E.H. promised her investors a magic cure -> sharlatan

Sam B. stole money from everyone -> thief

Sam A. did what?

And Musk wanted to do the same thing. Both agreeded, that a non profit will not make enough money to push the frontier. He is only pissed that he didn't get control of openai and he is now pissed again because he apparently should have done the lawsuite a few years back. Despite him having unlimited money and probably very good laywers

I'm not here to defend the richest of the richest, but E.H. and S.B. are complet different storries to OpenAI

▲

hawkice 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

Non-profits are not the property of their donors, but of the general interest, with obligations to the public. It is part of the legal and social obligations of the legal structure of non-profits.

▲

Curosinono 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

It wasn't illegal so there is some reason why the USA allowed it.

And as mentioned, they agreeed that they will not get the capital openai needs, so what did the USA people loose? A company which whouldn't have been able to do what they are known for anyway.

Again i'm not protecting the rich, i just don't think there is a real scandal and its not the same as the other 2 the newyorker mentioned

	▲	hawkice 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Their stated non-profit goal was to benefit all of humanity. Changing OpenAI to benefit their financial backers in a formal sense could be a loss of nearly unbounded value.