正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

“Let’s say you funded an organization to save the Amazon rainforest, and instead, they became a lumber company, chopped down the forest, and sold it for profit.” This is the metaphor Elon used to described what happened to OpenAI and why he decided to sue them. From day one,...

34,488 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Elon Musk Elon Musk, who co-founded and invested in an open source, non-profit OpenAI ~$50 million: I AM THE REASON OpenAI EXISTS “I am the reason OpenAI exists... I used to be a close friend with Larry Page, and I was staying at his house, and we'd have these conversations long into the evening about AI, and I would be constantly urging him to be careful about the danger of AI. And he was really not concerned about the danger of AI and was quite cavalier about it. And at the time, Google, especially after the acquisition of DeepMind, had three-quarters of the world's AI talent; they had a lot of computers, a lot of money, so it was a unipolar world for AI. And we got a unipolar world, but the person who controls that does not, or at least did not seem to be concerned about AI safety. That sounded like a real problem. The final straw was Larry calling me a speciest for being a pro-human consciousness instead of machine consciousness, and I like, 'Well, yes, I guess I am a speciest.' I came up with the name [OpenAI], which refers to open source. The intent was to what is the opposite of Google, would be an open source non-profit, because Google is closed source profit, and that profit motivation could be dangerous... It does seem weird that something can be a nonprofit, open source, and somehow transform itself into a for-profit, closed source. I mean, this would be like, let's say you founded the organization to save the Amazon rainforest, but instead, they became a lumber company and chopped down the forest and sold it for money. And you'd be, therefore, like, 'Wait a second, that's the exact opposite of what I gave the money for. Is that legal?' That doesn't seem legal. And if, in general, it is legal to start a company as a non-profit and then take the IP and transfer it to a for-profit that then makes tons of money, shouldn't everyone start? Shouldn't that be the default? And I also think it is important to understand, like when push comes to shove, let's say they do create some digital super intelligence, almost Godlike intelligence, well, who is in control, and what is exactly the relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft? And I do worry that Microsoft actually may be more in control than the leadership team at OpenAI realizes. I mean, Microsoft, as part of Microsoft Investment, has rights to all of the software, all of the model weights, and everything necessary to run the inference system. At any point, Microsoft could cut off OpenAI.”

Eva Fo𝕏 🦊 Claudius Nero's Legion

527,742 次观看 • 7 个月前

Elon Musk is 100% right to take OpenAI to court. He co-founded OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit specifically to develop AGI for the benefit of all humanity — not to enrich any individual or corporation. He came up with the name, recruited the team, taught them what he knew, and put in ~$38 million of the earliest funding when no one else would. He chose a charity structure deliberately because he could have made it a for-profit from day one and didn’t. Yes, Musk left the board in 2018 after disagreements (including over control and structure). And yes, there were internal talks about a for-profit arm even back then — but only if the nonprofit stayed firmly in charge and the mission came first. The “tail doesn’t wag the dog.” What actually happened? After he stepped away, OpenAI did the exact opposite: created a capped-profit subsidiary, took massive Microsoft money, went fully closed-source, and is now racing toward a $1T+ IPO. They rebranded “Open” into one of the most closed, profit-driven AI companies on Earth while keeping the original nonprofit shell for optics. Musk isn’t suing for personal profit — he’s asking the court to return any wrongful gains to OpenAI’s charitable arm, revert the company to its nonprofit roots, and remove Altman and Brockman from leadership. That’s not “sour grapes.” That’s enforcing the promise the public was sold. In an age where AGI could shape humanity’s entire future, the original mission still matters. Elon is the only one still fighting to protect it instead of cashing out. Principle over profit. Humanity over hype.

Captain Eli

19,033 次观看 • 3 个月前

Elon Musk just destroyed OpenAI’s credibility, and he can because he founded it. Musk: “I don’t trust OpenAI. I started that company as a non-profit open source. The Open in OpenAI. I named the company.” Mission was in the name. Open source non-profit built as counterweight to big tech controlling AI. Musk: “And it is now extremely closed source and maximizing profit. So I don’t understand how you actually go from being an open source non-profit to a closed source for maximum profit organization.” Not pivot. Betrayal. Can’t be “Open” with proprietary code optimizing for profit. Musk: “At various points, he’s claimed not to be getting rich, but he’s claimed many things that were false. And now apparently he’s going to get $10 billion of stock.” Years of narrative: Sam Altman has no equity, pure altruism, selfless steward. Then $10 billion appears. Story changes. Incentives change. Musk: “So I don’t trust Sam Altman, and I don’t think we want to have the most powerful AI in the world controlled by someone who is not trustworthy.” Real threat isn’t technology. It’s leadership. Most powerful AI controlled by someone whose motivation shifted from safety to wealth accumulation. When incentives flip from protecting humanity to capturing billions, safety can’t stay priority. Economics won’t allow it. How do you legally convert non-profit benefiting everyone into hundred-billion-dollar corporation benefiting specific people? That transformation reveals whose interests actually get served. Musk built OpenAI specifically to prevent profit-driven control of AI. Watching it become exactly that explains his position completely. Danger is most advanced AI controlled by entity that already abandoned founding principles for money. Principles that changed once for profit will change again. Next conflict between safety and profit arrives at higher stakes with more powerful technology. Outcome won’t favor safety. It didn’t before. Why would it now when financial pressure is exponentially larger and the person deciding already showed which priority wins?

Dustin

109,966 次观看 • 5 个月前