These legitimate questions about their non-profit status ARE his core arguments. His complaints are the same as the popular notion on hackernews that OpenAI has failed to be open.
Except for the portion where he advocated for a capped-profit arm which he would run under Tesla. You know that part that is shown in the OpenAI emails. It seemed he was ok with it when HE would stand to benefit.
You can't believe that Elon is "a great businessman" while also believing that he is totally altruistic and ignores all of the self serving impulses that have gotten him to where he is.
But I don't see how your dichotomy makes any sense. There are selfish poor people. There are altruistic poor people. There are selfish wealthy people. And there are altruistic wealthy people (disregarding blanket denials by far left wackos with emotionally derived selective criticisms of capitalism).
Eye-rolling conspiracy theories aside, Bill Gates is absolute proof that someone can be an objectively great businessman and objectively highly altruistic.
Seems to me that the impusles which got Musk to where he is an obsession with extreme risk taking, combined with sufficient education and clarity of vision to sometimes bend extreme odds in his favour. History is littered with examples of wealth incinerated in the pursuit of building cars and rockets and it says a lot that he's been associated with a multitude of ultra-unlikely successes.
Whereas many other billionaires are more directly driven by wealth accumulation, as evidenced by the trappings of extreme wealth which surround them.
All of this goes without saying.
> Eye-rolling conspiracy theories aside, Bill Gates is absolute proof that someone can be an objectively great businessman and objectively highly altruistic.
The biggest and most glaring difference here is that Bill Gates is not on record attempting to take board control of a for profit company which is attempting to make malaria vaccines (of the many public health efforts he is pushing).
> Seems to me that the impusles which got Musk to where he is an obsession with extreme risk taking, combined with sufficient education and clarity of vision to sometimes bend extreme odds in his favour. History is littered with examples of wealth incinerated in the pursuit of building cars and rockets and it says a lot that he's been associated with a multitude of ultra-unlikely successes.
> Whereas many other billionaires are more directly driven by wealth accumulation, as evidenced by the trappings of extreme wealth which surround them.
None of this has anything to do with the merits of the case and really just comes of a Musk-coddling, a favorite pastime here it seems.
If that happened, I'd be surprised if Bill Gates didn't sue them.
(As for my latter paragraphs, I was replying to something you said which didn't have anything to do with the merits of the case either. I'd like to think you could extend me the same courtesy you extended yourself.)
Hence his argument boils down to "You made me sell my shares because my 'closed' AI research conflicted with your 'open' non-profit ideals. However, you have since stoped to adhere to your mission statement, effectively seizing to publish your research findings and pursuing for-profit goals. As a consequence of this I have lost a bunch of money."
And as nuts as Musk is, I kind of see his point here.
Imagine being the part-owner of a bread focused bakery. You tell the other owners that you think the business should focus on pastries – even if everybody agrees that bread products are more important – as pastries make more money (that money can in turn be invested into the bread business).
The other owners hard disagree and ask you to leave the company, because a) that does not fit into their bread-centric mission and b) you own a pastry-supplier in town and would obviously be profiting from this move. So you sell your shares and move on, no harm no foul.
But what if they then turn around and start producing pastries, claiming it's only doing so to financially support their bread business? What if they start entering lucrative deals with other pastry-suppliers and effectively stop making bread?
In this case I would argue that you would be entitled to some portion of your foregone gains. You sold your stock while being under the impression that the company would never go into the direction which you deem is the *only viable one*, only to find out that they did exactly what you suggested after you left.
> ... because it isn't working on tech I agree with, ...
Please notice that this is not what happened. They all agreed on the tech to be researched. The only disagreement was the business model and company structure required to fund the research.
Even your bread/pastry scenario doesn’t quite make this part clear. And this is what will be difficult to prove - did OpenAI know and discuss a rug-pull of “we willingly plan to say we’re going to be doing non-profit work, but actually our plan is to be a for-profit company”.
If their pivot was pre-meditated then I could see Musk having a case, but if they pivoted purely from market factors and realizing they wouldn’t be able to cut it as a non-profit, I’d think he’s SOL
But please reread the comment which is the root of this discussion: > The (imo) shakier part of the argument is that he is entitled to damages even though he doesn't own shares in the company.
I was never arguing that Musk is entitled to damages. I am merely arguing that it is possible to not own the shares of a company and be entitled to damages. Whether Musk specifically is owed damages is something a judge has to decide.
However, please remember your comment which is the root of this discussion: > The (imo) shakier part of the argument is that he is entitled to damages even though he doesn't own shares in the company.
I was never arguing that Musk is entitled to damages. I am merely arguing that it is possible to not own the shares of a company and be entitled to damages.