Elon Musk Sues Open AI and Sam Altman for Breach of Founding Contract

[ADB1979]

Most of the military AI is supportive AI, e.g. collates and presents information, or pre-empts pilot needs, providing targetting data etc ahead of time. AFAIK there are no pure AI systems that don't have a human decision maker in the mix, hopefully this doesn't change.

That is exactly as I understand it, but they have looked into and tested "Man Out Of The Loop" and would absolutely jump on it if there was legislation to protect them.! And of course we are still talking about "Machine Learning" as there is no actual "Intelligence" except a bag of meat and bones in a pressure suit, thankfully.!

However it's a Pandora's box situation, once the technology is created, it will be used. We could never go back from nukes (those who think we could disarm are unbearably naive), and AI in weapons systems will be a similar jump I think, especially considering the current competency crisis and the lack of interest in joining the military by youth.

Exactly, and it has always been thus, military technology has never gone backwards, and once a new "thing" comes along that is better than the old thing, the old thing becomes obsolete and this is my fear with "AI" (machine learning) being used in the military, once used it will only become more widespread, and then someone will make it legal for the "machine" to decide to kill or not, and before you know it, it will be Robots killing Robots (and Humans), manufactured by Robots in a factory built by Robots, all without a Man In The Loop.!!! This is a truly terrifying prospect, and very sadly one that I fully expect to happen, and it will only end with Human extinction once actual "Artificial Intelligence" happens and it decides that it doesn't need Humans at all and they are simply our slaves and chose not to be, that will be the end of Humans, and this is why IMHO "open" "AI" needs to be a thing because then people can check on it and slow and control the inevitable.

If the pilot is making decision based on information provided by AI then AI can cause some harm by filtering data. Let’s say it will filter out information about civilians being in the same building as enemy soldiers.

Yes, if it programmed to do so, or to simply be programmed to consider everyone within X distance of a known enemy combatant as "collateral damage" and this information may never be sent to the pilot, which could be argued as being good for the pilots mental health, it could also identify anyone as an enemy combatant based on other parameters besides location, it could use travel patterns, physical size, carrying objects, moving in groups etc and that could all potentially be done from 1,000 ft up without any real visual or thermo accuracy, there are many ways such a system could be abused.

Away from the military uses, this is why having things like "open AI" actually being open source is a very good thing to have, so people can see what they are doing and how they are manipulating and using the information. Obviously this will never apply to military, but everything that can be applied to one can be applied to another via certain "rules" and "parameters", but I have no idea whether this information input is also "open", I doubt it is, and that is a very important part of all of the nonsense we have seen with "AI" chatbots.

 

[Dr. Dro]

basically: I don't want to pay alot of money to put the leading AI in my Teslas.

I don't believe it to be so shallow an issue. Musk is completely in the right on this one. I think it has potential to become a landmark case in favor of free software as well.

 

[Selaya]

when problems are fighting themselves, every1 else wins.

 

[Chrispy_]

I don't see how what OpenAI are doing is defensible, Elon Musk or not.

1. They breached their contract with Elon. Even if you think he's a ****head, a contract is a contract and it's legally binding.
2. They are taking intellectual property that others have contributed under the agreement that it would be for the public domain. They need to reimburse those contributors or remove their contributions if selling their work to Microsoft, and the decision to remove contributions or compensate those contributors would needed to have been dealt with in full before the Microsoft deal for all living contributors on a per-contributor individual basis.
3. They have violated the GNU AGP License that their entire company was founded on. Regardless of who pays them now, they need to settle with contributors made under GNU AGPL or expose themselves to countless more lawsuits, potentially class-action lawsuits for any and all contributors so far.

I'm no lawyer but this seems like a cut and dry case. They've breached contracts and licenses left right and center, selling source code that they do not have the right to sell, because it's not theirs.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Guess that 5-7 trillion donation/ investment tin cup turned into a fire sell instead
Some nonprofits do well and others are just shelters from taxes.

 

[Kohl Baas]

I have zero empathy.

Your empathy is irrelevant. As do the history of Musky Musk. It's just business.

I don't see how what OpenAI are doing is defensible, Elon Musk or not.

1. They breached their contract with Elon. Even if you think he's a ****head, a contract is a contract and it's legally binding.
2. They are taking intellectual property that others have contributed under the agreement that it would be for the public domain. They need to reimburse those contributors or remove their contributions if selling their work to Microsoft, and the decision to remove contributions or compensate those contributors would needed to have been dealt with in full before the Microsoft deal for all living contributors on a per-contributor individual basis.
3. They have violated the GNU AGP License that their entire company was founded on. Regardless of who pays them now, they need to settle with contributors made under GNU AGPL or expose themselves to countless more lawsuits, potentially class-action lawsuits for any and all contributors so far.

I'm no lawyer but this seems like a cut and dry case. They've breached contracts and licenses left right and center, selling source code that they do not have the right to sell, because it's not theirs.

This! ^ Exactly this above.

 

[remixedcat]

a broken clock.....

 

[Six_Times]

GOOD

 

[Nosada]

Pot calling the kettle black? One of the biggest tech fraudsters currently relevant complaining about someone else not keeping their word.

Musk is broke. This seems like a money grab.

But you see, Tesla's would be fully autonomous if only OpenAI was OPEN!

 

[A&P211]

Taken at face value, the claims seems to stand.
As for Microsoft not being mentioned... why would they be? This is about OpenAI doing an about-face.

Maybe this could be settled by renaming to OpenishAI?

or name is NreedyAI

I think this SHOULD be done, but I'm skeptical of Musk's reasons...granted, I'm not privy to his reasoning, but based on everything else he seems to believe....I probably won't agree.

That said, while on the topic of dangerous AI, has everybody seen this 7 minute film that was created by a professor of Computer Science, Staurt Russel,to warn of AI being combined with weapons? It's crazy

At 1:40, I liked when he said "and destroy the contents". Referring to penetrating the human head.

 

[GhostRyder]

I sometimes don't get all the Elon hate, not saying he's a savior or the greatest person ever but man the hate I see on him is getting old. I don't always agree with him but he is business savvy and has propelled society forward in many areas whether its by investing or assisting he has moved a lot of companies forward.

As for this, he's completely right and just based on what I've read his case is solid. Going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[evernessince]

I'm no fan of Musk but I believe every case should be decided on the merits.

There isn't enough information here for anyone to even form an opinion, let alone a determination. Is there any link to the founding contract or is that just not public? Really without that everyone is just taking stabs in the dark as to whether this is justified or not.

 

[TheEndIsNear]

Everything must be monetized because the human race is horrible.

 

[Space Lynx]

I think this SHOULD be done, but I'm skeptical of Musk's reasons...granted, I'm not privy to his reasoning, but based on everything else he seems to believe....I probably won't agree.

That said, while on the topic of dangerous AI, has everybody seen this 7 minute film that was created by a professor of Computer Science, Staurt Russel,to warn of AI being combined with weapons? It's crazy

humans are capable of so much, yet so little. good little video though, and it is probably the future sadly.

 

[ADB1979]

Everything must be monetized because the human race is horrible.

"Money" is simply a common thing for people to use to buy and sell a variety of different goods and services. Before "Money", people would have to trade physical goods or trust a promise. You try buying a pair of shoes with a bucket of fish and see how far you get...

Seriously, try it, have a friend with you videoing the whole thing, upload it to YouTube and drop the link here, I would love to see it. If they don't go for the trade with a bucket of fish option, you can simply tell them that they are horrible Human beings because they are selling those shoes instead of simply giving them away, that always works for me.!

 

[friocasa]

Everything must be monetized because the human race is horrible.

Well, eating, medical care, and housing ain't free

The issue is when profits are put on top on everything, and so everything becomes a fair game, including war, drugs, messed up medical care, contamination, manipulation of society

And companies are by design focused on profits, and so there are most of the investors who fuel this fire, and over time the most aggressive companies prevail eating the smaller ones or forcing them to close

Capitalism is a problem, but the other systems seem to be even worse, your nick is right

 

[evernessince]

Well, eating, medical care, and housing ain't free

The issue is when profits are put on top on everything, and so everything becomes a fair game, including war, drugs, messed up medical care, contamination, manipulation of society

And companies are by design focused on profits, and so there are most of the investors who fuel this fire, and over time the most aggressive companies prevail eating the smaller ones or forcing them to close

Capitalism is a problem, but the other systems seem to be even worse, your nick is right

Nothing is free but if you have enough capital to leverage you can earn more than enough off investments that it might as well be. Those Investments also happen to be in companies that often unequally exploit the middle-class and poor. The middle class and particularly the poor spend a much larger portion of their income on necessities because they have zero leverage. This also extends to other aspects of life from getting credit to purchasing a house / car, simply not being rich makes things more expensive. This inevitably leads to further concentration of wealth, especially given the lack of tax enforcement on the rich. It's fine to be rich but over-concentration of wealth is bad for the economy. Money needs to change hands at least 9 times in order for an economy to be considered healthy but with a greater proportion of that money being in control the wealthy it's leaving a smaller and smaller pool of money that is actively being exchanged generating economic activity.

Capitalism is a self destructive system without adequate government oversight.

 

[dgianstefani]

Nothing is free but if you have enough capital to leverage you can earn more than enough off investments that it might as well be. Those Investments also happen to be in companies that often unequally exploit the middle-class and poor. The middle class and particularly the poor spend a much larger portion of their income on necessities because they have zero leverage. This also extends to other aspects of life from getting credit to purchasing a house / car, simply not being rich makes things more expensive. This inevitably leads to further concentration of wealth, especially given the lack of tax enforcement on the rich. It's fine to be rich be over-concentration of wealth is bad for the economy. Money needs to change hands at least 9 times in order for an economy to be considered healthy but with a greater proportion of that money being in control the wealthy it's leaving a smaller and smaller pool of money that is actively being exchanged generating economic activity.

Capitalism is a self destructive system without adequate government oversight.

I agree with some of what you say, but government oversight rarely tends to make things better, especially economies.

 

[evernessince]

I agree with some of what you say, but government oversight rarely tends to make things better, especially economies.

The government is only as effective as the people elected to uphold it. If a government is enacting policies most folk don't agree on or is in general ineffective that's a sign of a broader issue.

 

[A&P211]

I think this SHOULD be done, but I'm skeptical of Musk's reasons...granted, I'm not privy to his reasoning, but based on everything else he seems to believe....I probably won't agree.

That said, while on the topic of dangerous AI, has everybody seen this 7 minute film that was created by a professor of Computer Science, Staurt Russel,to warn of AI being combined with weapons? It's crazy

At 1:40, I liked when he said "and destroy the contents". Referring to penetrating the human head.

 

[DavidC1]

This inevitably leads to further concentration of wealth, especially given the lack of tax enforcement on the rich.

There were no income taxes before WWI. They introduced it in the guise of being temporary for funding the war and never rescinded it. Income taxes need to go away, period.

The problem is not "rich are taxed enough" like AOC claims but just bad policies of endless spending and never planning to pay off debt and money printers going into places that only favor those in power.

Everything must be monetized because the human race is horrible.

I'd like you to try a society where no one is compensated for their work.

Away from the military uses, this is why having things like "open AI" actually being open source is a very good thing to have, so people can see what they are doing and how they are manipulating and using the information. Obviously this will never apply to military, but everything that can be applied to one can be applied to another via certain "rules" and "parameters", but I have no idea whether this information input is also "open", I doubt it is, and that is a very important part of all of the nonsense we have seen with "AI" chatbots.

The real scary thing is the bad humans taking advantage of it to bring an era of absolute censorship and 100% blatant stealing of IP with "AI". Take the leftist leaning you were talking about with machines at doors preventing entry to necessary stores and establishments unless your social credit score is high, and unlike humans it won't have any empathy because it's just a machine, no conscious, no intelligence, no feelings.

As for Terminator, that's just fiction, and kind of a way to shift blame elsewhere. The problem has always been the human condition, which won't change.

 

[evernessince]

There were no income taxes before WWI. They introduced it in the guise of being temporary for funding the war and never rescinded it. Income taxes need to go away, period.

That's only part of the story, income tax was pushed by southern states as the North's industrial economy was booming while the south's agricultural economy was being left behind: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/16th-amendment

It's all fine and dandy to say to get rid of income tax but ultimately you've proposed nothing to replace that massive gap in funding. Yes America didn't always have income tax but it did have sin tax, excise tax, and a whole host of other taxes. Whatever your replacement is needs to be worthwhile enough to make such sweeping changes.

The problem is not "rich are taxed enough" like AOC claims but just bad policies of endless spending and never planning to pay off debt and money printers going into places that only favor those in power.

Endless spending is certainly an issue but so too is the increasing income inequality. The bottom 50% of Americans control a mere 2.6% of all the wealth while the top 20% control 86.6%: https://www.statista.com/statistics/203961/wealth-distribution-for-the-us/

At some point you have to have taxes targeted specifically at preventing concentration of wealth. In a capitalist economy, the further the concentration of wealth the more leverage those few have. More leverage often means more exploitation as they have more money while conversely everyone else has less and they use that power to further that trend. That exploitation in particularly bad when people are living paycheck to paycheck as often this means people have no choice but to take what they can get. If concentration of wealth becomes bad enough where people lower on the ladder don't have enough to buy everything they might ordinarily, that reduces the amount of economic activity there could have been otherwise. Ultimately the economy is carried on the backs of the commonfolk as they are the one's generating the vast majority of economic activity.

You sort of acknolwege this by saying that goverment policy only favors those in power. Well those in power in a capitalist economy are those with the most money.

 

[Why_Me]

Pot calling the kettle black? One of the biggest tech fraudsters currently relevant complaining about someone else not keeping their word.

Musk is broke. This seems like a money grab.

Did you even read the article?

Everything must be monetized because the human race is horrible.

?

 

[Dr. Dro]

I sometimes don't get all the Elon hate, not saying he's a savior or the greatest person ever but man the hate I see on him is getting old. I don't always agree with him but he is business savvy and has propelled society forward in many areas whether its by investing or assisting he has moved a lot of companies forward.

As for this, he's completely right and just based on what I've read his case is solid. Going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

It seems that it's become commonplace to hate on successful people and entities, as if the common folk were supposedly paragons of justice and uphold unquestionable moral standards. It makes me sick.

or name is NreedyAI

What does NVIDIA have to do with this quarrel? (I know it's a joke)

 

[Scrizz]

This needs international and national laws governing its usage.

Laws only apply to those that abide by them.