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.
(Not a lawyer, obviously.)
I also found this: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
>Representative of its remedial objectives, the [Unfair Competition Law] originally granted standing to "any person" suing on behalf of "itself, its members, or on behalf of the general public." This prompted a public outcry over perceived abuses of the UCL because the UCL granted standing to plaintiffs without requiring them to show any actual injury. In response, California voters approved Proposition to amend the UCL to require that the plaintiff prove injury from the unfair practice. Despite this stricter standing requirement, both business competitors and consumers may still sue under the UCL.
In this case there’s a specific agreement that’s allegedly been breached. Basically they said results of AI research would be shared openly without benefiting any specific party, and then later entered into a private agreement with Microsoft.
I don’t know how binding any of this is, but I doubt this will simply be dismissed by the judge.
reads prayer for relief
> For a judicial determination that GPT-4 constitutes Artificial General Intelligence
Okay, WTF? I'm going to have to read the entire complaint now.....
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.
If not, I certainly hope the courts establish a clear precedent so that The Red Cross can do an IPO. Or even better, the state SPCAs. "Our unique value proposition is that we can take anyone's dog away."
Depends on how big and important of a donor you are. If you are a billionaire donor, not only do you have a say in how the university is managed, you have a say on who does the managing.
> You can at best say you will no longer donate based on how the university is managed.
Tell that to the former presidents of harvard, upenn, etc.
IANAL
As for lawsuit vs criminal prosecution, the waters there are somewhat muddied. Consider the OJ case, where he was acquitted in the criminal trial and then found liable in the civil trial. Really bizarre stuff.
Personally I do think more things should be pursued criminally, but instead we seem to just be content to trade money through the courts, like an exorbitant and agonizing form of weregild.
This can also be exacerbated by ‘friendly’ (corrupt) courts that allow or even encourage this behavior.
If you are shareholder of the non-profit, do you not get to share any of the fat gains by the profit side?
A single frivolous lawsuit happens here and there, it's when people/organizations are clearly malicious and abusing the system by filing continuous suits against others.
While I don’t think we are close to AGI, we also have to acknowledge that term is forever changing meaning and goal posts , even 10 years back a Turing test would be considered sufficient, obviously not anymore .
The scientific, public understanding is changing constantly and a court would have difficulty in making a decision if there is no consensus , it only has to see if the contractual definition has been met
Its pretty much—especially a 501c3—the opposite, a substantial set of restrictions in behavior, on top of those which would face an organization doing similar things that was not a 501c3.
And the other individuals aren't even quoted, which is strong evidence that they didn't actually say anything even remotely in support of "reaffirming" the nonprofit structure (especially given that his lawyers were heavy handed with including quotes when they could be even remotely construed in favor of Musk's position) and that Musk is unilaterally characterizing whatever they actually said to support his claims, however reasonable or unreasonable that may be.
Due to the money at stake, and given that both Musk and Altman have serious credibility issues that would make a trial outcome impossible to predict, I expect this to be settled by giving Musk a bunch of stock in the for-profit entity to make shut up.
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.
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.
If it's part of a legal document, they're certainly the ones to decide that (relying on precedent, expert testimony, logical reasoning, etc.)