10 ms·

Can’t help but think Elons lawsuit will trigger more releases by OpenAI. His core arguments are BS, but raised legitimate questions about their non-profit statu

Can’t help but think Elons lawsuit will trigger more releases by OpenAI. His core arguments are BS, but raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity.

gurgunday 3y ago
Why do you think they are BS? You say it raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity.
- rvz 3y ago
  > Why do you think they are BS? Because me and everyone else here really hates Elon Musk. > You say it raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity. As soon as OpenAI accepted that investment from Microsoft it has only been used as a for-profit proxy to have their own ‘DeepMind’ to bring down Google which they have tried for years with Bing and the Scroogled campaigns. OpenAI is now no better than Google DeepMind and both are as closed and secretive and OpenAI ditched from their charter and non-profit status and continues to make excuses for not giving back their research.
  - marknutter 3y ago
    > Because me and everyone else here really hates Elon Musk. Speak for yourself.
    - rvz 3y ago
      How exactly?
- myko 3y ago
  I think some believe Elon's argument is BS because Elon claims to be upset about OpenAI charging for their work. However, internal communications/texts show he wanted to do the same thing. So it seems like sour grapes that he isn't the one in charge.
  - ramblerman 3y ago
    An argument isn’t good or bad because of the motivations of the person behind it. I get Elon is not popular right now. But jeez this is playground emotional level logic.
  - _diyar 3y ago
    I detailed my understanding of this case in a sibling-comment to this one, but I think the fact that he wanted to "do the same thing" (read: use the for-profit engine to fund AI research) only makes his case stronger! If I understand correctly, the OpenAI board asked Musk to remove himself and sell his stake as his for-profit pursuits conflicted with the mission of open, non-profit research. But after he left, they started a for-profit subsidiary and did exactly what they didn't want him doing. I could see how a judge might side with him.
  - GreedClarifies 3y ago
    Let's be real. They think Elon's arguments are BS since he bought Twitter and he destroyed their Leftie safe space. They are also very upset with Elon's very public shift away from the current Left. It's Elon derangement syndrome.
    - phatskat 3y ago
      Elon’s shift to appeal to a more right-leaning base happened long before any of the OpenAI stuff.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> His core arguments are BS, but raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity. These legitimate questions about their non-profit status ARE his core arguments. His complaints are the same as the popular notion on hackernews that OpenAI has failed to be open.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  Erm, you get it, it's right in your comment: lawsuit about non-profit, HN about open weights.
- jhonof 3y ago
  They are part of his core argument, but not the entire argument. The (imo) shakier part of the argument is that he is entitled to damages even though he doesn't own shares in the company. This is atypical, most of the time you lose that right once you get rid of your shares. It seems like he is arguing that he was misled and sold his shares because of that, which will be hard to prove if true, and even if it is true, isn't really illegal.
  - _diyar 3y ago
    I believe at the time it was reported that Musk and the OpenAI board chose to part ways due to his for-profit AI research (in Tesla) posing a conflict of interest to the OpenAI mission. Hence his argument boils down to "You made me sell my shares because my 'closed' AI research conflicted with your 'open' non-profit ideals. However, you have since stoped to adhere to your mission statement, effectively seizing to publish your research findings and pursuing for-profit goals. As a consequence of this I have lost a bunch of money." And as nuts as Musk is, I kind of see his point here.
    - jhonof 3y ago
      That argument doesn't really hold a lot of water with me to be honest. If I sell (forced or otherwise) my shares in company because it isn't working on tech I agree with, and then they pivot and start working on tech I agree with and their shares pop, I am not entitled to sue them for damages.
resource_waste 3y ago
When I said this last year, people said "BUT THEY ARE DEMOCRAITIZING IT" Its good to see that I was always right, even last year. I just didn't have a dad who owned an emerald mine.
- simondotau 3y ago
  People seem to imagine that Errol Musk is dead and Elon got a big inheritance from his daddy's estate. In fact Errol is still very much alive, became bankrupt sometime in the 1990s, and is now a deadbeat living off financial support from his sons. Was there ever an emerald mine? Maybe. Though nobody has been able to find a scrap of evidence for it. Literally the only "evidence" is Errol's own boasts, which is that he bought a half-share of a Zambian mine for 100k ZAR ($50k USD). Hardly the stuff generational empires are made of.
  - garyfirestorm 3y ago
    if you bought 50k USD worth of $AAPL in 1990, by conservative estimates they will be worth 560 million USD worth today. I'd argue, that's generational stuff right there.
    - bitcurious 3y ago
      If you bought the winning lottery ticket, you’d be a lottery winner.
      - zingelshuher 3y ago
        If grandmother had balls she would be a grandfather.
    - simondotau 3y ago
      Did Errol Musk buy 50k worth of $AAPL in 1990?
  - n2d4 3y ago
    The Zambian mine is the emerald mine everyone is talking about. From Walter Isaacson's biography: > [Errol and a Zambian busienessman] agreed on a price [for Errol's plane], and instead of taking a payment in cash, Errol was given a portion of the emeralds produced at three small mines that the entrepreneur owned in Zambia. [...] > Errol, who never had an ownership stake in the mine, expanded his trade by importing raw emeralds and having them cut in Johannesburg. "Many people came to me with stolen parcels," he says. "On trips overseas I would sell emeralds to jewelers. It was a cloak-and-dagger thing, because none of it was legal." After producing profits of roughly $210,000, his emerald business collapsed in the 1980s when the Russians created an artificial emerald in the lab. He lost all of his emerald earnings. $210,000 in 1986 would be about $600,000 today.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
My concern is that Elon has shut the door with a sloppy lawsuit. If some other entity (Government agency? Another company?) Comes around to pull this string, its going to set a bad precedent.
furyofantares 3y ago
> raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity What is "non-profit related activity"? IANAL but the only justification needed for non-profit designation is not being for-profit. And maybe their structure with a for-profit subsidiary is up for debate because of this. But you don't get to be non-profit by doing "good stuff" like open sourcing things. You get it by investing all profits back into the business. Evil Corp for Doing Evil could be a non-profit if it invested all its profits back into the business.
- LordDragonfang 3y ago
  > What is "non-profit related activity"? What is "non-profit related activity"? IANAL but the only justification needed for non-profit designation is not being for-profit. Good thing you are NAL, because this is flat out wrong. "Non-profit" is a term used to refer to specific tax-exempt institutions under US tax law 501(c), and has nothing to do with investing profits "back into the business" (otherwise, you could have called Amazon or Uber "non-profits"). OpenAI[1] is specifically a 501(c)(3)[2] which explicitly requires the organization's purpose be one of the following "exempt" purposes: >charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. [3] If it does not continue to fill one of those purposes, it can lose its tax-exempt nonprofit status. [1] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/810861541/201943199349318399/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/810... [2] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... [3] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
  - furyofantares 3y ago
    > Good thing you are NAL I'm offended. Presumably if I was AL I would have gotten it right.
jeanlucas 3y ago
Remember, open source is just on the beginning and for recruiting purposes

gurgunday 3y ago

Why do you think they are BS? You say it raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity.

rvz 3y ago
> Why do you think they are BS? Because me and everyone else here really hates Elon Musk. > You say it raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity. As soon as OpenAI accepted that investment from Microsoft it has only been used as a for-profit proxy to have their own ‘DeepMind’ to bring down Google which they have tried for years with Bing and the Scroogled campaigns. OpenAI is now no better than Google DeepMind and both are as closed and secretive and OpenAI ditched from their charter and non-profit status and continues to make excuses for not giving back their research.
- marknutter 3y ago
  > Because me and everyone else here really hates Elon Musk. Speak for yourself.
  - rvz 3y ago
    How exactly?
myko 3y ago
I think some believe Elon's argument is BS because Elon claims to be upset about OpenAI charging for their work. However, internal communications/texts show he wanted to do the same thing. So it seems like sour grapes that he isn't the one in charge.
- ramblerman 3y ago
  An argument isn’t good or bad because of the motivations of the person behind it. I get Elon is not popular right now. But jeez this is playground emotional level logic.
- _diyar 3y ago
  I detailed my understanding of this case in a sibling-comment to this one, but I think the fact that he wanted to "do the same thing" (read: use the for-profit engine to fund AI research) only makes his case stronger! If I understand correctly, the OpenAI board asked Musk to remove himself and sell his stake as his for-profit pursuits conflicted with the mission of open, non-profit research. But after he left, they started a for-profit subsidiary and did exactly what they didn't want him doing. I could see how a judge might side with him.
- GreedClarifies 3y ago
  Let's be real. They think Elon's arguments are BS since he bought Twitter and he destroyed their Leftie safe space. They are also very upset with Elon's very public shift away from the current Left. It's Elon derangement syndrome.
  - phatskat 3y ago
    Elon’s shift to appeal to a more right-leaning base happened long before any of the OpenAI stuff.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> His core arguments are BS, but raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity. These legitimate questions about their non-profit status ARE his core arguments. His complaints are the same as the popular notion on hackernews that OpenAI has failed to be open.

refulgentis 3y ago
Erm, you get it, it's right in your comment: lawsuit about non-profit, HN about open weights.
jhonof 3y ago
They are part of his core argument, but not the entire argument. The (imo) shakier part of the argument is that he is entitled to damages even though he doesn't own shares in the company. This is atypical, most of the time you lose that right once you get rid of your shares. It seems like he is arguing that he was misled and sold his shares because of that, which will be hard to prove if true, and even if it is true, isn't really illegal.
- _diyar 3y ago
  I believe at the time it was reported that Musk and the OpenAI board chose to part ways due to his for-profit AI research (in Tesla) posing a conflict of interest to the OpenAI mission. Hence his argument boils down to "You made me sell my shares because my 'closed' AI research conflicted with your 'open' non-profit ideals. However, you have since stoped to adhere to your mission statement, effectively seizing to publish your research findings and pursuing for-profit goals. As a consequence of this I have lost a bunch of money." And as nuts as Musk is, I kind of see his point here.
  - jhonof 3y ago
    That argument doesn't really hold a lot of water with me to be honest. If I sell (forced or otherwise) my shares in company because it isn't working on tech I agree with, and then they pivot and start working on tech I agree with and their shares pop, I am not entitled to sue them for damages.

resource_waste 3y ago

When I said this last year, people said "BUT THEY ARE DEMOCRAITIZING IT" Its good to see that I was always right, even last year. I just didn't have a dad who owned an emerald mine.

simondotau 3y ago
People seem to imagine that Errol Musk is dead and Elon got a big inheritance from his daddy's estate. In fact Errol is still very much alive, became bankrupt sometime in the 1990s, and is now a deadbeat living off financial support from his sons. Was there ever an emerald mine? Maybe. Though nobody has been able to find a scrap of evidence for it. Literally the only "evidence" is Errol's own boasts, which is that he bought a half-share of a Zambian mine for 100k ZAR ($50k USD). Hardly the stuff generational empires are made of.
- garyfirestorm 3y ago
  if you bought 50k USD worth of $AAPL in 1990, by conservative estimates they will be worth 560 million USD worth today. I'd argue, that's generational stuff right there.
  - bitcurious 3y ago
    If you bought the winning lottery ticket, you’d be a lottery winner.
    - zingelshuher 3y ago
      If grandmother had balls she would be a grandfather.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    Did Errol Musk buy 50k worth of $AAPL in 1990?
- n2d4 3y ago
  The Zambian mine is the emerald mine everyone is talking about. From Walter Isaacson's biography: > [Errol and a Zambian busienessman] agreed on a price [for Errol's plane], and instead of taking a payment in cash, Errol was given a portion of the emeralds produced at three small mines that the entrepreneur owned in Zambia. [...] > Errol, who never had an ownership stake in the mine, expanded his trade by importing raw emeralds and having them cut in Johannesburg. "Many people came to me with stolen parcels," he says. "On trips overseas I would sell emeralds to jewelers. It was a cloak-and-dagger thing, because none of it was legal." After producing profits of roughly $210,000, his emerald business collapsed in the 1980s when the Russians created an artificial emerald in the lab. He lost all of his emerald earnings. $210,000 in 1986 would be about $600,000 today.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

My concern is that Elon has shut the door with a sloppy lawsuit. If some other entity (Government agency? Another company?) Comes around to pull this string, its going to set a bad precedent.

furyofantares 3y ago

> raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity What is "non-profit related activity"? IANAL but the only justification needed for non-profit designation is not being for-profit. And maybe their structure with a for-profit subsidiary is up for debate because of this. But you don't get to be non-profit by doing "good stuff" like open sourcing things. You get it by investing all profits back into the business. Evil Corp for Doing Evil could be a non-profit if it invested all its profits back into the business.

LordDragonfang 3y ago
> What is "non-profit related activity"? What is "non-profit related activity"? IANAL but the only justification needed for non-profit designation is not being for-profit. Good thing you are NAL, because this is flat out wrong. "Non-profit" is a term used to refer to specific tax-exempt institutions under US tax law 501(c), and has nothing to do with investing profits "back into the business" (otherwise, you could have called Amazon or Uber "non-profits"). OpenAI[1] is specifically a 501(c)(3)[2] which explicitly requires the organization's purpose be one of the following "exempt" purposes: >charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. [3] If it does not continue to fill one of those purposes, it can lose its tax-exempt nonprofit status. [1] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/810861541/201943199349318399/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/810... [2] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... [3] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
- furyofantares 3y ago
  > Good thing you are NAL I'm offended. Presumably if I was AL I would have gotten it right.

jeanlucas 3y ago

Remember, open source is just on the beginning and for recruiting purposes