zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
Any competent lawyer is going to get Musk on the stand reiterating his opinions about the danger of AI. If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given.

Not saying I agree that being closed source is in the public good, although one could certainly argue that accelerating the efforts of bad actors to catch up would not be a positive.

>>HarHar+vu1
You don't even need to call him to the stand, it's not some gotcha, he writes it all over the complaint itself. "AGI poses a grave threat to humanity — perhaps the greatest existential threat we face today." I highly doubt a court is going to opine about open vs closed being safer, though. The founding agreement is pretty clear that the intention was to make it open for the purpose of safety. Courts rule on if a contract was breached, not whether breaching it was a philosophy good thing.