‘Altman said he was “very pro-capitalism,” but “AGI is sort of an exception to that."’
Altman is not even slightly pro-capitalism if he believes there is any invention that should simply be gifted to all of humanity. He is either too stupid to self-reflect on his own words and see that, or he’s a virtue-signaling grifter. It’s possible he just made a mistake, but I find it hard to believe one could go around saying such a thing to billions of people over the course of several years without someone pointing out the problem with his position.
How do you feel about Wikipedia? That seems like an example of a digital product that's available for free to all of humanity. Is Jimmy Wales a virtue-signaling grifter?
> A donor can’t sue simply because a non-profit used money differently than he expected. To gain standing, a donor needs to have a legally binding commitment from the non-profit promising to use money in a specific way.
This was clarifying. I do think that Musk has reason to be upset, since, if OpenAI had been structured as an ordinary startup, the amount of early funding he put in would have given him a stake that would be worth billions of dollars today. But that seems not to be legally actionable.
‘Altman said he was “very pro-capitalism,” but “AGI is sort of an exception to that."’
Altman is not even slightly pro-capitalism if he believes there is any invention that should simply be gifted to all of humanity. He is either too stupid to self-reflect on his own words and see that, or he’s a virtue-signaling grifter. It’s possible he just made a mistake, but I find it hard to believe one could go around saying such a thing to billions of people over the course of several years without someone pointing out the problem with his position.
How do you feel about Wikipedia? That seems like an example of a digital product that's available for free to all of humanity. Is Jimmy Wales a virtue-signaling grifter?
No, but he also doesn’t go around declaring himself “very pro-capitalism.”
This is the type of message we would expect from main stream media
What do you mean?
> A donor can’t sue simply because a non-profit used money differently than he expected. To gain standing, a donor needs to have a legally binding commitment from the non-profit promising to use money in a specific way.
This was clarifying. I do think that Musk has reason to be upset, since, if OpenAI had been structured as an ordinary startup, the amount of early funding he put in would have given him a stake that would be worth billions of dollars today. But that seems not to be legally actionable.
If no one sues OpenAI, does that mean there’s an easy path to privatization? Any other hurdles they need to pass?