Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI The Courts

Elon Musk Revives Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Sam Altman 47

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Elon Musk has reignited his legal battle against OpenAI, the creators of ChatGPT, by filing a new lawsuit in a California federal court. The suit, which revives a six-year-old dispute, accuses OpenAI founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of breaching the company's founding principles by prioritizing commercial interests over public benefit.

Musk's complaint alleges that OpenAI's multibillion-dollar partnership with Microsoft contradicts the original mission to develop AI responsibly for humanity's benefit. The lawsuit describes the alleged betrayal in dramatic terms, claiming "perfidy and deceit... of Shakespearean proportions." OpenAI has not yet commented on the new filing. In response to Musk's previous lawsuit, which was withdrawn seven weeks ago, the company stated its commitment to building safe artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elon Musk Revives Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Sam Altman More

Elon Musk Revives Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Sam Altman

Comments Filter:

  • The lawsuit describes the alleged betrayal in dramatic terms, claiming "perfidy and deceit... of Shakespearean proportions."

    Is "of Shakesperean proportions" a legal term I'm unaware of? I've heard it bandied about by my more literate mates during beer night when the insults get brutal, but I've never seen it written on a legal document. I got a sneaking suspicion there won't be too many lawyers taking that jab politely.

    Especially if it's beer night!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Rhetorical flourishes are allowed in briefs, although I doubt judges are likely to find them persuasive.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Phact ( 4649149 )

        It doesn't always go well, but the judge allowed the request:

        Arizona Judge Bruce Cohen recently rebuked Rudy Giuliani's lawyer over a comparison made between the former New York mayor and the first president of the United States, George Washington.
        Cohen agreed to modify Giuliani's release conditions, allowing him to live in Florida or New York, but the judge made clear that his decision had nothing to do with the comparison Williams made between Washington and Giuliani.

        https://www.newsweek.com/rudy-... [newsweek.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by allo ( 1728082 )

      Act I, Scene I

      The stage is set in the grand hall of the Royal Court. A bench sits atop a raised platform. LORD JUSTICE ANTHONY (50) enters, followed by MISTRESS FRAIL (30), and LADY MACBETH (32). They are all in discussion with SERGEANT BROOKE (45), who holds a quill and parchment.

      LORD JUSTICE ANTHONY: Good morrow, kindred souls. Gather 'round, for we stand at the cusp of a new legal lexicon. The question before us, as grave as Fortinbras' claim to Norway, is whether "perfidy and deceit... of Shakespearean

    • Never mind "Shakesperean proportions," the allegation that stuck out to me was his accusation of perfidy. I would wonder how that assclown imagines that a mere business... not a military unit of any kind... can possibly be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva and Hague conventions. But I think he's just totally detached from reality at this point.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Perfidity means disloyalty or treachery: https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]

        It's sometimes used in the context of war to mean bargaining in bad faith, but that's not a war crime.

        Companies can certainly be guilty of war crimes:

        By the military's own internal investigations, private military contractors from the U.S.-based corporations L-3 Services and CACI International were involved in the war crimes and acts of torture that took place, which included rape, being forced to watch family members and others be ra

  • The whiner is still whining (Score:5, Informative)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Monday August 05, 2024 @11:23AM (#64682318) Journal
    The reason Musk dropped his previous lawsuit [cnn.com] was because he was called out for his bullshit [cnn.com]:

    In a November 22, 2015, email to CEO Sam Altman, Musk, an OpenAI co-founder, said the company needed to raise much more than $100 million to "avoid sounding hopeless." Musk suggested a $1 billion funding commitment and promised that he would cover whatever did not get raised.

    OpenAI in a blog post Tuesday night said Musk never followed through on his promise, committing $45 million in funding for OpenAI, while other donors raised $90 million. Lawyers for Musk declined to comment on OpenAI's claims.

    Musk, in a February 1, 2018, email, told company executives that the only path forward for OpenAI was for Tesla, his electric car company, to buy it. The company refused, and Musk left OpenAI later that year.

    In December 2018, Musk emailed Altman and other executives that OpenAI would not be relevant "without a dramatic change in execution and resources."

    "This needs billions per year immediately or forget it," Musk emailed. "I really hope I'm wrong."

    Ini short, Musk wanted OpenAI for his own purposes and when he didn't get his way threw a temper tantrum. Just like he did [cnn.com] when Apple announced they would be using OpenAI on their machines.

    Still trying to decide who is the bigger crybaby: Musk or the convicted felon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Ini short, Musk wanted OpenAI for his own purposes and when he didn't get his way threw a temper tantrum.

      Which is absolutely true, but that doesn't invalidate the claims in his lawsuit, it just makes him a hypocrite.

      • He has no claim. His own emails show he was fully aware of the need for funding and even said (but not did) he would provide said funding.

        Here are his latest ramblings [cnn.com] concerning the lawsuit:

        The new lawsuit, filed against OpenAI, Altman and co-founder Gregory Brockman, made the same claims. While the first lawsuit was filed in California state court, the new one was filed in federal court in Northern California and is nearly double in length. In contrast to the original suit, it includes claims that OpenAI is engaging in racketeering activity.
        . . .
        "In partnership with Microsoft, Altman established an opaque web of for-profit OpenAI affiliates, engaged in rampant self-dealing, seized OpenAI, Inc.'s Board, and systematically drained the non-profit of its valuable technology and personnel," the lawsuit said.
        . . .
        The new lawsuit claims Altman and Brockman "manipulated" Musk into co-founding OpenAI.

        "Elon Musk;s case against Sam Altman and OpenAI is a textbook tale of altruism versus greed. Altman, in concert with other Defendants, intentionally courted and deceived Musk, preying on Musk's humanitarian concern about the existential dangers posed by artificial intelligence," the lawsuit said.

        The lawsuit seeks "a constructive trust on Defendants' ill-gotten gains, property, and assets traceable to Musk's significant contributions to OpenAI" and that "a judicial determination that OpenAI, Inc.'s license to Microsoft is null and void."

        It all comes back to him not getting his way and stomping away like a two year old. Claims of racketeering or "draining" resources are the fabrication of that pedo guy's incoherent imagination.

        • The word "altruism" has about as much to do with Musk as the words "profession athlete" have to do with me. Holy wow that's some flat-out egocentric thought in word-salad form.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          Generally speaking promises of future donations aren't binding. The fact that Musk didn't pony up the next tranche of money may be slimy, but it is probably neither here nor there, unless the terms of the donation somehow obligated him to. But generally when you're giving away $100 million, the recipient usually isn't in much of a position to put restrictions on the *donor*. It goes the other way.

          The way restricted grants work in non-profits is that when you get the money, it's not *income*; you book the

      • Ini short, Musk wanted OpenAI for his own purposes and when he didn't get his way threw a temper tantrum.

        Which is absolutely true, but that doesn't invalidate the claims in his lawsuit, it just makes him a hypocrite.

        Maybe another early investor/donor could sue, but I'm not sure how you sue someone for basically doing what you tried to get them to do.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          I'm not sure how you sue someone for basically doing what you tried to get them to do.

          That's exactly how you get them. You show that their claims to have met the terms of the gift are fraudulent or improper. In any case suing is easy -- arguably too easy. The hard part is winning. I really have no idea whether Musk has a chance of winning; nor, I suspect, does anyone else here.

          • I'm not sure how you sue someone for basically doing what you tried to get them to do.

            That's exactly how you get them. You show that their claims to have met the terms of the gift are fraudulent or improper.

            I think this is exactly where Musk's case falls apart. From his email:


            A for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream over time and would, with the current team, likely bring in a lot of investment.
            [...]
            The most promising option I can think of, as I mentioned earlier, would be for OpenAI to attach to Tesla as its cash cow.

            Musk clearly thought a for-profit pivot was compatible with his gift, he just preferred for it to become part of Tesla.

            And even if you think a for-profit pivot was incomp

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • OpenAI *was* a non-profit. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday August 05, 2024 @01:13PM (#64682796) Homepage Journal

    It changed it's structure to "capped-profit" organization.

    I worked for a non-profit organization for many years, and as part of my job I examined the operations of many other kinds of non-profits. The term "non-profit" is a misnomer. A non-profit is allowed to engage in profit-making activities. The thing that actually distinguishes a non-profit is that cannot be operated for the personal benefit of any individual or group of private individuals. Needless to say this restriction is often (but not always) ignored by senior leadership in non-profits, who sometimes engage in various forms of self-dealing.

    One of the things I learned in studying non-profits is that complicated or unusual corporate structures, even where justifiable, can present opportunities to conceal self-dealing. For example a cultural exchange charity might set up a for-profit travel agency to obtain the kind of travel services it needs affordably, but that for-profit company can be used to funnel the charity's income to the charity's leadership and their families.

    Transforming a charity into a capped-profit entity allows it to raise more capital than it could as a charity, while theoretically still obligating it to pursue the purpose for which the charity was chartered. I have no experience with such an organization, but I have to believe the conversion presents opportunities for self-dealing. Altman has floated the possibility of further converting OpenAI into a benefit corporation, in which case he might well become very rich, which really should never be the outcome for someone who started out managing a non-profit.

    Really every step of this conversion from pure charity to capped-profit to benefit corporation should be scrutinized by regulators to prevent self-dealing and to ensure the charitable purpose of the organization is preserved. But attorneys general aren't interested in becoming known for cracking down on charities. Musk's lawsuit may be motivated by petulance, but as a donor he also may have a legitimate beef if his contributions are being used for self-dealing. *Somebody* should be challenging these corporate transformations. Even if you think Musk is being a hypocrite here, it's better that he challenge this than nobody.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        I'm just saying what OpenAI is up to here is something that could be used to hide some very shady dealings. I have no position on whether improper stuff is actually happening, but it's the ideal set-up for self-dealing. When bad stuff happens, there's *always* a pretext that *could* be perfectly justified; it's supposed to look innocuous. Logically that means some things that don't appear to pass the sniff test are fine. The only way you can know is to investigate.

        The person who should be looking into

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Have a look at Mozilla. There is Mozilla the foundation and then there is Mozilla the company with the CEO making millions.

  • xAI (Score:1)

    by mspohr ( 589790 )

    One factor that hasn't been mentioned here is xAI which weird Elon formed recently to jump on the AI bandwagon. Owned by weird Elon and private investors it has poached AI people, IP and Nvidia chips from Tesla.
    This is a profit making venture which will be in competition with Microsoft, Google, etc.
    Could this suit be an attempt to weaken Microsoft's AI efforts?

    • One factor that hasn't been mentioned here is xAI which weird Elon formed recently to jump on the AI bandwagon. Owned by weird Elon and private investors it has poached AI people, IP and Nvidia chips from Tesla.
      This is a profit making venture which will be in competition with Microsoft, Google, etc.
      Could this suit be an attempt to weaken Microsoft's AI efforts?

      Apart from the obvious, this is what Elon is seeking (page 80 in the complaint https://deadline.com/wp-conten... [deadline.com] ):

      4. For a judicial determination that OpenAI, Inc.’s license to Microsoft
      is null and void, or to the extent it is deemed valid, that GPT-4, GPT-4T, GPT-
      4o, and/or other OpenAI next generation large language models constitute
      Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and are therefore outside the scope of
      OpenAI’s license to Microsoft;

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Interesting. (And impressive that you got to page 80 of the complaint.)

        Still looks like an attempt to stifle Microsoft (and OpenAI).

  • Then goes ahead and creates xAI and creates robots. Dude is just salty he didn't make money from OpenAI and he's trying play dirty hoping his own startup would succeed

  • The complaint: Case 3:24-cv-04722 https://deadline.com/wp-conten... [deadline.com]

  • “Once OpenAI, Inc.’s technology approached transformative AGI, Altman flipped the narrative and proceeded to cash in [deadline.com]. In partnership with Microsoft, Altman established an opaque web of for-profit OpenAI affiliates, engaged in rampant self-dealing, seized OpenAI, Inc.’s Board, and systematically drained the non-profit of its valuable technology and personnel. The resulting OpenAI network, in which Altman and Microsoft hold significant interests, was recently valued at a staggering $100 bill

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A guinea pig is not from Guinea but a rodent from South America.

Close