4 ms·

> These legitimate questions about their non-profit status ARE his core arguments. Except for the portion where he advocated for a capped-profit arm which he w

> These legitimate questions about their non-profit status ARE his core arguments. Except for the portion where he advocated for a capped-profit arm which he would run under Tesla. You know that part that is shown in the OpenAI emails. It seemed he was ok with it when HE would stand to benefit. You can't believe that Elon is "a great businessman" while also believing that he is totally altruistic and ignores all of the self serving impulses that have gotten him to where he is.

revscat 3y ago
GP is discussing legal arguments, not motivations.
- John23832 3y ago
  While I am not a lawyer, I think it’s pretty apparent you can’t sue someone for damages for participating in an action that you conspired to be a part of.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Is that even true? If you are in talks for something but it falls through for whatever reason, if the thing the other people do violates some prior agreement with you then I don't see why you can't sue for damages. You would need to actually alter the agreement, not just discuss potentially altering it, no?
simondotau 3y ago
Of course he's not "totally altruistic"; nobody is. Of course he's self-serving; everyone is all the time. Even the most ostensibly selfless acts have a basis in feeling good about selflessness. But I don't see how your dichotomy makes any sense. There are selfish poor people. There are altruistic poor people. There are selfish wealthy people. And there are altruistic wealthy people (disregarding blanket denials by far left wackos with emotionally derived selective criticisms of capitalism). Eye-rolling conspiracy theories aside, Bill Gates is absolute proof that someone can be an objectively great businessman and objectively highly altruistic. Seems to me that the impusles which got Musk to where he is an obsession with extreme risk taking, combined with sufficient education and clarity of vision to sometimes bend extreme odds in his favour. History is littered with examples of wealth incinerated in the pursuit of building cars and rockets and it says a lot that he's been associated with a multitude of ultra-unlikely successes. Whereas many other billionaires are more directly driven by wealth accumulation, as evidenced by the trappings of extreme wealth which surround them.
- John23832 3y ago
  > Of course he's not "totally altruistic"; nobody is. Of course he's self-serving; everyone is all the time. Even the most ostensibly selfless acts have a basis in feeling good about selflessness. But I don't see how your dichotomy makes any sense. There are selfish poor people. There are altruistic poor people. There are selfish wealthy people. And there are altruistic wealthy people (disregarding blanket denials by far left wackos with emotionally derived selective criticisms of capitalism). All of this goes without saying. > Eye-rolling conspiracy theories aside, Bill Gates is absolute proof that someone can be an objectively great businessman and objectively highly altruistic. The biggest and most glaring difference here is that Bill Gates is not on record attempting to take board control of a for profit company which is attempting to make malaria vaccines (of the many public health efforts he is pushing). > Seems to me that the impusles which got Musk to where he is an obsession with extreme risk taking, combined with sufficient education and clarity of vision to sometimes bend extreme odds in his favour. History is littered with examples of wealth incinerated in the pursuit of building cars and rockets and it says a lot that he's been associated with a multitude of ultra-unlikely successes. > Whereas many other billionaires are more directly driven by wealth accumulation, as evidenced by the trappings of extreme wealth which surround them. None of this has anything to do with the merits of the case and really just comes of a Musk-coddling, a favorite pastime here it seems.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    The analogy would be if Bill Gates put millions of dollars into a new non-profit entity dedicated to developing new royalty-free malaria drugs. Then after using his money to develop a great malaria drug, they transferred the malaria drug assets into a for-profit entity, sold half of that entity to Pfizer, so that Pfizer can manufacture the drug and sell it to malaria patients in central Africa. If that happened, I'd be surprised if Bill Gates didn't sue them. (As for my latter paragraphs, I was replying to something you said which didn't have anything to do with the merits of the case either. I'd like to think you could extend me the same courtesy you extended yourself.)
stevofolife 3y ago
Elon had always advocated for a for-profit structure so that OpenAI can raise enough money to achieve its vision. In the email they are discussing how the for-profit structure could work. Nothing wrong with that especially when he was the GP.

revscat 3y ago

GP is discussing legal arguments, not motivations.

John23832 3y ago
While I am not a lawyer, I think it’s pretty apparent you can’t sue someone for damages for participating in an action that you conspired to be a part of.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Is that even true? If you are in talks for something but it falls through for whatever reason, if the thing the other people do violates some prior agreement with you then I don't see why you can't sue for damages. You would need to actually alter the agreement, not just discuss potentially altering it, no?

simondotau 3y ago

Of course he's not "totally altruistic"; nobody is. Of course he's self-serving; everyone is all the time. Even the most ostensibly selfless acts have a basis in feeling good about selflessness. But I don't see how your dichotomy makes any sense. There are selfish poor people. There are altruistic poor people. There are selfish wealthy people. And there are altruistic wealthy people (disregarding blanket denials by far left wackos with emotionally derived selective criticisms of capitalism). Eye-rolling conspiracy theories aside, Bill Gates is absolute proof that someone can be an objectively great businessman and objectively highly altruistic. Seems to me that the impusles which got Musk to where he is an obsession with extreme risk taking, combined with sufficient education and clarity of vision to sometimes bend extreme odds in his favour. History is littered with examples of wealth incinerated in the pursuit of building cars and rockets and it says a lot that he's been associated with a multitude of ultra-unlikely successes. Whereas many other billionaires are more directly driven by wealth accumulation, as evidenced by the trappings of extreme wealth which surround them.

John23832 3y ago
> Of course he's not "totally altruistic"; nobody is. Of course he's self-serving; everyone is all the time. Even the most ostensibly selfless acts have a basis in feeling good about selflessness. But I don't see how your dichotomy makes any sense. There are selfish poor people. There are altruistic poor people. There are selfish wealthy people. And there are altruistic wealthy people (disregarding blanket denials by far left wackos with emotionally derived selective criticisms of capitalism). All of this goes without saying. > Eye-rolling conspiracy theories aside, Bill Gates is absolute proof that someone can be an objectively great businessman and objectively highly altruistic. The biggest and most glaring difference here is that Bill Gates is not on record attempting to take board control of a for profit company which is attempting to make malaria vaccines (of the many public health efforts he is pushing). > Seems to me that the impusles which got Musk to where he is an obsession with extreme risk taking, combined with sufficient education and clarity of vision to sometimes bend extreme odds in his favour. History is littered with examples of wealth incinerated in the pursuit of building cars and rockets and it says a lot that he's been associated with a multitude of ultra-unlikely successes. > Whereas many other billionaires are more directly driven by wealth accumulation, as evidenced by the trappings of extreme wealth which surround them. None of this has anything to do with the merits of the case and really just comes of a Musk-coddling, a favorite pastime here it seems.
- simondotau 3y ago
  The analogy would be if Bill Gates put millions of dollars into a new non-profit entity dedicated to developing new royalty-free malaria drugs. Then after using his money to develop a great malaria drug, they transferred the malaria drug assets into a for-profit entity, sold half of that entity to Pfizer, so that Pfizer can manufacture the drug and sell it to malaria patients in central Africa. If that happened, I'd be surprised if Bill Gates didn't sue them. (As for my latter paragraphs, I was replying to something you said which didn't have anything to do with the merits of the case either. I'd like to think you could extend me the same courtesy you extended yourself.)

stevofolife 3y ago

Elon had always advocated for a for-profit structure so that OpenAI can raise enough money to achieve its vision. In the email they are discussing how the for-profit structure could work. Nothing wrong with that especially when he was the GP.