[SCAQTony]

Does anyone truly believe Musk had benevolent intentions? But before we even evaluate the substance of that claim, we must ask whether he has standing to make it. In his court filing, Musk uses the word "nonprofit" 111 times, yet fails to explain how reverting OpenAI to a nonprofit structure would save humanity, elevate the public interest, or mitigate AI’s risks. The legal brief offers no humanitarian roadmap, no governance proposal, and no evidence that Musk has the authority to dictate the trajectory of an organization he holds no equity in. It reads like a bait and switch — full of virtue-signaling, devoid of actionable virtue. And he never had a contract or an agreement for with OpenAI to keep it a non-profit.

Musk claimed Fraud, but never asked for his money back in the brief. Could it be his intentions were to limit OpenAI to donations thereby sucking the oxygen out of the venture capital space to fund Xai's Grok?

Musk claimed he donated $100mil, later in a CNBC interview, he said $50-mil. TechCrunch suggests it was way less.

Speakingof humanitarian, how about this 600lbs Oxymoron in the room: A Boston University mathematician has now tracked an estimated 10,000 deaths linked to the Musk's destruction of USAID programs, many of which provided basic health services to vulnerable populations. He may have a death count on his reume in the coming year.

Non profits has regulation than publicly traded companies. Each quarterly filings is like a colonoscopy with Sorbonne Oxley rules etc. Non profits just file a tax statement. Did you know the Chirch of Scientology is a non-profit.

[timewizard]

Replace Musk with "any billionaire."

He's a symptom of a problem. He's not actually the problem.

[xpe]

If you are a materialist, the laws of physics are the problem.

But to speak plainly, Musk is a complex figure, frequently problematic, and he often exacts a tool on the people around him. Part of this is attributable to his wealth, part to his particulars. When he goes into "demon mode", to use Walter Isaacson's phrase, you don't want to be in his way.

[xpe]

* tool -> toll

[timewizard]

> If you are a materialist, the laws of physics are the problem.

I'm a citizen, the laws of politics are the problem.

> Musk is a complex figure

Hogwash. He's greedy. There's nothing complex about that.

> and he often exacts a tool on the people around him

Yea it's a one way transfer of wealth from them to him. The _literal_ definition of a "toll."

> When he goes into "demon mode"

When he decides to lie, cheat and steal? Why do you strain so hard to lionize this behavior?

> you don't want to be in his way.

Name a billionaire who's way you would _like_ to be in. Elon Musk literally stops existing tomorrow. A person who's name you don't currently know will become known and take his place.

His place needs to be removed. It's not a function of his "personality" or "particulars." That's just goofy "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" thinking.

[xpe]

> Why do you strain so hard to lionize this behavior?

> lionize: give a lot of public attention and approval to (someone); treat as a celebrity: modern athletes are lionized.

Where in my comment do I lionize Musk?

Please calm down. Please try to be charitable and curious rather than accusatory towards me.

[timewizard]

> Where in my comment do I lionize Musk?

You attribute to personality what should be attributed to malice. You do this three times.

> Please calm down

I am perfectly calm.

> Please try to be charitable and curious rather than accusatory towards me.

In attempting to explain why my point of view has been misunderstood by you I also attempted to find a reason for it. I do not think my explanation makes you a bad person nor do I think you should be particularly confronted by it.

[xpe]

> In attempting to explain why my point of view has been misunderstood by you I also attempted to find a reason for it.

What have I misunderstood? Help me understand. What is the key point you want to make that you think I misunderstand?

>> (me) When he goes into "demon mode"

> When he decides to lie, cheat and steal? Why do you strain so hard to lionize this behavior?

I hope this is clear: I'm not defending Musk's actions. Above, I'm just using the phrase that Walter Isaacson uses: "demon mode". Have you read the book or watched an interview with Isaacson about it? The phrase is hardly flattering, and I certainly don't use it to lionize Musk. Is there some misunderstanding on this part?

>>>> (me) But to speak plainly, Musk is a complex figure, frequently problematic, and he often exacts a tool on the people around him. Part of this is attributable to his wealth, part to his particulars. When he goes into "demon mode", to use Walter Isaacson's phrase, you don't want to be in his way.

>> (me) Where in my comment do I lionize Musk?

> You attribute to personality what should be attributed to malice. You do this three times.

Please spell this out for me. Where are the three times I do this?

Also, let's step back. Is the core of this disagreement about trying to detect malice in Elon's head? Detecting malice is not easy. Malice may not even be present; many people rationalize actions in such a way so they feel like they are acting justly.

Even if we could detect "malice", wouldn't we want to assess what causes that malice? That's going to be tough to disentangle with him being on the Autism spectrum and also having various mental health struggles.

Along with most philosophers, I think free will (as traditionally understood) is an illusion. From my POV, attempting to blame Musk requires careful explanation. What do we mean? A short lapse of judgment? His willful actions? His intentions? His character? The overall condition of his brain? His upbringing? Which of these is Elon "in control of"? From the materialist POV, none.

From a social and legal POV, we usually draw lines somewhere. We don't want to defenestrate ethics or morality; we still have to find ways to live together. This requires careful thinking about justice: prevention, punishment, reintegration, etc. Overall, the focus shifts to policies that improve societal well-being. It doesn't help to pretend like people could have done otherwise given their situation. We _want_ people to behave better, so we should design systems to encourage that.

I dislike a huge part of what Musk has done, and I think more is likely to surface. Like we said earlier -- and I think we probably agree -- Musk is part of a system. Is he a cause or symptom? It depends on how you frame the problem.