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
A non-profit is obligated to use any donated funds for its stated non-profit purpose. Restricted donations are further limited.

>>SoftTa+f31
Right - but OpenAI's nonprofit purpose is extremely broad;

"OpenAIs mission is to build general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. OpenAI believes that artificial intelligence technology has the potential to have a profound, positive impact on the world, so our goal is to develop and responsibly deploy safe AI technology, ensuring that its benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible."

So as long as the Musk bucks were used for that purpose, the org is within their rights to do any manner of other activities including setting up competing orgs and for-profit entities with non-Musk bucks - or even with Musk bucks if they make the case that it serves the purpose.

The IRS has almost no teeth here, these types of "you didn't use my unrestricted money for the right purpose" complaints are very, very rarely enforced.