From the article, emphasis mine:

> Additionally, Brockman’s journal showed him grappling with whether voting against Musk’s plan or for Musk’s ejection from the board would be morally wrong.

> “Can’t see us turning this into a for-profit without a very nasty fight,” Brockman wrote in another entry. “It’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. That’d be pretty morally bankrupt.”

This is pretty damning for OpenAI. And ties in quite tightly to Musk's comment earlier this week of "It's not okay to steal a charity.".

▲

Xunjin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Another part also says: "After Musk announced he was resigning from OpenAI in February 2018, Musk gave a departing speech at an all-hands meeting, Brockman testified. In front of about 40 OpenAI employees, Musk said that he was leaving because the only viable path that he saw forward was for OpenAI to merge with Tesla. However, the other leaders did not think so, Musk said, choosing a different path that Musk would never choose. According to Brockman, the speech was meant to lower morale at OpenAI, as workers understood that Musk was leaving to pursue artificial general intelligence (AGI) at Tesla because he no longer had confidence in OpenAI."

Still his goals was to merge with Tesla... Ain't this also steal a charity?

▲

notnullorvoid 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't really want to advocate for Musk, but is it not possible that his goal was to merge with Tesla as an alternative to OpenAI becoming a seperate for-profit. If the option of staying a non-profit was going off the table I'd also probably want to advocate for merging with an existing for-profit I own that had aligned interests.

▲

mcmcmc 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep. Both sides just look like assholes

▲

yieldcrv 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

he didn’t so they litigate what did happen

▲

watwut 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, the claim here is not that Musk is not an asshole. This is a court case where two assholes fight about who defrauded that other one more successfully. Whoever wins and whoever looses, we know both involved men have pretty non-existent morality.

And in the grand scheme of things, OpenAI being charity was always bullshit too.

▲

palmotea 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Whoever wins and whoever looses, we know both involved men don't have pretty non-existent morality.

I'm guessing that double negative is a mistake. Do you mean to strike the "don't" to make it "have pretty non-existent morality" or just "both involved men don't have morality"?

	▲	watwut 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you. I corrected it.

▲

Fraterkes 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ianal but openais defense seems to actually have spent some time in the hearings showing examples of Musk’s (perceived) hypocrisy (him not giving to charity because he views his companies as societally beneficial), which suggests to me that this stuff is legislatively relevant

▲

cameldrv 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From what I heard at the time, Elon was running OpenAI as, to some degree an element of the Elon keritsu. Neurallink was upstairs from OpenAI, and OpenAI badges would open doors at Tesla and vice-versa. Elon will also move people from one of his companies to another if the need arises. I think some of the OpenAI execs were very upset when he moved Karpathy from OpenAI to Tesla to take over Autopilot.

▲

Darmani 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This is pretty damning for OpenAI

I don't see how. Cases are decided by facts and law, not feelings -- except to the extent those feelings are probative of state of mind, which is relevant for some legal issues but not others. My understanding is that the crux of the case is on the extent to which a number of informal messages should be considered a binding contract.

Trying to go from a single admission like this to an overall legal conclusion is a lot like seeing a single line in a program and then concluding there's a bug -- without having ever seen the rest of the program. You might think "this line always crashes, " but actually it's never called (does not go to any matter at issue), or none of the terms mean what you think they mean, etc.

▲

balance006 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]