Well isn’t that the pot calling the kettle a pot.
A headline about the one-time world’s richest man (now #2), who famously opposes unions, accusing a company of chasing profits is an odd way to start the day.
After reading the article it sounds like the case hinges on proving that a) Microsoft is more than just an investor/partner and meaningfully controls OpenAI and b) that GPT is an actual AGI (an AI that is equal or greater to human intelligence). I don’t know enough about business thresholds of control to comment on point a), but I don’t think many experts would agree with point b).
Given that Musk is a competitor of OpenAI and has a habit of shaky lawsuits, I’m going to remain skeptical but I’d love to hear more takes from others.
To my surprise I actually agree with Musk on this one.
I looked into OpenAI some time ago, and was very confused about how their mission statement and actions were so clearly at odds.
Which IMO was confirmed by the fact that Microsoft had a major stake in it.
If they can be judged on more than false advertising IDK, but for sure they did at least that.It’s a very weird corporate structure. They started with a not-for-profit, only-for-the-good-of-mankind woo company. Then they started a for-profit subsidiary (with Microsoft investing in it) which is supposedly under the control of the non-profit. And now Altman has got rid of the non-profit board members who were sceptical about him.
Musk is precisely the wrong person to be asking the questions. But there are some questions that need to be answered.
Musk is generally an idiot, but he has good lawyers.
He has expensive lawyers. He’s sacked all the ones that disagree with him. And he has been launching some wildly optimistic actions, so I guess we will see.
Not really. His several twitter suits agaisnt the journalists that show twitter is welcoming nazis with open arms are all hilariously weak. They fail on 4 or different levels at once and are all basic SLAPP suits that will fail immediately on actual review.
Well, they got him out of calling a hero rescuer a pedo. Of course they can’t win impossible cases where the other part has good lawyers too.
But maybe he use different lawyers now?
Company exists to make money. In other news, water is wet. More at 5.
Your generic mindless snark is cool and all, but company specifically was not founded this way in this case.
You can’t live only by good wishes…
deleted by creator
