8 ms·

But mostly because his own AI business launch was OpenAI. He eventually left because he wanted to start a for-profit AI division under Tesla and felt it was a c

But mostly because his own AI business launch was OpenAI. He eventually left because he wanted to start a for-profit AI division under Tesla and felt it was a conflict of interest with OpenAI's mission. But then OpenAI violated its own mission anyway – which is when Musk became unhappy about it. There would have been no reason for him to step down if he'd have known OpenAI was going to go in that direction all along.

tombert 2y ago
I mean, organization priorities change all the time. Unless Elon is a moron, he should have known that there was always a risk that they'd eventually add a for-profit entity; it's entirely possible that they had no plans for it when he was there and then they later changed priorities. That's really not weird, and I really don't think Elon should be "unhappy" about it. That said, I do think that the name "OpenAI" does kind of imply non-profit, so I guess you could argue that there's some dishonesty there.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Unless Elon is a moron He very well may be, but he is also seemingly human (sometimes, at least). He provided the major funding with a certain goal in mind. It would be hard for any human to not be unhappy to see that go to waste. I mean, if you bought your friend a house to provide them with what you saw as needed shelter, and then said friend decided to tear down the house and use it as fuel for a fun weekend campfire, you'd probably be unhappy too – even though logically it isn't for you to decide; you chose to give it away. 'Tis the way of the irrational human.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I don't think the analogy completely fits; if I bought my friend a house it's probably because I was doing something nice for them because they're my friend. Elon is a human but he's also a businessman, and he should know that these kinds of decisions are decidedly not-personal. Elon probably has some degree of empathy and feelings, but businesses themselves do not, businesses are sociopathic. If this were some 22 year old who just got some VC money, I'd be a lot more sympathetic, but at this point Elon had been in business for decades and had made many billions of dollars doing it. He should have known that unless it was in some kind of binding contract everything is liable to change. ETA: I know it comes off as cynical, but I will never have even a 0.01% of the success that Elon has, but I feel anyone who has been in the working world long enough eventually discovers that businesses kind of have to be evil, at least to some degree. Businesses will treat you like "family", and they will try really hard to convince you that they're "family" or "friends" because they buy you lunch occasionally, but they are fundamentally not. You don't just fire a family member because you don't feel like you're getting sufficient ROI on your investment with them or because the economy takes a nosediv, you don't just snatch away their health insurance the second they do something wrong. Elon, at this point, shouldn't really think that people he's doing business with are any more honest than any other company. If I am aware of this, he should be too.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > he should know that these kinds of decisions are decidedly not-personal. Just as you should know that your friend's choice wasn't personal. He didn't tear down the house to spite you, he simply felt a fun night of sitting around the campfire would be a better use of the materials. He wasn't thinking about you at all. And why would he? It has nothing to do with you. If you give away something to someone else, of course you know they are free to do with it as they see fit. That doesn't mean you won't have feelings towards what they do with it, though. A human can be upset about something even while knowing there is no logical reason to be upset about it. The human is inherently irrational.
      - tombert 2y ago
        You didn't address my key criticism, maybe I didn't make it terribly clear. If I bought my friend a house, it was specifically for that person to live, not because I want to make a competing housing project or something. I don't think it maps because the intent is different; I am not a businessman, my goal isn't to make profits, this would have been purely an act of charity and yeah I would be annoyed if they burned down the house I gave him. But maybe the main reason that it doesn't map is because your analogy involves a transaction between two people. Organizations are not people. Let me repeat: organizations are not people. Businesses aren't people, charities aren't people, churches aren't people. A transaction from one organization to another organization is not the same as a transaction between me and a friend. An organization is comprised of people but that's not the same thing. Most individual people have empathy, companies are sociopathic. Most people wouldn't kick their family member out of the house because they don't meet a "bottom line", but a company will do it without blinking. As I said, Elon is a businessman and he has absolutely no excuse for not knowing this.
        randomdata 2y ago
        > this would have been purely an act of charity Right, OpenAI was founded with the intent of being a charity. Specifically, to give all the people of the world access to AI that he (and other founding members) felt would otherwise end up in the hands of a small number of people. Which is why Musk saw a conflict of interest when he at Tesla also wanted to develop AI for non-charitable purposes. As such, he stepped away from OpenAI to ensure that OpenAI was able to continue in its mission without being clouded by Tesla thoughts. But then OpenAI locked up the AI in the hands of a small few anyway. This is where Musk became unhappy about the state of affairs. > But maybe the main reason that it doesn't map There is no reason to think it doesn't map. Perhaps the struggle here is in not realizing that OpenAI was intended to be a charity? > Organizations are not people. Let me repeat: organizations are not people. Businesses aren't people, charities aren't people, churches aren't people. In fact, they are just people. Remove the people and everything represented by those labels completely disappears.

tombert 2y ago

I mean, organization priorities change all the time. Unless Elon is a moron, he should have known that there was always a risk that they'd eventually add a for-profit entity; it's entirely possible that they had no plans for it when he was there and then they later changed priorities. That's really not weird, and I really don't think Elon should be "unhappy" about it. That said, I do think that the name "OpenAI" does kind of imply non-profit, so I guess you could argue that there's some dishonesty there.

randomdata 2y ago
> Unless Elon is a moron He very well may be, but he is also seemingly human (sometimes, at least). He provided the major funding with a certain goal in mind. It would be hard for any human to not be unhappy to see that go to waste. I mean, if you bought your friend a house to provide them with what you saw as needed shelter, and then said friend decided to tear down the house and use it as fuel for a fun weekend campfire, you'd probably be unhappy too – even though logically it isn't for you to decide; you chose to give it away. 'Tis the way of the irrational human.
- tombert 2y ago
  I don't think the analogy completely fits; if I bought my friend a house it's probably because I was doing something nice for them because they're my friend. Elon is a human but he's also a businessman, and he should know that these kinds of decisions are decidedly not-personal. Elon probably has some degree of empathy and feelings, but businesses themselves do not, businesses are sociopathic. If this were some 22 year old who just got some VC money, I'd be a lot more sympathetic, but at this point Elon had been in business for decades and had made many billions of dollars doing it. He should have known that unless it was in some kind of binding contract everything is liable to change. ETA: I know it comes off as cynical, but I will never have even a 0.01% of the success that Elon has, but I feel anyone who has been in the working world long enough eventually discovers that businesses kind of have to be evil, at least to some degree. Businesses will treat you like "family", and they will try really hard to convince you that they're "family" or "friends" because they buy you lunch occasionally, but they are fundamentally not. You don't just fire a family member because you don't feel like you're getting sufficient ROI on your investment with them or because the economy takes a nosediv, you don't just snatch away their health insurance the second they do something wrong. Elon, at this point, shouldn't really think that people he's doing business with are any more honest than any other company. If I am aware of this, he should be too.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > he should know that these kinds of decisions are decidedly not-personal. Just as you should know that your friend's choice wasn't personal. He didn't tear down the house to spite you, he simply felt a fun night of sitting around the campfire would be a better use of the materials. He wasn't thinking about you at all. And why would he? It has nothing to do with you. If you give away something to someone else, of course you know they are free to do with it as they see fit. That doesn't mean you won't have feelings towards what they do with it, though. A human can be upset about something even while knowing there is no logical reason to be upset about it. The human is inherently irrational.
    - tombert 2y ago
      You didn't address my key criticism, maybe I didn't make it terribly clear. If I bought my friend a house, it was specifically for that person to live, not because I want to make a competing housing project or something. I don't think it maps because the intent is different; I am not a businessman, my goal isn't to make profits, this would have been purely an act of charity and yeah I would be annoyed if they burned down the house I gave him. But maybe the main reason that it doesn't map is because your analogy involves a transaction between two people. Organizations are not people. Let me repeat: organizations are not people. Businesses aren't people, charities aren't people, churches aren't people. A transaction from one organization to another organization is not the same as a transaction between me and a friend. An organization is comprised of people but that's not the same thing. Most individual people have empathy, companies are sociopathic. Most people wouldn't kick their family member out of the house because they don't meet a "bottom line", but a company will do it without blinking. As I said, Elon is a businessman and he has absolutely no excuse for not knowing this.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        > this would have been purely an act of charity Right, OpenAI was founded with the intent of being a charity. Specifically, to give all the people of the world access to AI that he (and other founding members) felt would otherwise end up in the hands of a small number of people. Which is why Musk saw a conflict of interest when he at Tesla also wanted to develop AI for non-charitable purposes. As such, he stepped away from OpenAI to ensure that OpenAI was able to continue in its mission without being clouded by Tesla thoughts. But then OpenAI locked up the AI in the hands of a small few anyway. This is where Musk became unhappy about the state of affairs. > But maybe the main reason that it doesn't map There is no reason to think it doesn't map. Perhaps the struggle here is in not realizing that OpenAI was intended to be a charity? > Organizations are not people. Let me repeat: organizations are not people. Businesses aren't people, charities aren't people, churches aren't people. In fact, they are just people. Remove the people and everything represented by those labels completely disappears.