zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
This suit claims breach of the "Founding Agreement". However, there is no actualy Founding Agreement, there are email communications claimed to be part of a "Founding Agreement". IANAL, but I would suspect that these emails don't matter for much now that there are Ariticles of Incorporation. Those articles are mentioned, but the "Founding Agreement" implied by emails is mentioned more. The suit also seems alarmist by stating that GPT4 is AGI.

It seems like Elon could win a suit to the extent that he could get all of his donations back based on the emails soliciting donation for a purpose that was then changed.

But Elon's goal in this suit is clearly to bring back the "Open" in "OpenAI"- share more information about GPT4 and newer models and eliminate the Microsoft exclusive licensing. Whether this would happen based on a suit like this seems like it would come down to an interpretation of the Articles of Incorporation.

>>gregwe+Rh1
Page 37 of the lawsuit has the certificate of incorporation. It says precisely what Musk claims it says. That’s the founding document he’s referencing.

>>codexb+Zt1
> It says precisely what Musk claims it says.

Almost. Musk uses an ellipsis in his copy in the text that elides some text that is rather detrimental to his claims:

> In furtherance of its purposes, the corporation shall engage in any lawful act of activity for which nonprofit corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of Delaware.

>>jcranm+hj2
> In furtherance of its purposes