4 ms·

While there are issues that Mr. Musk must address, I don’t think this is one of them. Demonizing someone who helped you is an awful thing to do. If he gave 1/3

While there are issues that Mr. Musk must address, I don’t think this is one of them. Demonizing someone who helped you is an awful thing to do. If he gave 1/3 of the initial funding, he helped a lot.

bogtog 2y ago
> A non-profit structure seemed fitting, and we raised donations in various forms including cash ($137M, less than a third of which was from Elon) Saying "less than" is peculiar phrasing for such a substantial amount, but maybe some people believe Elon initially funded about all of it
- jprete 2y ago
  It's plausible that, without Musk's less-than-a-third, nobody else would have put in any serious money.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    It's not even remotely plausible. Sam Altman is one of the most well connected people in Silicon Valley. And investors like Reid Hoffman aren't having their lives being dictated by Musk.
    - rasengan 2y ago
      Mr. Altman is without a doubt well connected and a good guy. However, Mr. Musk is continually called out by OpenAI in the public and OpenAI has quite the megaphone.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > However, Mr. Musk is continually called out by OpenAI in the public and OpenAI has quite the megaphone. From what I see, this is mainly due to Musk complaining loudly in public. And unlike the caving instructor that Musk libelled, OpenAI has the means to fight back as an equal. That said, I don't see anything in this post that I'd describe as Musk "being called out".
    - az226 2y ago
      Yes, but while many on Altman’s circuit pledged to donate to OpenAI, they never actually did. Musk was like the only main one.
soared 2y ago
This article very briefly mentions his name in relation to funding but does not demonize him or ask him to address issues?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rasengan 2y ago
  He has been living rent free in their heads, mouths and on their blogs for quite some time. Unfortunately, it’s been in a quite negative tone. If all of this is really for humanity — then humanity needs to shape up, get along and do this together.
sumedh 2y ago
> If he gave 1/3 of the initial funding, he helped a lot He didnt just want to help, he wanted to control the company by being the CEO.
corry 2y ago
Whatever other zaniness is going on with Musk/Sam/etc, I can't escape the feeling that if I had donated a lot of money to a non-profit, and then a few years later that non-profit said "SURPRISE, WE'RE NOW FOR PROFIT AND MAKING INVESTORS RICH but you're not an investor, you're a donor, so thank-you-and-goodbye"... ya, I'd feel miffed too. If we're a for-profit company with investors and returns etc... then those initial donations seem far closer to seed capital than a not-for-profit gift. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I can believe that this wasn't always some devious plan but rather the natural evolution of the company... but still seems inequitable. As much as Elon's various antics might deserve criticism (especially post-election) he seems to be in the right here? Or am I missing something?
- gary_0 2y ago
  I believe they offered Elon shares in return for the initial donation, and he turned them down because he didn't want a few billion worth of OpenAI, he wanted total executive control. But we're all kind of arguing over which demon is poking the other the hardest with their pitchfork, here.

bogtog 2y ago

> A non-profit structure seemed fitting, and we raised donations in various forms including cash ($137M, less than a third of which was from Elon) Saying "less than" is peculiar phrasing for such a substantial amount, but maybe some people believe Elon initially funded about all of it

jprete 2y ago
It's plausible that, without Musk's less-than-a-third, nobody else would have put in any serious money.
- threeseed 2y ago
  It's not even remotely plausible. Sam Altman is one of the most well connected people in Silicon Valley. And investors like Reid Hoffman aren't having their lives being dictated by Musk.
  - rasengan 2y ago
    Mr. Altman is without a doubt well connected and a good guy. However, Mr. Musk is continually called out by OpenAI in the public and OpenAI has quite the megaphone.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > However, Mr. Musk is continually called out by OpenAI in the public and OpenAI has quite the megaphone. From what I see, this is mainly due to Musk complaining loudly in public. And unlike the caving instructor that Musk libelled, OpenAI has the means to fight back as an equal. That said, I don't see anything in this post that I'd describe as Musk "being called out".
  - az226 2y ago
    Yes, but while many on Altman’s circuit pledged to donate to OpenAI, they never actually did. Musk was like the only main one.

soared 2y ago

This article very briefly mentions his name in relation to funding but does not demonize him or ask him to address issues?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rasengan 2y ago
He has been living rent free in their heads, mouths and on their blogs for quite some time. Unfortunately, it’s been in a quite negative tone. If all of this is really for humanity — then humanity needs to shape up, get along and do this together.

sumedh 2y ago

> If he gave 1/3 of the initial funding, he helped a lot He didnt just want to help, he wanted to control the company by being the CEO.

corry 2y ago

Whatever other zaniness is going on with Musk/Sam/etc, I can't escape the feeling that if I had donated a lot of money to a non-profit, and then a few years later that non-profit said "SURPRISE, WE'RE NOW FOR PROFIT AND MAKING INVESTORS RICH but you're not an investor, you're a donor, so thank-you-and-goodbye"... ya, I'd feel miffed too. If we're a for-profit company with investors and returns etc... then those initial donations seem far closer to seed capital than a not-for-profit gift. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I can believe that this wasn't always some devious plan but rather the natural evolution of the company... but still seems inequitable. As much as Elon's various antics might deserve criticism (especially post-election) he seems to be in the right here? Or am I missing something?

gary_0 2y ago
I believe they offered Elon shares in return for the initial donation, and he turned them down because he didn't want a few billion worth of OpenAI, he wanted total executive control. But we're all kind of arguing over which demon is poking the other the hardest with their pitchfork, here.