[granzymes]

My own thoughts:

If I had been on the jury, I would have found against Musk on every point.

His lawyers created a “3 phases of doubt” to try and sidestep the statute of limitations, but it was clearly bogus and he was on notice of OpenAI creating a for-profit in 2019.

Musk was perfectly happy to have OpenAI be a for-profit, a non-profit with an attached for-profit (the current structure), or even just absorbed into Tesla. His complaints fell flat for me given the number of emails where he said that a non-profit was likely a mistake.

This is technical, but Musk clearly never created a charitable trust, which was a precondition for his claims. His funds were donated for general use by OpenAI, not for any specific use that would allow him to claim breach of charitable trust. Also, all of his funds were spent by no later than 2020 which is before his alleged breach in 2023.

Musk unreasonably delayed bringing this case until the success of ChatGPT and starting a competing AI company, and he had unclean hands because he attempted to sabotage OpenAI repeatedly by poaching its key staff while on the board.

[DeusExMachina]

As I read around, this lawsuit raised an important question: can a non-profit become a for-profit company?

To that extent, what Musk was happy or unhappy with is irrelevant. What is actually allowed by the law is more important.

However, it seems that the lawsuit was not phrased that way and Musk just looked for damages to himself. In that frame it's not much of a surprise that things ended this way.

[rreichman]

There is a well established procedure for these things, happens in hospitals etc. Not a new question a jury needs to address.

[Pingk]

Not related to the story, but that your go-to example of converting to a for-profit organisation is a hospital is horrifying to me

[sigmoid10]

It's also not so easy. The for profit entity essentially has to buy all the previous entity's assets and assume liabilities. Since the assets are considered charitable trusts, the proceeds from the sale then need to go into a new charitable foundation. Regulators also need to approve that the assets were fairly valued and the entire process was free of conflicts of interest. Albeit complicated, the process is pretty straightforward for hospitals. But in OpenAI's case it seems more like they tried to jump through every legal loophole they found.

[philipallstar]

> can a non-profit become a for-profit company?

Presumably a non-profit can move all its staff and its stuff into a for-profit anyway.

[andy_ppp]

Would Musk have standing for asking that question about non-profit to for profit companies? I think this would be a role for the government rather than a private individual and the Trump admin is not exactly fond of enforcing regulations.

[DeusExMachina]

It does not matter what standing Musk has, the question is the important part, not the asker. You can accuse him of hipocrisy and that still makes no difference. He can still be the vehicle for the question to be asked.

The role of the government is to make the laws, and to apply them when violation are reported. It is also to regulate new situations as they arise, for example, if a court decides the law allows a non-profit to become a for-profit and that is deemed as not desirable, new laws can be passed to amend that.

It is the government roles, however, to going around to aks hypothetical questions before they are risen by someone, as there are too many possible hypotheticals, most never materialize, and that would be a conflict of interest. In that case Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided.

The Trump admin is not fond of enforcing regulations as the Biden admin was not fond of enforcing other regulations. That shows you can't expect the govenment to take that role since it's discretionary.

[ryan_j_naughton]

There is a reason standing exists. We don't want a society where anyone can litigate the ill-defined "important questions of society" at will.

I agree with you that this is an important question.

I disagree with you that, "Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided"

Standing is itself a very important and critical concept. If anyone could sue over any “important” public issue without standing, courts would be asked to referee disputes that are normally handled by elections, legislation, agency rulemaking, oversight hearings, and public debate. We don't want the courts to be such arbiters of so many matters and want their purview to be more narrow by design.

[j16sdiz]

> If I had been on the jury, I would have found ...

No, you wouldn't.

The case was thrown out of court before you have any chance to comment or decide on that.

Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.

[trainfromkansas]

Juries are the "finders of fact". That's the phrase often used anyway.

[j16sdiz]

How Jury in USA work is: Judge ask a question, Jury tell the count what they found the "fact" is, based on what is presented in court.

They just can't "found" something when they are not asked. If you tell the count you found something because you saw something outside the court, that would consider invalid.

[trainfromkansas]

Practically speaking, since the jury is composed of multiple individuals, they're set up to express their "findings" via a strictly parameterized form where they check boxes or give numerical inputs.

In its more colloquial sense, I can see why you prefer to call that "answering" questions rather than "finding" facts.

However, it's silly to quibble over the parent thread's author's usage of "found" when it's the dominant phrasing used in the legal system.

[DarkBrocoli]

> The case was thrown out of court before you have any chance to comment or decide on that.

No, it has been decided by the jury https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/572/musk-v-alt...

> Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.

And here the jury has been asked questions about the statute of limitation, which is exactly what the parent commenter is referring to.

[IAmBroom]

It's even more preposterous that you can predetermine what a stranger would have done on that jury.

[j16sdiz]

I am saying the rule in court won't allow that.

The problem is: As a jury, you can't answer the question you ain't asked.

In this case, they jury was instructed to answer a YES/NO question. They can say YES/NO or (sometimes, can't decide). They just can't answer something else. If they do, that is either disregarded, or consider the jury misunderstood the instruction.

You just don't understand how the jury system works.

[DoesntMatter22]

Musk should have just made another company and then he’d have another 500 billion but he had that mistake and now it’s over. Then again we’ll see how well open ai does over the long term

[granzymes]

Evidence at trial showed that Musk attempted to pursue AGI at Tesla starting in 2017 before he left the board of OpenAI. He was unsuccessful in that endeavor and later restarted his efforts in xAI after the success of ChatGPT.

[big_toast]

Musk leaves the board in 2018 I think. And something happens in DX-754 where they've pivoted to AI in SpaceX around then too. I had a lot of trouble telling what "AI" meant in late 2017 at Tesla.

---

Sept 1, 2017 DX-669: Funding paused confirmation. Elon is still on the board for a while. DX-707 specifies the board as of Sept 26, 2017, and even suggests adding Shivon, Jared, Sam Teller.

Jan 31, 2018 DX-748: Elon is still discussing things with Greg. Elon: "The only paths I can think of are a major expansion of OpenAI and a major expansion of Tesla AI. Perhaps both simultaneously"

Feb 3, 2018 DX-754: Sam Teller says Elon "just suggested we use SpaceX email for AI stuff so switching over to that"

Feb 4, 2018 DX-755: Sam Teller and Shivon Zilis discuss disabling Openai

Feb 20, 2018 DX-770: Elon officially leaves board (first document I see specifying)

[this_user]

This is not about money for him, this was always about control. When they wouldn't give him complete control over the project, he pulled out and probably expected OAI to fold without his support. But they survived, and he eventually realised that he had made a huge mistake by giving up all of his influence over SOTA AI research.

[andrei_says_]

I sometimes wonder, what does one need a second 500 billion that the first 500 billion is not enough for?

[aeternum]

Interestingly, during the trial he promised to donate any potential financial winnings to OpenAI's charity.

A move that surprisingly didn't get much press.

[burkaman]

I think you are referring to a tweet on March 16th where he said "Btw, the proceeds of any legal victory in the OpenAI case will be donated to charity. I will in no way enrich myself." Not during the trial, not a donation to OpenAI's charity, and obviously not meaningful given his track record of not following through on public statements.

[aeternum]

It was official, he amended the lawsuit to codify it, read it for yourself: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Musk-...

[burkaman]

Thanks, couldn't find this. This is essentially a proposal to the court about how the case could be resolved though, not a promise, and he only proposed it after the judge denied his original proposal (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Musk-...), which was "give me $134 billion". I think it would have been a little more credible if he had requested this originally.

Even taking it at face value, it's just an idea for the judge to consider, not legally binding for anybody.

[matthewdgreen]

Putting it into a filing does not necessarily make it legally binding. I asked ChatGPT and (although it is clearly in the bag for OpenAI ;) it gave more color: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a0baf4a-e408-83ea-a44b-ff68bacb64...

[oneeyedpigeon]

That man's promises aren't worth a whole lot.

[NikolaNovak]

I genuinely don't know how to make a non-sarcastic statement about Mr. Elon Musk's promises.

I especially struggle to not make a Venn diagram of people who still take Mr. Musk's promises seriously, and current state of American politics.

I simply cannot make a sentence about Mr. Musks promises that will pass Hacker News guidelines of being serious and productive.

...And that's how I feel about Mr. Musks promises, particularly those regarding donations and charities. I think the only way that promise by Mr Musk could've been made stronger, is if it were a Twitter poll :).

[laichzeit0]

You’ve written around the existence of pronouns with impressive determination.

[6510]

Each buck we spend is a vote for a business (which is a bag of ideals and methods) It is surprising that people apparently desire a future where they don't even have to bother listening to those in charge as every word is completely irrelevant. I had considered they don't understand capitalism is quite open to influence but they also do it in elections.

[the_gastropod]

Elon Musk promises a lot of things that never come to fruition.

[dmschulman]

Have we colonized Mars yet? Asking for a friend.

[Nevermark]

I don't understand this thinking at all.

I share all the disillusionment and cynicism about Musk, shared here by others.

But he has also done amazing things. When someone declares they are going to create a Martian colony, something literally "out of this world", and against all odds makes unbelievable progress for years, including re-usable rockets that return and land vertically, more efficient powerful engines, and fast operational turnarounds, while making orbital travel mundane, hanging a criticism of schedules on the weak hook of "yet" is myopic.

[vixen99]

As a straight answer (for 'one') I'm sure we could think a dozen projects that would ameliorate suffering for countless people before breakfast without trying. However I appreciate that's not your point.

[knicholes]

Getting to Mars, it would seem.

[nicolas_17]

I agree we'd all be better off if SpaceX figured out how to send Musk to Mars ASAP.

[hdndjsbbs]

Does anyone seriously still believe this? I thought as a society we had realized Musk is simply BSing whatever he feels like until it becomes untenable.

[dogscatstrees]

Oh, you mean like:

Solar Roof: https://electrek.co/2026/05/14/tesla-solar-roof-promise-vs-r...

Tesla Full Self Driving: https://electrek.co/2026/05/18/musk-unsupervised-fsd-widespr...

Hyperloop / Boring Company mass-transit vision

Mars settlement timelines

X as an everything app

[hsuduebc2]

I mean, most of his wealth is coming from his overhyping skill, you can also tell marketing. Or lying.

I consider him a visionary in a sense of innovation but he is insecure and immoral one.

Needles to say his investors made money on his over promises.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Does anyone seriously still believe this?

I do. It’s not his singular focus. But he continues to personally invest himself in pushing the boundaries of human spacefaring capability. That goal seems more meaningful to him that it does to e.g. Bezos, who seems to have a rocket company to look cool.

[awesome_dude]

I know there's a risk when Musk's name comes up that everyone takes "all against" or "all for" approach - very polarising figure.

But I see a lot of that announcement, and the others someone else pointed to as his "aspirational, but ultimately never going to happen" goals - whether he believes the claims are achievable, or not, he says these things to energise people to working/paying for him to try

It costs him little to nothing to say, and other people's time, effort, and capital to try (and succeed/fail)

Tesla is falling to pieces now, and SpaceX is getting loaded up with completely unrelated projects (xAI) in order to try and make it look saleable (I guess) - it's very difficult to see the Mars announcement as anything but hype.

[nixon_why69]

He slashed tons of basic science funding under DOGE.

At one point he was probably sincere but he's been consumed by culture war slop.

[4dfg]

What a load of crap. He pushes this narrative purely for valuation purposes.

He has a legion of people propping up his stock by manipulating them into believing he is a wizard.

[thejazzman]

It’s in his own biography (the older one) that spacex would pursue mars without distraction. That he went to great lengths to ensure it wouldn’t be used for military, tourism, etc.

You can’t believe musk without simultaneously believing he’s a liar. It’s in HIS fucking book.

[tehjoker]

This is a joint project of U.S. government military planners and an ostensible private individual. If Elon disappeared, rest assured, the contracts and development would still happen.

They want mega constellations for always-on drone guidance and for "golden dome" which would allow for the laser-based shoot-down of long range exo-atmospheric missiles. You need reusable spacecraft to make that tenable. This is not about Mars, don't buy the marketing. At best for civilians, this is about making broadband widely available such that America can dominate internet connectivity going forward and increase spying further. As an example, examine a map of Starlink connectivity, you will notice that Russia and Gaza are excluded.

The Artemis missions will eventually enable the placement of communications equipment on the moon, making anti-satellite weapons less effective at disrupting critical communications.

Fortress America will be invincible forever, so so they desire. The macroeconomics are not working out for them though even though the technological edge is still working for them on that level.

[48terry]

> pushing the boundaries of human spacefaring capability

I guess polluting space with shitty satellites and causing environmental disasters with failed and questionably-permitted rocket launches is, technically, pushing on boundaries of human spacefaring capability.

[tim333]

Some things fail but the EVs and rockets have done well. Also Starlink.

[harrall]

Musk is like that person on Facebook you know that is really good at <welding / programming / performing surgeries / etc> then they post about their thoughts on some other topic and all you can respond with is “stay in your lane.”

Musk has been successful is pure engineering efforts led by engineers he hired achieving the next big-but-not-too-big step.

You ignore his thoughts on everything else.

[kakacik]

Or... you maintain some moral integrity, and consider him POS despite all his deliveries. People clearly can be great and horrible at the same time, why the desperate need to paint everything black & white and ignore all the fine details of reality.

These people are all about massive ego trips and legacies. So let them build their legacy as they truly were with all the + and -, not some idealized, simplified image. Truth always deserves to be told, however inconvenient. Sort of moral imperative of a moral human being if you want.

[NikolaNovak]

I genuinely believe he wants to go to Mars. Desperately.

He's fundamentally a very smart socially inept largely sociopathic emotionally immature obsessively driven boy who read a lot of Heinlein as a kid. Everything about him indicates he sees himself as a saviour of humanity and the only person who has their priorities right and everybody should appreciate and adore him and it's so darn frustrating when they don't, oh wait this other party will adore me, now they don't anymore either oh HUMbug.

Do I believe any of his promises? No absolutely not. But I do think Mars is his massive obsession and that he fervently (If completely Implausibly) believes it'll work and help humanity.

[tim333]

Also Project Mars: A Technical Tale maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mars:_A_Technical_Tale

It features a leader called the Elon who Musk may have been partly named after. (https://www.mind-war.com/p/the-elon-how-a-nazi-rocket-scient...)

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Which is why we should start using 'greed' as the primary way we talk about this sort of person.

"Greediest man in the world Elon Musk..." "Captains of Greed" instead of "Captains of Industry" "Larry Ellison, notable for his legendary greed,"

[DoesntMatter22]

To build more cool stuff. Would be great if he did neurolink for cancer

[latexr]

Every <unit of currency> not in your pocket is in someone else’s. Greedy narcissists can’t stand that, they need to have it all. They don’t need the extra 500 billion to spend it, they need it so the number goes up. They need to be number one. At everything. Remember when Musk lied about being one of the top players for some difficult video game, then it turned out he was paying someone else to play for him? It’s just an ego thing, which I agree is baffling.

[_carbyau_]

Yeah, but lets practice some empathy.

Starting point: money can't buy happiness.

So what to do to be happy? Extreme wealth removes most practical goals like buying things or going places and doing things. Not that you can't do them, but it's not a meaningful goal to work towards.

They have to create their own meaning, whatever that is.

A billionaire trying to create purpose for themselves can be boring, or weird. Which one gets media coverage?

Gates Foundation, Zukerberg's fitness craze, MacKenzie Scott's philanthropy, Bezos and Musk's [whateverness] are all just variations on a theme. And like all people, some will be better at it than others.

Note though, that they will do what it takes to stay wealthy because what would they be without that?

[latexr]

Greedy narcissists are lacking in empathy, that’s what makes them greedy narcissists.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be empathetic, of course. Someone else’s lack of empathy does not excuse our own. However, consider that billionaires mostly reach that status by exploiting others. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, they all fit that mould. Being empathetic does not mean being a chump. I’m not going to shed a tear for the poor exploitative billionaire who underpays and overworks people to the point they literally die on the floor of their warehouses and others around them are ordered to keep working.

If given the choice to defend the one billionaire who is fucking up the world and billions of lives in the process, or those who are being exploited by said billionaire, I think it’s obvious where one should place their empathy.

It’s not my responsibility, or yours, or anyone but themselves, that they can’t find meaning in life without being massive assholes. Use some of that money to go to therapy. Use it to enhance the lives of others around you, improve your community and you improve your own well being. It’s not that hard, we’ve known for a long time that a way to happiness is to do things for others.

Musk himself has lamented that money does not buy happiness, and after that expressed the desire to become the first trillionaire. I mean, come on…

[_carbyau_]

I wasn't trying to say all billionaires deserve an outpouring of defence for their actions. Merely that their actions are as human as the rest of us, just in a different context.

And like the rest of us, there are those who cope better or worse, who are morally better or worse. Police are another bunch of people judged similarly.

Which is to say, there are indeed woeful billionaires. Possibly most of them. But don't paint the humans all with the same brush, even if the way to fix society might be to do so legally.

[kakacik]

> Extreme wealth removes most practical goals like buying things or going places and doing things.

Sorry can't agree on this at all. Helping others feels amazing to any sane human being. Doing sports is similar. Experiencing adrenaline sports is similar. Focusing on raising one's kids properly is always exceptionally well-spent time, and feels great if one is not burned out and has some help against overloading with responsibilities. Thats a plenty of meaning for one's life, regardless of fortune.

The fact is, most of those billionaires are broken human beings - various mental issues, imbalances, maniacally competitive, often sociopaths. They can't achieve what society calls 'happiness', regardless of amount of money spent. So they into various status ego competitive 'games'.

I am pretty sure we all met such people in our lives if you looked close enough, I certainly did. Ie one girl I dated even outright laughed at happiness being my life goal, she was such a mess and knew it she rather openly focused on career and money, those were at least somewhat achievable for her. Its logical - if you can't achieve something important, you focus on next best thing, however inferior it may be. And if one surrounds oneself with the right people, one is not constantly reminded how it actually sucks and there is no force in universe to change that.

[lotsofpulp]

Because money is just a proxy for power, and the goal is not to have cash, it is to have power. Perhaps via being able to make decisions at various businesses, or being able to travel to a different planet, or being able to influence other people, etc.

Could also partly be a curiosity to see what one is capable of, or maybe wanting to be known for helming an organization that accomplishes xyz.

[robocat]

Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion? Makes me think of a inverted Zeno's paradox.

Why do you need an extra dollar?

I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A].

You need a fukton more than median wealth to be able to protect yourself against your own government.

The type of person that enjoys chasing money doesn't stop.

[A] via capital gains taxes and wealth taxes. Also one needs an excessive amount more to handle progressive taxation and means testing.

[KaiserPro]

> I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A].

New Zeeland is an outlier in that it doesn't have capital gains tax.

Its not the end of the world to have captial gains tax.

[robocat]

CGT is fine.

I wasn't trolling, but I have unfortunately deviated from the topic.

What isn't fine is my belief that I'm going to be rug-pulled by my government. From multiple sources I believe New Zealand will tax most savings to smithereens. The lie is that I should save for retirement; when any savings will be taken from me over time via a variety of mechanisms including taxes.

Both our Labour (leftish) and National parties will screw me.

The underlying issue is that our demographics leave little choice to the government. The majority of voters are naturally happy to take everything from everyone who has more than them. Voters are selfish.

Attacking the successful is called the tall-poppy syndrome down here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome (I'm nowhere near successful enough for much backlash - but I do fear it).

I was trying to make a argument based on marginal economics. NZ should be encouraging me to increase my income from export earnings: instead it drastically discourages me. I helped found a startup, so I deeply understand the multiple ways our government discourages us from earning export income. My marginal utility from an extra dollar is already drastically diminished because I already have enough to enjoy my life. The >40% taxation on top (incl GST) reduces my motivation to earn money for NZ to nearly zero. I am not a money chaser and I dislike investing.

After some threshold, money as a marginal value becomes meaningless because other non-monetary factors like politics dominate. It seems like nobody cares how much society profits from you - they only care about their own selfish goals.

[ericmay]

It’s also not the end of the world to not have capital gains tax.

[awesome_dude]

Why did you turn that into a whine about a tax that exists in 31 of 38 OECD economies?

Go to Australia where you pay a stamp duty for buying (to pay for infra) and a CGT for selling

Edit: Changed stamp tax to stamp duty

[abustamam]

I want extra money so I can pay for simple things like food and pay my mortgage and send my kid to a school, and help family members out.

Realistically I probably need $5m and I'd be set for life.

If I had $10m instead of $5m I don't see how my life would meaningfully change.

[scottyah]

That's the difference between builders and consumers. People who are mostly consumers have a realistic number where they could stop contributing to society. Smalltime builders can imagine a lot of wealth, but at a certain point don't want to get too big. Big Dreamers are only limited by what they can imagine and make happen, and only infinite capital, labor, and time could achieve their dreams. Once you surround yourself with people dreaming of humans as multiplanetary, earthly levels of labor and wealth are obviously not going to make it happen.

[mc3301]

Hmm... I think I could be set for life with, like, $1m.

Obviously age, family, lifestyle and current savings matter.

[Danox]

As long as all the basics are paid for house, car, know how to cook maybe have a small garden and no other debt you probably can.

[robocat]

I used to think that. A simple home. Plus a basic middle class income - to cover necessities and a some extra disposableincome. I figured 1 million for a home and 1 million for investments. Nothing too flash, just cover the basics.

The National NZ median house price is about NZD800k, and the Christchurch average estimated value is about NZD800k. That's about how much I spent in a less desirable suburb (Brighton). And I will have to downsize when I reach 65 because otherwise progressive council taxes (rates) and insurance will drawdown my savings too quickly.

We don't have social security in New Zealand: the government takes our taxes and has paid past retirees superannuation (NZD500 per week). But I'm unlikely to receive that: our government must renege on the expectation because the demographics are unaffordable (tweaking multiple constraints to fuck me - e.g. introducing means testing so that if you save you lose).

In theory we could grow our economy. But our government doesn't understand how to create economic growth via good incentives. I know that because my personal incentives are totally out of economic whack (I'm the perfect demographic for a second startup). I have acquaintances who are living in cars, and their incentives are also completely fucked.

You simply can't look at what your retirees do now and make any projection based on that: governments have to pull the rug on you.

House prices depend on the next generation signing up for ever bigger mortgages (such that their interest payments eat the majority of their income). When the music stops, homeowner's expectations will be screwed.

In New Zealand we prop up our economy using immigrants: but that is an unsustainable engine.

New Zealand is increasing taxes faster than investments accrue. We have a 5% wealth tax on owning overseas shares worth more than NZD50000 in total. Investment gains are taxed at 30% or more - e.g. dividends or investment funds.

We currently have a partial CGT on property, and the CGT will take more and more of property gains (perhaps a good thing to discourage property investors?).

In the past in Christchurch residential property generally stayed ahead of inflation by about 1.5%–3% per year in real terms. A CGT of ~30% could easily make that return nothing. That's the norm in New Zealand: work hard, take risks, get no reward. Need luck.

Individually the taxes (and costs such as insurance) appear reasonable, but they screw any hope of using compounding to maintain a reasonable drawdown. A 4% drawdown could absolutely fuck you if you have the bad luck to live a little longer. See https://paulgraham.com/wtax.html

Getting taxed at an unsustainable rate is probably unavoidable without radically changing one's life or taking extreme risks. I had thought 1 million savings would be enough with compounding, but it is clear our government wants to take a massive bite of any investment gains such that you have wasted time and effort, and your investment risks may have no gains.

We have socialised healthcare, but I think we are heading towards the same reality as the US where you likely have to make yourself broke before getting any help (and the help will be more constrained).

The current retirees get financial and healthcare benefits that I will never ever get. Even though many retirees live on extremely meagre means.

It doesn't matter how much I give to the NZ economy: I believe my politicians when they propose measures to take my rewards from me. I use my engineering to be realistic. I'm not yet a hardened cynic (although perhaps I'm slowly being trained to believe that world view).

I understand the economics of my country better than most.

Most people don't want to see reality. Most people look at what current retirees get, and then assume they will get the same... We aren't being lied to. It is just collectively we all hope too much and trust too much.

[danaris]

Yeah, no, this is bullshit.

You can't just apply One Simple Rule like this ("more money is always better" / "more money never makes a difference"). There is, objectively, an amount of money above which another dollar, or another billion, will never make a meaningful difference in your overall lifestyle[0].

The amount isn't a single bright line, but like with so many things, there's an area below it where extra money unquestionably improves your quality of life, and an area above it where it unquestionably doesn't.

[0] unless "your lifestyle" involves manipulating major governments and controlling the way people the world over think, which I wouldn't consider a legitimate part of "lifestyle"

[drob518]

Right. But why does everyone assume that a billionaire continues to work for the money? Besides, he doesn’t “work” for the money. He’s the primary shareholder in companies that he founded and funded. He gets another billion and another billion when everyone else puts an increasing value on his shares. Even if Elon “retired,” he’d still continue to get richer.

[rolph]

"Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion"

because thats another 250 billion less for a competitor to use against you.

[robocat]

That is zero-sum thinking.

I'm not sure how one can learn to see the world in a more positive light...

[jfyi]

I'd argue that if we don't abstract away resource usage behind currency, we are pretty firmly in negative-sum territory and zero-sum is a pretty rose colored glasses way of looking at things that is currently obscuring us from pending horrors.

These people aren't satisfied with themselves having more, everyone else must have less too.

Not that I am interested in changing your mind on this. I would, though, encourage you to actually say it's "positive-sum" if that's what you believe instead of hinting and then being vague about it for some reason.

[jamiek88]

> Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion?

Because billionaires are mentally unwell.

[jongjong]

I think this is missing the main point that Musk was never the owner of OpenAI, neither was Sam, nor the employees. The owners are the American people. I presume Musk got a tax rebate from his donation, courtesy of the taxpayer; so did every other donor.

The fact is, OpenAI was a non-profit belonging to the public and it was appropriated by the donors... Who already got their tax cuts.

This is setting a precedent that if you donate a certain amount of money to a charity, you can later convert it to a for-profit and claim to be an owner of the charity... On the basis of 'donations' which you got a tax rebate from. Very convenient.

OpenAI donors should have created a new, separate, for-profit entity completely distinct from OpenAI, with a different name, poached the original employees, implemented all the logic from scratch, collected all the training data from scratch... This would have been correct. Basically what Anthropic did seems more like the correct way.

[susiecambria]

OpenAI Foundation is a corporation established in Delaware. It has received it's 501(c)3 status from the IRS which means donations are deductible to the fullest extent of the law (or some such; it's been a long time since I've had to write that). The American people do not own the foundation.

As for the OpenAI that is a public benefits corporation, I know nothing about all the ins and outs of that type of corporation.

[ryan_j_naughton]

No one owns a nonprofit, so your analogy is fundamentally incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of how nonprofits work.

It is actually extremely important that no one “owns” a nonprofit in the way shareholders own a corporation. A nonprofit has no equity owners. It has directors/officers with fiduciary duties, and its assets must be used consistently with its charitable/public-benefit purpose.

But to be clear, that is in no way equivalent, even metaphorically, to it being "owned by the public".

“Public benefit” does not mean “whatever the median taxpayer would vote for” or “whatever the government currently approves of.” It includes many causes supported by small, unpopular, eccentric, religious, ideological, scientific, or advocacy-oriented communities, so long as the organization fits within an exempt purpose and does not operate for impermissible private benefit.

simple examples can easily elucidate this. One can found a nonprofit for a purpose that society generally disagree with. For instance: - a nonprofit to advocate for the rights of hemorrhagic fevers as living organisms - nonprofit museum devoted to preserving a deeply unpopular ideology’s historical artifacts - a nonprofit to educate the public about an eccentric scientific theory - a nonprofit advocating for legal recognition of some fringe moral concern

All of these could be legitimate nonprofits under the law, even though we may deeply disagree with them. This is by design.

[jongjong]

IMO, those arguments are grasping for specific definitions of 'ownership'. In its essence, the non-profit structure represents the concept of 'public ownership' to the fullest extent possible under the law. Of course, it's missing some characteristics typically associated with private ownership but it has the core component which is "It should serve the public" which mirrors the idea that a corporation should "Serve its shareholders."

I think if the non-profit retained over 50% of the shares of the for-profit subsidiary, a case could have been made that the public-benefit aspect is still dominant. But with only a 26% stake, that argument cannot be made.

[granzymes]

The intellectual property (code, data) was transferred from the nonprofit to the for-profit for about $60M, which is what an independent firm hired to assess the value said the IP was worth in late 2018 / early 2019. The nonprofit itself was never converted to a for-profit, and indeed remains a nonprofit to this day.

The $60M in IP has grown to about a $200B stake in the OpenAI for-profit.

[trivo]

So you're saying that the non-profit (OpenAI Foundation) owns a certain percentage of the for-profit (OpenAI Corporation)?

[dboreham]

The easiest way to think about this is to globally replace "non-profit" with "tax-vehicle". These things are all kinds of company. They just created the company in a tax efficient (for them) way.

[marcus_holmes]

I don't understand your reasoning here. You seem to be suggesting that non-profits are owned by the American people?

Is there some part of this that I'm missing where this was true of OpenAI at some point?

[jongjong]

I'm using the term 'owners' loosely here, but this is a much more reasonable interpretation than the interpretation that the donors are the owners.

[marcus_holmes]

I don't think you understand how non-profits work. Essentially they are exactly the same as for-profits, except they can't issue dividends. Ownership works exactly the same as for-profit companies.

A cynical take is that non-profits are for-salary; they still pay their owners, just using other means.

edit: no, my bad, apparently I misunderstood how non-profits work in the USA. Thanks for the correction :)

[granzymes]

This is not correct. jongjong is correct that a nonprofit does not have owners in the sense that a for-profit has owners. Nonprofits are dedicated to their mission, and are run by a board of directors.

You cannot have a % ownership in a nonprofit because its resources must be used exclusively to carry out its mission. You could have a % control in its decision making process.

[philipallstar]

Well, its resources can be used to pay giant salaries. That's somehow not against its mission.

And businesses with owners can be dedicated to their mission.

And public businesses are run by a board of directors.

The main difference isn't what you're saying, which is somewhat subject to interpretation. It's just that people can't invest money with expectation of a return, other than via employment, speaking fees, etc etc.

[tptacek]

They're correct about the equity ownership bit, but not in their argument that there's an implicit public claim of control.