zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
Wouldn't you have to prove damages in a lawsuit like this? What damages does Musk personally suffer if OpenAI has in fact broken their contract?

>>BitWis+3T
I don't know how comparable it would be, but I imagine if I donated $44 million to a university under the agreement that they would use the money in a particular way (e.g. to build a specific building or to fund a specific program) and then the university used the money in some other way, I feel I ought to have some standing to sue them.

Of course, this all depends on the investment details specified in a contract and the relevant law, both of which I am not familiar with.

>>zoogen+W01
Yeah - Had you donated the funds as "restricted funding" in the nonprofit parlance, they would have a legal requirement to use the funds as you had designated. It seems that Musk contributed general non-restricted funding so the nonprofit can more or less do what they want with the money.. Not saying there's no case here, but if he really wanted them to do something specific, there's a path for that to happen and that he didn't take that path is definitely going to hurt his case.

>>mikeyo+l21
> (...) but if he really wanted them to do something specific (...)

Musk pledged donating orders of magnitude more to OpenAI when he wanted to take over the organization, and reneged on his pledge when the takeover failed and instead went the "fox and the grapes" path of accusing OpenAI of being a failure.

It took Microsoft injecting billions in funding to get OpenAI to be where it is today.

It's pathetic how Elon Musk is now complaining his insignificant contribution granted him a stake in the organization's output when we look back at reality and see it contrast with his claims.