Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Microsoft and OpenAI sign a non-binding deal for new relationship terms that would allow OpenAI to proceed to restructure itself into a for-profit company, marking a new phase of the most high-profile partnerships to fund the ChatGPT frenzy
21,528 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
![BREAKING: Elon Musk has LOST his landmark lawsuit against OpenAI after a California jury determined that the statute of limitations had run out on his key claims. CNN: “[The jury] found that Elon Musk waited too long to bring this case against OpenAI and Sam Altman... OpenAI transitioned to this for-profit structure 5 years ago; the statute of limitations was 3 years ago.” The trial centered on Musk’s accusations that OpenAI betrayed its original nonprofit mission — which he helped found and fund with tens of millions — by shifting to a for-profit model. Musk was seeking up to $150B in damages, OpenAI to shift back to a non-profit, and for Sam Altman to lose his job.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2056433653270368661/amplify_video_thumb/2056433541022404608/img/hQMer1JLzZzSFLiX.jpg)
![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.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2009270114546503981/amplify_video_thumb/2009266401115086848/img/5VMVbVdAG29ktnoB.jpg)
