I think he feels bad for leaving OpenAI and is now jealous of what they accomplished. He probably just wanted to cast legal doubt over OpenAI's ability to profit from closed-source models. Which he managed to accomplish. If this hurts OpenAI's prospects to raise money is yet to be seen. I hope not...
I'd be pretty peeved if I backed a non-profit through its most-risky early days only for them to turn around and shun the original philanthropic mission in the spirit of profit maximization...
Not quite how that played out. He wanted complete control, they told him no, he pulled his money in the hopes of bankrupting them. When he reneged on the $1 billion he pledged in funding they were forced to seek funding elsewhere (Microsoft).
OpenAI went from a not-for-profit institution seeking to build in a safe and fair way that wouldn't advantage a handful of tech elite to very much the opposite. We can speculate on Musk's own motivations or call him a hypocrite but he's not wrong in pointing out OpenAI's sketchy behavior.
If I remember correctly, they started a for-profit side business (initially to bring in a little cash) and Musk was concerned about the way it was developing and who was gaining power over the company as a result. Perhaps he just wanted to stay in charge and didn't like other VCs moving into his turf, but it's also apparent that his expressed concerns at the time proved wildly accurate.
Yeah, I've Googled around and even asked ChatGPT. There seems to be no record of a for-profit side business. At least before Elon left. Of course they created one about a year after he left, because they're were running out of money, and would need to shut-down otherwise.
I can understand not wanting Elon to be the head of your company. His behavior is a little erratic.
You're still missing the part where a not for profit literally turned itself into a multi billion dollar for profit company and no ones been held accountable.
Nonprofits have to do that if they engage in commercial activity for tax reasons. You can't just group whatever activities you want under a nonprofit and make all that money tax free. OpenAI had to split it off as a for-profit once they had a product to sell to the public. The nonprofit didn't "turn into" a for-profit, the nonprofit owns the corporation.
Mozilla has the same structure with a for-profit corporation owned by the nonprofit, which allows it to take Google's money in exchange for default search engine placement. Likewise with Wikipedia/Wikimedia, Newman's Own, and so on.
Even so, it doesn't matter. Controlling board has been replaced by cronies who have no interest in the original altruistic purpose of the company, whether they call themselves not-for-profit or not.
No, you absolutely can't. Nonprofits can't engage in substantial business activities that are unrelated to their mission. If they do, they can lose their non-profit status.
The problem is that you don't understand how tax exemption works?
According to the OpenAI charter, their mission is to "ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity." That's their legally binding mission - not selling cloud services by the token or licensing their models to companies like Microsoft and Apple. Any lawyer with half a brain would have advised them that those activities would almost certainly be found by the IRS and the courts to be unrelated business activities, so they spun them off as a for-profit corporation instead of taking an entirely unnecessary risk.
Just because their product is vaguely AGI related doesn't mean it has anything to do with their actual mission.
I've ran a not for profit worth ~$100m. All of those things are ones which fall within the original charter of openai. It's only when you start doing completely unrelated activities, like Mozilla's women who code, or you start raiding the coffers of the organization, like Wikipedia, that you need fancy structures to hide the blatant theft.
Based on this thread I find that incredibly hard to believe. Incredibly.
> It's only when you start doing completely unrelated activities, like Mozilla's women who code
Or like... Mozilla Firefox. Cause that's why they've had Mozilla Corporation since 2005. Google pays the corporation for default search engine placement and all of the full time Firefox developers I've ever known have worked for the corporation, not the nonprofit.
>Based on this thread I find that incredibly hard to believe. Incredibly.
It doesn't take much more than showing up and taking responsibility when no one else does.
>Or like... Mozilla Firefox. Cause that's why they've had Mozilla Corporation since 2005.
Yes, because Mozilla has always wanted to do more than be a browser company.
Remember Firefox OS?
Not for profits who have weird structures are there to make sure they can be looted for the benefit of the people running them, or to be used for pet projects that have nothing to do with the original charter.
Mozilla Corporation creation had nothing to do with Firefox OS or ambitions beyond Mozilla as a browser company -- it was forced on us by the IRS, after they'd promised we could take sponsorship revenue from Google for the search deal, directly into the non-profit, tax-free.
The IRS reneged, which led to the creation of the Mozilla Corporation for-profit subsidiary in 2005 to take the Google search revshare from that time on (we paid negotiated back taxes for the period when they said sponsorship revenue was okay to take tax-free into the 501c3).
Elon Musk kept giving OpenAI money after they announced they did that (even admitted that in the complaint!), which makes me suspect he's not as miffed about that decision as he claims to be.
Since we're commenting on an article about Musk's suit against OpenAI purportedly seeking the accountability the lack of which you decry, it is reasonable to assume even in the absence of a direct mention that you are expressing an opinion on the merits of Musk's suit, at least re seeking accountability of OpenAI. Especially when you comment is a direct reply to someone talking about Musk.
But I'd agree that Musk is a distraction here. OpenAI started as a non-profit project working to prevent exactly the type of irresponsible, profit-driven AI arms race it now engages in. Whether Musk is an angel or a demon is immaterial.
The person you are replying to said nothing about being entitled to the money. You are moving goal posts.
This is the equivalent of me coming to you and promising you money so that you can pull off a risky business move, then at the critical moment when I don’t like something pulling that money. Sure I might be entitled to do that as it is my money, but it’s a dick move and would certainly leave you holding the bag.
They declined to give Elon Musk control when he offered them a billion to save the company. Instead they turned around and gave up control to Microsoft for billions.
Do you honestly believe that if you were in Elon Musks shoes, that you would have given away a billion dollars without any conditions? How would you feel when you saw them turn around and sell out to Microsoft instead?
Expecting $1B unconditionally seems like an asshole expectation. Delusional and childish entitlement.
Do you believe that Microsoft has donated billions to OpenAI unconditionally?
Having Apple dependent on and paying for Microsoft infrastructure is a win for Microsoft. Of course the deal benefits Microsoft as much as Apple.
Microsoft needs Apple as a strong competitor. Otherwise they will be declared a monopoly and broken up by regulators. Microsoft was smart to use OpenAI as a proxy for this deal.
It's impossible to discuss this with you as you keep changing your comment.
I never once implied it would run on Apple servers. You're putting words in my mouth. I am asking if you have any direct evidence that they'll be running on Azure.
The fact that you keep dodging that question tells me you don't.
Yeah, I saw a story that backed up your claims after you left. Sorry I didn't just take your word for it - but that's not how it's done, you know? Strangers on the internet sometimes lie. Perhaps you've never encountered it before.
> Sorry for the shit language but I got tired of you not understanding anything.
Yeah, I wish you had actually offered a citation backing up your claims.
But, it was also the fact you kept changing the text of your comment, to remove the things I was addressing. It would have been better if you'd left a record of all the things you said. Like I said, editing your comments after the fact is dishonest.
Back at the beginning of all this, you had said:
> Having Apple dependent on and paying for Microsoft infrastructure is a win for Microsoft.
In the end it turns out Apple isn't paying for Microsoft infrastructure after all.
You are still missing the point and I think you have a persistent mental block. You are overthinking it. It's not that complicated.
The article says that Apple is partnering with OpenAI. It also says that OpenAI runs on Azure infrastructure.
Whatever they negotiate, the deal is intended to be a win-win for both sides in the long run. Obviously both sides are interested in making money. The article mentions future revenue sharing agreements and getting more users to subscribe to the paid ChatGPT.
Any increase of OpenAI/ChatGPT usage means an increased usage of (and dependency on) Microsoft/Azure infrastructure. I don't understand how this is so complicated to understand. OpenAI runs on Azure and more OpenAI usage/dependency means more Azure usage/dependency. Microsoft increases their cut of the AI market share as more Apple users use Microsoft infrastructure and of course they will make profit from that. None of these guys are doing it for charity.
> To answer your question below: Apple is a customer of OpenAI. They are using OpenAI as a service. The OpenAI models won't be running in Apple data centers.
Don't move the goalposts. I asked you if you had evidence that it will run on Azure.
It's a dick move to give people false expectations when you don't have to. It's a dick move to break your word. He didn't "have" to give them the money, but he didn't have to tell them he would give it to them either.
Them having to sell out to microsoft is directly Elon's fault though!
Like, you can't just directly cause the bad thing to happen with your actions, and then cry about it when someone goes to a different group for funding.
If Elon didn't want the microsoft deal to happen then he shouldn't have reneged on his funding promise just because they refused to give up complete control to him.
Elon offered funding. OpenAI declined the offer then signed a deal with Microsoft. Elon did not force them to choose Microsoft. It was simply a disagreement. After they signed up with Microsoft, Elon tried to get some of his money back. Didn't work. Too bad. Now he can move on with his life.
Then that means that any complaints from Elon about selling out are completely invalid, and it makes no sense for him to be mad about such a simple disagreement.
> Now he can move on with his life.
That would be wonderful.
Unfortunately you were the person arguing that it was somehow deserved for him to sue.
It is not deserved because he was the one who cause them to sell out to Microsoft.
That is the point.
The point is that you can't directly cause the supposedly bad action to happen, and then claim that you have been morally wronged when someone gets funding elsewhere.
If you think that it was merely a disagreement, then fine. Your previous arguments are invalid where you try to claim that this is some huge sellout situation, when it is directly Elons fault.
If you read the article, in the emails published Musk acknowledged the need to start charging customers due to the high cost of service, so it’s not like the other cofounders deceived him.
This is the better question... But probably easily answered by his army of sycophantic followers who will parrot anything he says no matter how contradictory the statements may be.
Yeah. Musk is cringe but on this he's right on this. OpenAI went from a company with noble aspirations to just another sketchy big tech company at odds with the interests of the rest of society.
Yea, they published some of Elon's emails around this. It wasn't a good look and I think they said "By the way, we will see you at a deposition" and it was over.
The way things are going, OpenAI can experiment on puppies and that'll still not affect their ability to raise money. They are clearly leading the space right now and making lucrative deals with most valuable companies out there.
They might not need to raise any more money. If they manage to release a significantly smarter model (gpt-5), I, and millions of others, will gladly pay hundreds of dollars per month to use it.
OpenAI has established lucrative partnerships with Apple and Microsoft and are the primary platform developers are building their applications on. They will have no problem profiting and raising money.
Nice. Do you actually realise these are just your beliefs and how you view the world? A good way to test this would be to check the number of zeroes in your bank account and Musk's net worth. Are they really close? No? Probably he has a different belief system then.
Why do people always assume anything he says isn't why he does what he does? He's repeatedly stated why he cares. It's rather frustrating. Like assume good faith please.
Which year of promising "FSD later this year/end of year" do we stop assuming good faith and recognize that maybe Musk has dug himself into his own hole when it comes to assuming good faith about his statements?
Kinda like "I have evidence that Vern Unsworth is a pedophile"? Should we have assumed good faith there, too?
> Which year of promising "FSD later this year/end of year" do we stop assuming good faith and recognize that maybe Musk has dug himself into his own hole when it comes to assuming good faith about his statements?
I take it as that is what he actually thinks. He is perpetually bad, exceptionally so, at judging the time things will take to complete. He's not actively lying. He actually thinks that. Once you assume that, you start to get a better understanding of why he operates the way he does. He's naive to a fault.
> Kinda like "I have evidence that Vern Unsworth is a pedophile"? Should we have assumed good faith there, too?
(First off, that's not a direct quote, he never said that.) That's not an engineering topic so I'm not going to stake my reputation on it, but my default assumption would be the same, he actually thought that, as silly as it seems. He had a preconceived notion, unfounded or not, that any old white man who retired to that area of the world was more than likely to be that type of person.
Of course the origin of that dirt seeking effort was that he was upset with the guy for doing personal attacks on him personally and also on the efforts of the SpaceX employees which he almost considers as extensions of himself. So he considered that he must be a bad person (as only a bad person would have attacked what he was trying to do), in multiple ways, so he went trying to find what other ways he was a bad person.
The lengths you go to just paint Elon as this innocent, naive guy.
The man who says "he knows more about manufacturing than anybody on this planet at this point" is actually, hilariously bad at making estimates. Tesla has even said in filings that "statements from Elon are visionary in nature and do not reflect an engineering reality" (to the DMV).
As for Unsworth, that doesn't stand up to the smell test:
If he actually believed that "old white men who retired to that area are more likely to be that type of person" he wouldn't have tried to peddle the "it doesn't mean anything, it's just a common insult that people in South Africa use .
> Musk’s attorneys argued that the tweet was not a statement of fact, but an insult.
So which is it, he believed it, or he didn't believe it?
> Of course the origin of that dirt seeking effort was that he was upset with the guy for doing personal attacks on him personally and also on the efforts of the SpaceX employees which he almost considers as extensions of himself.
This is horrific victim blaming, and a distortion of things. Musk said that he was bringing a team to Thailand to offer assistance. He was told that the sub wasn't a workable idea. But four days later, he arrived anywhere with it, and grandstanded in front of the media that his team and their idea was being ignored.
Unsworth never said anything about the SpaceX employees or their efforts. In fact what he said to CNN was that he viewed it as a "PR stunt":
> Are you willing to apologize to Mr Musk for saying that it was just a PR stunt?
and when pushed, he said that "Musk should stick the submarine where it hurts" when the discussion was on the media furore at the rescue site.
> So he considered that he must be a bad person (as only a bad person would have attacked what he was trying to do), in multiple ways, so he went trying to find what other ways he was a bad person.
This isn't reasonable, as you try to paint it to be. It's the actions of an utter sociopath.
Reasonable isn't taking a negative remark about you and making comments that you know will be picked up around the world, hiring a private investigator after you make them to try to supply proof.
And this isn't new for Musk. We all remember Paul Pelosi's "secret gay lover" was the one that attacked him with a hammer? That's what Musk truly believed too, there, I'm sure, so it was only reasonable that he broadcast that...
If WW3 happens anytime in the next 100 years, a colony on Mars would not survive because they would eventually stop receiving shipments of earth made tech. For example, replacement IC's or other silicon wafer based technology. Not like you are going to see a fab built on Mars in the first 20-50 years of a Mars colony.
It probably won't survive, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried for all different sorts of reasons. We don't know when a danger will occur or materialize, but we should begin to make sure our eggs are spread out as soon as possible to have the highest odds of survival as species.
Well yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if Starlink was for nuclear?
Why am I being downvoted here?
US, Europe, west, and democracy in general, at current times needs to be 100% at its game on the most significant power in human history.
Ultimately dictatorship is not going to give up, and they want to prove democracy is wrong, and at some points nuclear weapons are going to be used for that.
We are at pre-war right now. But it's a matter of time for all of it to escalate to all out war. We must be prepared for it.
Humanity cannot attain harmony because disparity exists. People are different, we have different beliefs in how rule should be attained and held, and we are willing to fight each other to the death to prolong that way of life. The concept of "perfect order" is nonsense, because it would require so much concentrated bigotry that nothing would possibly ever change or be unique. There is no harmony for us to reach, besides the mutual acceptance that we exist in constant resource competition with our fellow man. That's all there is.
Elon Musk isn't your savior, he's a fickle authoritarian that would destroy society like he destroyed his own image, if he got the chance. You guys need to stop obsessing over the same three popular celebrities and move on, this stuff is embarrassing (even by HN standards) and a waste of both our time. Send it to TMZ and get ignored by them, if you're desperate for attention.
There is no harmony at current state, because that is how natural selection has developed us. Although it would still be better if democracy ruled the World rather than dictatorship together with democracy. Elon Musk is not the saviour, but none the less the goals he set make sense. The other part of your reply is quite ugly unbased attacks from you.
No. Climate change will be bad but won't render Earth uninhabitable. It probably won't even be as bad as any of the major mass extinctions we know about. WW3 is not assured, and all the major powers understand why nukes are a terrible idea. Even if things go hot between US/CN I bet it'll stay conventional.
Furthermore if those disasters do happen, they will surely kill a martian colony, since it won't actually be independent of earth for decades, in terms of spare parts, genetically viable population, etc, even if they do manage to grow their own food and oxygen.
