OpenAI publishes card against the process opened by Elon Musk and his accusation that a company has “milked on a mission”. The text, published on the company's website and assassinated by its funds and managers, contests the legal action and reveals the passage between OpenAI and Musk. In the card, the author of ChatGPT uses “absolute freedom of expression” and sends emails and communications exchanged between investment funds, including billion.
No text, OpenAI is defended by the accusation to abandon the goal of becoming a profit-making business. The institution revealed that in 2017, investment funds, including Elon Musk, were in agreement with the idea of creating a second legal entity to ensure financing.
It is obvious how OpenAI works today: a for-profit research and development institution (OpenAI, Inc) and a for-profit subsidiary (OpenAI, LLC) – 49% of OpenAI, LLC is owned by Microsoft. It is possible that a for-profit institution is donated by a for-profit company (and a correto question), but that is not the point of the process: Musk disputes or corresponds (by reading his trocados emails) to what OpenAI takes place without Lucros visa.
Therefore, the company is little accused by Musk of thanking (sim, basically, legal action based on emails) that it offers to be the CEO, majority shares and control of the division board for profit. At that time, the other founders of the OpenAI forum contributed to this by considering an idea contrary to the company's mission. As for the negatives, Musk suggests Tesla acquire OpenAI – this piece from his hand is shown in an email.
The author of the email used as the basis by Elon Musk has his identity preserved. This person defends that the merger of OpenAI with Tesla is the only possible path to compete with Google (the text appears to be the authority of a single analyst). Musk sent an email to his two founders (Sutskever and Brockam), saying “my opinion is on (preserved identity), on Tesla is the only way”.
OpenAI: Musk hears the reason for “fechar” of AI code
In this process, Musk claims that no founding document of OpenAI (which is not associated with the action and the company does not comment) is consistent with the fact that the code of the technology is not requested. Therefore, our emails revealed by OpenAI, Musk agree with a “yeah” (a phrase equivalent to “sim”) with founder Ilya Sutskever's argument.
Musk sent Sutskever and Sam Altman an email received by a person with a preserved identity. Without text, this person risks losing or coding open AI, because a malicious person can develop technology that is dangerous to humanity.
No doubt he responded to Musk's call with the argument that the closer to the final phase of building the AI (while the first version), he was less sensitive to the code open source.
“Open” in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the AI after it's built, but it's totally OK not to share the science (after sharing is, definitely, a short-term strategy and possibly a practical way for recruitment objectives)
– Ilya Sutsk sent an email only to have Musk respond with “yeah”.
With information: The Verge (1 e 2)
OpenAI rebates Musk, emails and says it demands absolute control