3 ms·

ICYMI, Elon Musk restarted his lawsuit a month or two ago: https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-revives-lawsuit-against-sam-altman-openai-nyt-reports-20

ICYMI, Elon Musk restarted his lawsuit a month or two ago: https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-revives-lawsuit-against-sam-altman-openai-nyt-reports-2024-08-05/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-revives-lawsuit... I'm wondering if OpenAI's charter might provide a useful legal angle. The charter states: >OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that [AGI ...] benefits all of humanity. >... >We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power. >Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. We anticipate needing to marshal substantial resources to fulfill our mission, but will always diligently act to minimize conflicts of interest among our employees and stakeholders that could compromise broad benefit. >... >We are committed to doing the research required to make AGI safe, and to driving the broad adoption of such research across the AI community. >We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. [...] >... https://openai.com/charter/ https://openai.com/charter/ I'm no expert here, but to me, this charter doesn't appear to characterize OpenAI's behavior as of the year 2024. Safety people have left, Sam has inexplicably stopped discussing risks, and OpenAI seems to be focused on racing with competitors. My question: Is the charter legally enforceable? And if so, could it make sense for someone to file an additional lawsuit? Or shall we just wait and see how the Musk lawsuit plays out, for now?

mminer237 2y ago
It would think it is legally enforceable, but I suspect Kathy Jennings is the only person who has standing to sue over it.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  So perhaps we can start a campaign of writing letters to her? I'm curious about the "fiduciary duty" part. As a member of humanity, it would appear that OpenAI has a fiduciary duty to me. Does that give me standing? Suppose I say that OpenAI compromises my safety (and thus finances) by failing to discuss risks, having a poor safety culture (as illustrated by employee exits), and racing. Would that fly?
  - mminer237 2y ago
    Under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, you have to suffer a concrete, discernible injury. They can have broken their promise to you, but unless you can prove the dollar amount that harmed you, you can't sue. Even if you donated to them, all states I know of assign sole oversight for proper management of those funds to the state AG. If you donate to a food bank and they use the money to buy personal Ferraris instead of helping the hungry, that's clearly illegal, but you'd be out the money either way, so you wouldn't have standing to sue. The attorney general has to sue for mismanagement of funds. If you feel OpenAI is violating their charter, I would definitely encourage writing to Mrs. Jennings to voice that opinion.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Elon Musk absolutely has standing, as one of the biggest donors to the nonprofit. I assume he will settle for some ownership in the for-profit, though.
  - melodyogonna 2y ago
    Didn't he already refuse the shares offered to him?
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      I'm sure they just didn't offer him enough shares.
  - mminer237 2y ago
    Maybe. In California that has been ruled to not be the case: https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/sep/donor-no-standing-sue-donor-advised-fund.html https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/sep/donor-no-stand... I don't know the laws of Delaware well, but I would be surprised if he has standing even as a donor.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      That was also specifically about a donor-advised fund, which is different than a nonprofit corporation. Elon Musk's tort would be something like "fraud in the inducement" or some weird theory like that not for a breach of fiduciary duty.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    I suppose Open Philanthropy does as well, then.
- cdchn 2y ago
  "Humanity vs. OpenAI" would look good on a docket.
whamlastxmas 2y ago
Sam had a blog post literally two days ago that acknowledged risks. There’s also still a sizeable focus on safety and people with roles dedicated to it at open ai
- johnsimer 2y ago
  Is there a sizable focus on safety? Last time I heard there was only like one safety person left on the team
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 2y ago
LOL, it's like a bank with stained glass windows to make passers-by think it's a church, isn't it.

mminer237 2y ago

It would think it is legally enforceable, but I suspect Kathy Jennings is the only person who has standing to sue over it.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
So perhaps we can start a campaign of writing letters to her? I'm curious about the "fiduciary duty" part. As a member of humanity, it would appear that OpenAI has a fiduciary duty to me. Does that give me standing? Suppose I say that OpenAI compromises my safety (and thus finances) by failing to discuss risks, having a poor safety culture (as illustrated by employee exits), and racing. Would that fly?
- mminer237 2y ago
  Under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, you have to suffer a concrete, discernible injury. They can have broken their promise to you, but unless you can prove the dollar amount that harmed you, you can't sue. Even if you donated to them, all states I know of assign sole oversight for proper management of those funds to the state AG. If you donate to a food bank and they use the money to buy personal Ferraris instead of helping the hungry, that's clearly illegal, but you'd be out the money either way, so you wouldn't have standing to sue. The attorney general has to sue for mismanagement of funds. If you feel OpenAI is violating their charter, I would definitely encourage writing to Mrs. Jennings to voice that opinion.
pclmulqdq 2y ago
Elon Musk absolutely has standing, as one of the biggest donors to the nonprofit. I assume he will settle for some ownership in the for-profit, though.
- melodyogonna 2y ago
  Didn't he already refuse the shares offered to him?
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    I'm sure they just didn't offer him enough shares.
- mminer237 2y ago
  Maybe. In California that has been ruled to not be the case: https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/sep/donor-no-standing-sue-donor-advised-fund.html https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/sep/donor-no-stand... I don't know the laws of Delaware well, but I would be surprised if he has standing even as a donor.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    That was also specifically about a donor-advised fund, which is different than a nonprofit corporation. Elon Musk's tort would be something like "fraud in the inducement" or some weird theory like that not for a breach of fiduciary duty.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  I suppose Open Philanthropy does as well, then.
cdchn 2y ago
"Humanity vs. OpenAI" would look good on a docket.

whamlastxmas 2y ago

Sam had a blog post literally two days ago that acknowledged risks. There’s also still a sizeable focus on safety and people with roles dedicated to it at open ai

johnsimer 2y ago
Is there a sizable focus on safety? Last time I heard there was only like one safety person left on the team
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 2y ago

LOL, it's like a bank with stained glass windows to make passers-by think it's a church, isn't it.