Ex-OpenAI Staffers File Amicus Brief Opposing the Company's For-Profit Transition (techcrunch.com) 13
A group of ex-OpenAI employees on Friday filed a proposed amicus brief in support of Elon Musk in his lawsuit against OpenAI, opposing OpenAI's planned conversion from a nonprofit to a for-profit corporation. From a report: The brief, filed by Harvard law professor and Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig, names 12 former OpenAI employees: Steven Adler, Rosemary Campbell, Neil Chowdhury, Jacob Hilton, Daniel Kokotajlo, Gretchen Krueger, Todor Markov, Richard Ngo, Girish Sastry, William Saunders, Carrol Wainwright, and Jeffrey Wu. It makes the case that, if OpenAI's non-profit ceded control of the organization's business operations, it would "fundamentally violate its mission."
Several of the ex-staffers have spoken out against OpenAI's practices publicly before. Krueger has called on the company to improve its accountability and transparency, while Kokotajlo and Saunders previously warned that OpenAI is in a "reckless" race for AI dominance. Wainwright has said that OpenAI "should not [be trusted] when it promises to do the right thing later."
Several of the ex-staffers have spoken out against OpenAI's practices publicly before. Krueger has called on the company to improve its accountability and transparency, while Kokotajlo and Saunders previously warned that OpenAI is in a "reckless" race for AI dominance. Wainwright has said that OpenAI "should not [be trusted] when it promises to do the right thing later."
Okay, what am I missing? (Score:5, Informative)
A group of ex-OpenAI employees on Friday filed a proposed amicus brief in support of Elon Musk in his lawsuit against OpenAI, opposing OpenAI's planned conversion from a nonprofit to a for-profit corporation.
According to this timeline [openai.com] from OpenAI (taken with a grain of salt), Elon wanted it to go for-profit, as long as he could have "majority equity, absolute control, and to be CEO of the for-profit". They balked and he left. Is this just sour grapes? What do these ex-employees get out of this?
Summer 2017: We and Elon agreed that a for-profit was the next step for OpenAI to advance the mission
Fall 2017: Elon demanded majority equity, absolute control, and to be CEO of the for-profit
September 2017: We rejected Elon's terms because giving him unilateral control of OpenAI and its technology would be contrary to the mission
January 2018: Elon said OpenAI was on a path for certain failure unless we merged into Tesla.
February 2018: Elon resigned as co-chair of OpenAI
Re: Okay, what am I missing? (Score:2)
Of course, even then there is no guarantee, since nonprofits tend to grow cruft, until they just devour most of their funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Sam wants to get equity with collusion from the board, something Elon is widely decried for ... yet posters are trying to smear people trying to stop it.
What am I missing? Is this the friends of Sam club? A lawsuit takes money, Elon fronting it is irrelevant to the merit.
so what? (Score:1)
Who cares what ex-employees have to say about any "mission"? Sounds to me like these are no "friends of the court", more like friends of Elon Musk.
There's nothing quite like the world's greediest person calling someone else greedy for trying to make a corporation for-profit.
Re: (Score:2)
more like friends of Elon Musk.
Be nice; he needs all he can get, especially after this: Federal Spending Up By $154B Despite DOGE Efforts [newsmax.com] (original WSJ article is pay-walled):
Federal spending since President Donald Trump's inauguration, despite the efforts of his Department of Government Efficiency, has climbed by $154 billion over the same period a year ago during then-President Joe Biden's administration, according to an analysis of the Treasury Department's daily financial statements.
DOGE, under the leadership of tech billionaire and key Trump adviser Elon Musk, has claimed cuts of $150 billion through cuts to contracts, jobs, and ending diversity programs, but those changes have not yet changed the bottom line on spending, reports The Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] on Friday, after a review of the Treasury statements.
And him having to reduce targeted DOGE savings from $2T to $150B, Elon Musk’s Savings Target Shrinks Again. DOGE Can’t Save GOP From Budget Reality. [barrons.com]
Musk said at a cabinet meeting Thursday he expects his “Department of Government Efficiency” to save $150 billion in the 2026 fiscal year, which runs from October 2025 through September 2026.
That is a big drop from the $1 trillion target he had in his sights earlier this year, let alone the $2 trillion he claimed before President Donald Trump’s election.
Re: (Score:1)
Your reasoning is flawed. Even a complete fuckup and asshole (and Musk is both) can be right in some instances, even if it is for the wrong reasons. These people are not supporting Musk. They are supporting that lawsuit.
Retroactive taxes (Score:3)
If a nonprofit wants to convert to for-profit, it should have to retroactively pay taxes from the beginning of its existence, as they would have been calculated if it were always for-profit. Otherwise, this kind of thing is just a way to dodge taxes for a for-profit organization.
they should hire private security (Score:1)
So funny (Score:2)
This is like watching 60s sci-fi robots caught in a contradiction.
"Must oppose Musk ... but ... non-profit better than for-profit ... but ... must hate Musk ... does not compute, does not compute!" (shower of sparks, etc.)
Trust (Score:2)
Wainwright has said that OpenAI "should not [be trusted] when it promises to do the right thing later."
Indeed. Only Elon Musk can be trusted to do the right thing.
Right? ...right?
(This is not a battle between good and evil. It is two devils arguing over control.)
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment the board bound by the non profit charter has control, Sam wants to take it away and get 7% equity in the process because that benefits the non profit for reasons. Elon has no control either way, is just pissed off.
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment the board bound by the non profit charter has control, Sam wants to take it away and get 7% equity in the process because that benefits the non profit for reasons.
Correct.
Elon has no control either way, is just pissed off.
Elon Musk tried to take control of OpenAI, he left the board when he was told "No." Instead he founded X.ai -where he has full control.
Now he is trying to kill off OpenAI. Less competition = more control.
Can't be THAT for profit... (Score:2)
They declined three different perfectly good credit cards. ;)