While there are issues that Mr. Musk must address, I don’t think this is one of them.
Demonizing someone who helped you is an awful thing to do. If he gave 1/3 of the initial funding, he helped a lot.
Demonizing someone who helped you is an awful thing to do. If he gave 1/3 of the initial funding, he helped a lot.
If we're a for-profit company with investors and returns etc... then those initial donations seem far closer to seed capital than a not-for-profit gift. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I can believe that this wasn't always some devious plan but rather the natural evolution of the company... but still seems inequitable.
As much as Elon's various antics might deserve criticism (especially post-election) he seems to be in the right here? Or am I missing something?
But we're all kind of arguing over which demon is poking the other the hardest with their pitchfork, here.
Saying "less than" is peculiar phrasing for such a substantial amount, but maybe some people believe Elon initially funded about all of it
Sam Altman is one of the most well connected people in Silicon Valley.
And investors like Reid Hoffman aren't having their lives being dictated by Musk.
However, Mr. Musk is continually called out by OpenAI in the public and OpenAI has quite the megaphone.
From what I see, this is mainly due to Musk complaining loudly in public.
And unlike the caving instructor that Musk libelled, OpenAI has the means to fight back as an equal.
That said, I don't see anything in this post that I'd describe as Musk "being called out".
He didnt just want to help, he wanted to control the company by being the CEO.
Unfortunately, it’s been in a quite negative tone.
If all of this is really for humanity — then humanity needs to shape up, get along and do this together.