zlacker

>>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 really want to defend Elon, because I very much dislike him, but there's a bit if a difference between OpenAI vs his own AI startups, which is that his AI startup isn't called Open AI. There's no compunctions about it being a for-profit enterprise, unlike OpenAI which kind of gives a veil of a non-profit.

Like, if a doctor in Manhattan found out that Doctors Without Borders was charging Manhattan medical rates to all the people it was treating in Uganda, that doctor might criticize them for doing that, and I don't think it'd be a good excuse for DWB to say "You charge Manhattan medical rates at your practice, how is that not equally concerning???" because the obvious retort would be to say "Yeah but I'm not pretending to be a non-profit.".

>>tomber+rl1
His entire lawsuit rests on the premise that AI/AGI is dangerous for humanity and cannot be developed in secret by large corporations but should be fully open and regulated. Looking at xAI and several other of his efforts (like the Optimus robot), those arguments fall flat. He is seemingly perfectly fine with closed off corporate AI as long as he is the one holding the strings.