Musk is suing OpenAI. Musk’s legal teams’ argument in two premises is:
- OpenAI’s ‘contract’ as stated in their founding agreement was to make any AGI system for the benefit of humanity.
- GPT-4 is an AGI system ∴ OpenAI, by licensing GPT-4 exclusively to Microsoft, has effectively breached this agreement by making the first AGI system beholden to corporate interests. Musk’s team also alleges that OpenAI is effectively an Microsoft subsidiary at the moment.
OpenAI deserves the lawsuits, but alleging that GPT-4 as a base model is anywhere close to AGI is probably not the angle to put it lightly.
Some other arguments:
OpenAI has comitted promissory estoppel by moving away from the open source non-profit model Musk initially invested in.
(This means that OpenAI has breached a promise enforceable by Law)
OpenAI has committed a breach of fiduciary duty by using Musk’s funding on for-profit projects against the initial understanding of that funding’s usage - letting Microsoft on OpenAI’s Board of Directors and not open-sourcing GPT-4 are their examples of this.
(OpenAI had a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of their clients, which they failed)
OpenAI has engaged in unfair business practices by convincing Musk they would commit to the ‘Founding Agreement’
(I think this is self explanatory)
DAMAGES
Musk wants:
A. Court to order OpenAI to follow their ‘Founding Agreement’ which means cutting the Microsoft connection and open sourcing.
B. A judicial ruling that GPT-4 constitutes AGI, and any followup models related to it.
C. Return of all money Musk invested into OpenAI that was spent on ‘for-profit’ projects.
D. General damages to be determined by court.
Personally, I think banging hard on the ‘GPT-4 is AGI angle’ is a really mistaken line of argument and it’s a huge weakspot in their case. OpenAI can probably be sued for a lot of things, as we’re seeing with NYT, so it’s not like this is their only angle of approach. I want to see them get sued in court just in a vindictive sense, but I don’t think this is how you do it.
Confusing: The Worst Person You Know Just Attempted To Make An Extremely Muddled Point
I think the big thing he wants out of this is the open-sourcing part so he can take the code and use it for the twitter AI
That makes more sense. Good angle
^.^
Says the dude who took twitter and made it into a walled garden for profit motive reasons.
I’ve seen definitions of AGI vary from anything that shows transfer of learning (which GPT-4 already fulfills) to being able to automate 99% of all remote work jobs (which GPT-4 is nowhere close to). Elon Musk could have a case here if the first definition is used, but I do agree that claiming that GPT-4 is AGI is a huge weak point in his case.
The case comes down to the legal definition of a buzzword; what a good use of everyone’s time. Death to all involved, of course.
