including for defense purposes.)
      - leereeves 3y ago
        At one time their mission statement said: > OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact. That's obviously changed to "let's make lots of money", which should not be any "non-profit" organization's mission.
        pama 3y ago
        I still do not see the point that you are trying to make. Do you think that their current path is somehow constrained (instead of unconstrained) by a need to generate financial returns? I haven’t seen any evidence of a change to the core mission described in the statement.

Jensson 3y ago

Elon makes plenty of companies, him making an AI company that he was in control of doesn't look bad or strange at all.

hackerlight 3y ago
He was pushing them to do the thing he's suing them over. > Message to Elon: "A for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream" > Elon: You are right ... and Tesla is the only path. Then 3 weeks later Elon gets kicked off the board, probably after a fight where he tried to make OpenAI become for-profit under Tesla. How can you not see how conniving this man is? The lawsuit is either a revenge play or a play to take down xAI's competition.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Oh, I read that as if it was the founding stage, not 2 years later. Yeah I agree it puts things in perspective a bit.
- boringg 3y ago
  Kicked off the board? Thats news to me.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    > In late 2017, we and Elon decided the next step for the mission was to create a for-profit entity. Elon wanted majority equity, initial board control, and to be CEO. In the middle of these discussions, he withheld funding. Reid Hoffman bridged the gap to cover salaries and operations. I misspoke. He may have just resigned from the board when he didn't get what he wanted.
    - boringg 3y ago
      Indeed he did resign - which is a significant difference.
TheAlchemist 3y ago

wseqyrku 3y ago

They both are all about publicity and that's the name of the game. Doesn't matter who wins at the end, it's going to be absolutely all out in the Open. Hey.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

The difference is OpenAI had a reputation to protect, Musk can't sink any lower at this point, and his stans will persist. The fact that they slinging mud at each other just proves the mutual criticism though, and provides an edifying spectacle for the rest of us.

blackoil 3y ago
> The difference is OpenAI had a reputation to protect OpenAI changed its stance about five years ago. In meanwhile they got billions in investment, hired best employees, created very successful product and took leadership position in AI. Only narrative remaining was that they somehow betrayed original donors by moving away from the charter. This shows that is not the case; original donor(s) are equally megalomaniac and don't give a fuck about the charter.
TheAlchemist 3y ago
> Musk can't sink any lower at this point, and his stans will persist. You sure about that ? For now they are largely looking away (and boy it's hard !) from his 'far right' adventures. But it was just reported that he met with Trump. And it's pretty clear that if Trump is elected and does cancel EV subsides as he says he will do, Tesla is dead and he knows it. So now, we have both of those guys, having something each other wants - Trump wants Musks money now, and Musk wants ... taxpayer money once Trump is elected. I bet, Musk reputation can and will go much much lower in coming months.
- zarathustreal 3y ago
  Just a word of advice regarding the effect of associating with Trump: don’t make the mistake of thinking everyone holds the same opinion as you
  - yellow_lead 3y ago
    The effect of sucking up to someone who previously said this about you might be even worse: "When Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many subsidized projects, whether it's electric cars that don't drive long enough, driverless cars that crash, or rocketships to nowhere, without which subsidies he'd be worthless, and telling me how he was a big Trump fan and Republican..."

tjertj 3y ago

[flagged]

BeetleB 3y ago

There's nothing new here, though. That he demanded control of OpenAI has been well reported in the past.

hackerlight 3y ago
It's not just that Elon wanted control, it's that Elon wanted it to become closed and for-profit. This exposes Elon as a bald-faced hypocrite with cynical intentions motivating the lawsuit. Sam's reticence to publicly defend himself until now has backfired. Elon has fully controlled the public narrative and perception forming and it is hard to dislodge perceptions after they've settled.

VeejayRampay 3y ago

I'm really confused that people would think that this makes Elon Musk look bad I mean, it was not the conspiracy-infused, anti-vaccine, pro-Russia, antisemitic vibe about him, no, but those emails that crossed the line