3 ms·

E.H. promised her investors a magic cure -> sharlatan Sam B. stole money from everyone -> thief Sam A. did what? And Musk wanted to do the same thing. Both a

E.H. promised her investors a magic cure -> sharlatan Sam B. stole money from everyone -> thief Sam A. did what? And Musk wanted to do the same thing. Both agreeded, that a non profit will not make enough money to push the frontier. He is only pissed that he didn't get control of openai and he is now pissed again because he apparently should have done the lawsuite a few years back. Despite him having unlimited money and probably very good laywers I'm not here to defend the richest of the richest, but E.H. and S.B. are complet different storries to OpenAI

hawkice 4mo ago
Non-profits are not the property of their donors, but of the general interest, with obligations to the public. It is part of the legal and social obligations of the legal structure of non-profits.
- Curosinono 4mo ago
  It wasn't illegal so there is some reason why the USA allowed it. And as mentioned, they agreeed that they will not get the capital openai needs, so what did the USA people loose? A company which whouldn't have been able to do what they are known for anyway. Again i'm not protecting the rich, i just don't think there is a real scandal and its not the same as the other 2 the newyorker mentioned
  - hawkice 4mo ago
    Their stated non-profit goal was to benefit all of humanity. Changing OpenAI to benefit their financial backers in a formal sense could be a loss of nearly unbounded value.
    - Curosinono 4mo ago
      As i wrote in my prev argument, they assumed that as non profit, they wouldt' get the capital needed to even be a frontier lab. So nothing to loose if their model wouldn't have worked anyway. And at the current state, its better anyway that China is pushing the non-profit/humantariy aspect of open models.
    - nkozyra 4mo ago
      Which is probably why they created another, for-profit, entity. You can argue that it's unlikely the for-profit conservatorship of the non-profit is incompatible with that goal, but legally that becomes very much grey area.
gaws 4mo ago
> E.H. promised her investors a magic cure -> sharlatan *charlatan

hawkice 4mo ago

Non-profits are not the property of their donors, but of the general interest, with obligations to the public. It is part of the legal and social obligations of the legal structure of non-profits.

Curosinono 4mo ago
It wasn't illegal so there is some reason why the USA allowed it. And as mentioned, they agreeed that they will not get the capital openai needs, so what did the USA people loose? A company which whouldn't have been able to do what they are known for anyway. Again i'm not protecting the rich, i just don't think there is a real scandal and its not the same as the other 2 the newyorker mentioned
- hawkice 4mo ago
  Their stated non-profit goal was to benefit all of humanity. Changing OpenAI to benefit their financial backers in a formal sense could be a loss of nearly unbounded value.
  - Curosinono 4mo ago
    As i wrote in my prev argument, they assumed that as non profit, they wouldt' get the capital needed to even be a frontier lab. So nothing to loose if their model wouldn't have worked anyway. And at the current state, its better anyway that China is pushing the non-profit/humantariy aspect of open models.
  - nkozyra 4mo ago
    Which is probably why they created another, for-profit, entity. You can argue that it's unlikely the for-profit conservatorship of the non-profit is incompatible with that goal, but legally that becomes very much grey area.

gaws 4mo ago

> E.H. promised her investors a magic cure -> sharlatan *charlatan