zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
In what capacity is Musk suing OpenAI? Musk may have co-founded the company, but then he left (to avoid any potential future conflict of interest with his role as CEO of Tesla, as Tesla was increasingly becoming an AI-intensive company). Is he a shareholder, if not what gives him any say in the future of the company?

>>breadw+2J
He's a donor to the OpenAi non-profit organization.

>>userna+BM
A donor usually is only able to say how his donation will be used. For example, if you donate to Harvard University, you can say the money will be earmarked for scholarships, but you don't get a say on how the university is managed. You can at best say you will no longer donate based on how the university is managed.

>>breadw+HN
You can sue for basically any reason in the US. If Musk is able to prove they are mishandling the money, which I think is debatable, then the case can proceed.

Just because you donate money doesn’t mean the charity or nonprofit (or whatever OpenAi is), can do as they like. They may still be committing fraud if they are not using the money in the way that they claim.

>>whythr+lP
Don't you have to have some sort of standing in the lawsuit? If you don't directly suffer harm, I thought you'd have to convince the government to prosecute them instead?

(Not a lawyer, obviously.)

>>solard+WQ
If Musk donated money to a nonprofit and now the nonprofit is using the money to make profit, that sounds like he was defrauded to me. They took his money under false pretenses. Not a lawyer either, so it may turn out technically he does not have standing, but naively it sure looks like he has.

I don't understand the framing of your question, is it "since he donated, he didn't expect anything in return, so he is not harmed no matter what they do"? Kinda seems like people asking for donations should not lie about the reason for the donation, even if it is a donation.

>>lucian+HU
> If Musk donated money to a nonprofit and now the nonprofit is using the money to make profit, that sounds like he was defrauded to me.

I am not sure if a donation to a nonprofit entitles him to a say in its management. Might have to do with how he donated the money too? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/restricted-fund.asp

But even if a nonprofit suddenly started making a profit, seems like that would mostly be an IRS tax exemption violation rather than a breach of contract with the donors...? But again, I'm not a lawyer.

And OpenAI also has a complex structure in which the nonprofit controls a for-profit subsidiary, or something like that, similar to how Mozilla the nonprofit owns the for-profit Mozilla corp. I think Patagonia is similarly set up.

> I don't understand the framing of your question, is it "since he donated, he didn't expect anything in return, so he is not harmed no matter what they do"? Kinda seems like people asking for donations should not lie about the reason for the donation, even if it is a donation.

I guess donors can make restricted gifts, but if they don't, do they have a LEGAL (as opposed to merely ethical) right to expect the nonprofit to "do its mission" broadly? There are a gazillion nonprofits out there, and if every donor can micromanage them by alleging they are not following their mission, there would be millions of lawsuits... but then again, the average donor probably has somewhat less money and lawyers than Musk.

>>solard+6F1
It’s not just a question in what you say the money is for it’s also a question of what the charity says the money is for.

A self defined cancer charity spending large sums on public information during the early days of the COVID outbreak likely has wiggle room. That same charity spending most of it’s money on scholarships for music students doesn’t. The second case suggests they raised money under false pretenses and would therefore face serious legal issues.

In practice large organizations that generally do what they say probably aren’t a risk. But the claim is essentially OpenAI abandoned its mission without returning the funds or what they used them for, which is a problem.

To be clear charities can pivot over time. If they active their primary mission or collect new funds under a different mission that’s generally fine. But a wildlife sanctuary can’t just use it’s land to build a collage.