“$15M of [OpenAI] donations can be traced definitively back to Musk“ (not $100M) | Hacker News Reader

“$15M of [OpenAI] donations can be traced definitively back to Musk“ (not $100M)

techcrunch.com

10 pointsdonohoe13 comments

The original headline "Elon Musk used to say he put $100M in OpenAI, but now it's $50M: Here are the receipts" should be used here, this seems editorialize.

Agreed. Sensational headlines, as I am told on HN, are not welcome.

Who cares how much? It’s still tantamount to theft.

Why do you care if Musk was stolen from?

I care if OpenAI committed theft. Speaks to their character, especially Sam Altman.

Elon donates 15M of 1B he promised.

Elon demands full control of company.

OpenAI says no.

Elon leaves, reneges on his promise, and insists they will fail.

Can you please explain why people going on and on about this "stealing" narrative?

Musk fans can see no wrong with anything he does. Kind of like the cult of Trump.

Oh Elon stole $985 million

Which part is the "theft". They existed to make AI and behold, they did AI.

You can argue they didn't open-source it, as their name suggests, but they also were denied a billion of funding that Musk kept promising until they were literally out of money.

What they did was a matter of survival. Of course they're not blameless in their actions now. They're clearly building a very powerful business. But they were put in this position. It was either this, or OpenAI wouldn't exist.

Are you going off an interpretation of their agreements or the public comments of Elon Musk?

I think people have a misunderstanding of what the word "donation" means.

If you're expecting anything in return (as pretty much every Twitch viewer does) it's not a donation .... thats a payment.

Donating to a charity that exists to feed orphans, say, and they buy themselves a Mercedes Benz is the charity committing fraud you can sue them for.

Donation doesn't mean no strings attached. You still donate for a reason, not just throwing money around.

I mean plenty of companies have company cars so at face value I suspect a charity having a company car is not fraud.

But also if say a charity wanted to feed orphans and you donated 100M to them in 2015 and then in 2018 they announced they were going to start funding farms instead with the idea that more food produced meant more food would get to orphans I don't think you could sue them for your 100M back. Charities are going to evolve over time and I don't think the OpenAI evolution has reach the level of fraud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com