zlacker

Key word being "had".

He is not part of it any more.

>In 2018, Musk resigned his board seat, citing "a potential future conflict [of interest]" with his role as CEO of Tesla due to Tesla's AI development for self-driving cars, but remained a donor

I don't think he counts as an investor, and I'd imagine he has stopped donating.

>>wodeno+(OP)
The irony here is that Musk resigned in order to pursue his own closed-source for profit AI businesses and is now complaining about OpenAI being closed-source and for profit AI.

If people are feeling conflicted about who the asshole is in this situation, don't be, they are all morally bankrupt assholes who all already have many lifetimes of unimaginable wealth yet must take ever more. These are not people who should have any power in our world.

>>wodeno+(OP)
this is pedantic, but the parent comment was conjugating "to have" to "had" via the subjunctive, not via the past tense

>>atchoo+O8
The difference is that Tesla isn't claiming to be open about AI.

>>permo-+du
He's right tho

>>dotnet+hZ
And resigning because he was working on a competitor was completely the right thing to do. It would have been a conflict of interest. How often does that type of integrity even happen nowadays?

The whole "ELON MUSK BAD NOW" change to the zeitgeist is alarming to me. He was the darling of the left for years because of Tesla and SpaceX, but now he's completely persona non grata for...reasons?

It smacks of excommunication for heresy.

>>udev40+p21
oh yeah of course, no question there

>>Chicke+4w1
He got richer so he must be bad.

How you can build a successful car company in the US without getting super rich, I don't know.

>>Chicke+4w1
Might it also have to do with his positions on almost everything conflicting with most people's? A lot of people didn't realize what a narcissistic manchild he was until recently.

>>permo-+du
I don’t know what a subjunctive is. Maybe that is what caused the confusion.