Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Aether ??? (aether@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2024 20:25:58 JST Aether ???

   • ?? Humpleupagus ??
   Apparently the "open" in "OpenAI" does not in fact mean open.
   
   OpenAI has advised that the "open" in "OpenAI" means not actually open. At least as far as Elon Musk's lawsuit is concerned.
   
   arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/03/openai-clarifies-the-meaning-of-open-in-its-name-responding-to-musk-lawsuit/
   
   I'm not sure how they view this as a rebuttal, but that is the defense they are taking.
   
   @Humpleupagus Any legal opinion on this bold strategy?
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2024 20:25:57 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to
     These articles are all horrible. I read about 10, and none mention which court. One did mention is was filed in San Francisco, but not whether it was in California Superior or the Northern Federal District.
     
     They also don't really give a description of the matter, allegations, or contentions that I can make anything out of. I hate journalism. Legal news reporting is shit.
     
     But after some time, and being on my phone and not my work computer, I did find one article that had a link to a copy of the complaint. Here it is. Let me look at it.
     
     https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24452272-muskaltman
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2024 20:44:56 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     Ok.... I'm just going to free form this.
     
     First paragraph 24 and 25 don't pass the smell test. I'm not wet behind the ears. It's probably what they said on the surface, but it wasn't the intent.
     
     24. "[T]he three agreed that the new lab... would be open source, balancing only countervailing safety considerations, and would not keep its technology closed and secret for proprietary commercial reasons."
     
     25 "[T]he corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable."
     
     Note the phrases "balancing only...." and "when applicable." They were hedging from the jump, and Musk knew. There was an intent to secret the code from the start if they had a reason, and then claim it wasn't in the public benefit to release it. Tl;dr there was an intent to use the nonprofit as a front for proprietary AI and Closed sourcing where it benefited everyone involved.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2024 21:03:55 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     So there's a very long section about Microsoft involvement that alleges that Microsoft took defacto Control of the board after Altman was ousted and then reinstated circa November 2023. This seems to be the crux of his claim and is repeated in various forms throughout the remainder of the complaint ad nauseum.
     
     What I find bizarre is that Musk alleges that Microsoft is the party benefiting, not open AI, but he hasn't named Microsoft as a party, when the claim seems to be that Open AI is an alter ego of Microsoft.
     
     And he hasn't alleged, for example, that Microsoft paid Altman himself a sum of money to get Open AI's IP, which is typically what's required to show a beach of the non-profit status. Non-profits can partner with for profit businesses as long as there's arms length and the parties running the non-profit aren't personally benefiting beyond reason (officers can get big salaries if they're bringing in big money, just not direct payments from the outside associations, or corporate equity or bonds in the non-profit).
     
     That there's very few players in this industry doesn't it make it that strange that they'd have to choose one and only one to partner with.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2024 21:11:56 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     Ok... so there's is at least one allegation about Altman benefiting personally, but it's not specific, and seemingly had nothing to do with Microsoft whatsoever.
     
     120. "For example, in 2019 when Mr. Altman was CEO, OpenAI signed a letter of intent to buy $51 million worth of chips from a start-up in which Mr. Altman was heavily invested."
     
     I'm thinking that this is a "sweep back" suit against a potential competitor of musk, microsoft. That's why he didn't name them as defendants. Musk doesn't give a fuck about open AI. He just wants the ip too. He's just airing dirty laundry and making a scene to spoil the well if he doesn't get it.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2024 21:24:56 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     Looking back to paragraphs 24 and 25, which underlying his claims....
     
     I'm not conceived that providing funding to a non-profit creates a contract (first cause) or establishes grounds for promissory estoppel (second cause) just because of the content of the articles of incorporation.
     
     Articles can be amended, so I don't see how he can allege reliance, which is required for promissory estoppel. That they weren't doesn't make a difference. It's that they could have been. He also knew they could be. So he couldn't rely on them. (Note he's not alleging fraud, that the representations were false at the time made, that's a whole different can of worms).
     
     I'm also not convinced it creates a contract, because if it did, it would make musk akin to a de facto shareholder with equitable rights in the companies use of its property.