>>modele+(OP)
While I have no doubt everything in the complaint is correct, it's hard to see it as Elon being genuinely concerned about open and safe AI vs just having FOMO that he isn't part of it anymore and doesn't get to call the shots. For example his own AI startup is exactly as closed off and unregulated as OpenAI. Why is that not equally concerning?
>>paxys+VW
I don't want to be in the position of defending Elon Musk, but in this case his complaint seems to be that OpenAI claims one thing and does another. If X.ai started out telling everyone it's for-profit and closed off, then it's not hypocritical at all for it to be that. It's something else, sure.
>>paxys+221
I don't think that follows; Apple is a closed-off, for-profit company, but I do think that a Macbook or an iPhone can be used to assist humanity in its quest for understanding and knowledge. I would agree it might be more helpful for them to be open, but it doesn't imply that it's inherently unhelpful if they're not.
>>tomber+Pl1
So then you can apply the same logic to OpenAI. Either companies are allowed to define, implement and justify their charter in their own way, or we hold all of them to task.