zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
In what capacity is Musk suing OpenAI? Musk may have co-founded the company, but then he left (to avoid any potential future conflict of interest with his role as CEO of Tesla, as Tesla was increasingly becoming an AI-intensive company). Is he a shareholder, if not what gives him any say in the future of the company?

>>breadw+2J
He's a donor to the OpenAi non-profit organization.

>>userna+BM
A donor usually is only able to say how his donation will be used. For example, if you donate to Harvard University, you can say the money will be earmarked for scholarships, but you don't get a say on how the university is managed. You can at best say you will no longer donate based on how the university is managed.

>>breadw+HN
You can sue for basically any reason in the US. If Musk is able to prove they are mishandling the money, which I think is debatable, then the case can proceed.

Just because you donate money doesn’t mean the charity or nonprofit (or whatever OpenAi is), can do as they like. They may still be committing fraud if they are not using the money in the way that they claim.

>>whythr+lP
Don't you have to have some sort of standing in the lawsuit? If you don't directly suffer harm, I thought you'd have to convince the government to prosecute them instead?

(Not a lawyer, obviously.)

>>solard+WQ
Harm can be all sorts of things, but taking money under false pretenses would qualify. Certainly doesn’t ensure Musk wins, but it’s enough to at least take a shot at beginning proceedings.

As for lawsuit vs criminal prosecution, the waters there are somewhat muddied. Consider the OJ case, where he was acquitted in the criminal trial and then found liable in the civil trial. Really bizarre stuff.

Personally I do think more things should be pursued criminally, but instead we seem to just be content to trade money through the courts, like an exorbitant and agonizing form of weregild.