Weird Open AI jury decision?

[SC Maintenance]

So the Open AI / Musk lawsuit was tossed. But supposedly the jury found that the suit had exceeded the statute of limitations and hence did not rule on the merits.

I find this very odd in that I have never heard of a jury ruling on statute of limitations. Usually that decision is made by a judge before the trial, because its pretty straight forward.

Anyone follow this trial and know if this is usual / common in California?

 

[Trav]

That is great! Musk was trying to corner the market as usual.

 

[SC Maintenance]

That is great! Musk was trying to corner the market as usual.

I disagree. If people can collect money for charities, then use that money to turn the "charity" into a for profit to enrich themselves, that doesn't sound like a great thing to me. Admittedly I didn't follow the case much.

Musk's AI is one of many, including the Chinese. Anyone can create a LLM at this point it seems. No one is going to corner the AI market.

 

[el Nuke]

So the Open AI / Musk lawsuit was tossed. But supposedly the jury found that the suit had exceeded the statute of limitations and hence did not rule on the merits.

I find this very odd in that I have never heard of a jury ruling on statute of limitations. Usually that decision is made by a judge before the trial, because its pretty straight forward.

Anyone follow this trial and know if this is usual / common in California?

The issue of whether or not the statute of limitations applied was not concrete. When did the statute begin? That was up for deliberation. Given the evidence presented during trial, the jury found that the statute applied beyond the limit of when it should have started - thus the case filing was beyond the limit.

 

[Trav]

I disagree. If people can collect money for charities, then use that money to turn the "charity" into a for profit to enrich themselves, that doesn't sound like a great thing to me. Admittedly I didn't follow the case much.

Musk's AI is one of many, including the Chinese. Anyone can create a LLM at this point it seems. No one is going to corner the AI market.

Read the case. Open AI still has a charity, that is exactly what musk was doing, exactly like he tried to do with other ventures.

 

[el Nuke]

I disagree. If people can collect money for charities, then use that money to turn the "charity" into a for profit to enrich themselves, that doesn't sound like a great thing to me. Admittedly I didn't follow the case much.

Musk's AI is one of many, including the Chinese. Anyone can create a LLM at this point it seems. No one is going to corner the AI market.

None of that matters in this case, no pun intended. Musk waited too long to file his case according to the evidence presented.

 

[fdcg27]

Musk basically got kicked out of Open AI after his attempt to take control of it failed.
His suit was nothing more than attempted retribution.

 

[el Nuke]

Musk basically got kicked out of Open AI after his attempt to take control of it failed.
His suit was nothing more than attempted retribution.

It is as amazing as it is depressing how those who have the means to afford whole law firms can attempt to use the civil justice system to effect retribution on those for whom they have nothing but disdain.

The only thing that depresses me more is to see those in power in use our criminal justice system to do the same.

 

[y_p_w]

I find this very odd in that I have never heard of a jury ruling on statute of limitations. Usually that decision is made by a judge before the trial, because its pretty straight forward.

A judge is there to make determinations of the law. A jury is there to make determinations on the facts, unless both sides stipulate to facts as true. So the jury must have had to make a determination of what they believed the facts were as to when Musk knew that OpenAI was intending to change its structure from a nonprofit to a for-profit corporation. Apparently he claimed that he didn't read the fine print and wasn't aware this was happening until maybe 2023. OpenAI's defense included messages where Musk seemed to acknowledge that well past the statute of limitations compared to when he filed. It was up to the jury to determine if they were legitimate.

 

[SC Maintenance]

The issue of whether or not the statute of limitations applied was not concrete. When did the statute begin? That was up for deliberation. Given the evidence presented during trial, the jury found that the statute applied beyond the limit of when it should have started - thus the case filing was beyond the limit.

Thank you for this.

So there is no way to determine statute of limitations without going through the entire case? Seems like a wasted process.

Of course 3 years for fraud seems like a very short limit as well (not saying that it was - just saying that was what was inferred).

 

[el Nuke]

So there is no way to determine statute of limitations without going through the entire case?

You are judging this with the benefit of hindsight.

There is a statute of limitations, yes. I believe it is 3 years for this particular case, but I could be wrong on that.

The question that was ultimately decided, and on which this case ultimately turned, was at what point should that 3 year clock start ticking?

 

[SC Maintenance]

Read the case. Open AI still has a charity, that is exactly what musk was doing, exactly like he tried to do with other ventures.

Open AI was founded specifically as a non profit to create AI for the benefit of mankind without the constraints of generating a profit.

Every company I have ever worked for large and small has a charitable side. Giveing some profit away definitely not the same.

So what were saying now is its OK to start a non-profit and if successful take all the money and energy given to it and use it to benefit certain people running it financially.

 

[SC Maintenance]

You are judging this with the benefit of hindsight.

There is a statute of limitations, yes. I believe it is 3 years for this particular case, but I could be wrong on that.

The question that was ultimately decided, and on which this case ultimately turned, was at what point should that 3 year clock start ticking?

I don't think I am judging at all.

Every case I have ever read about with this caveat the parties present there findings to a judge, and the judge decides when the statute of limitations clock started. Something like changing the structure of a company as big as going from non profit to for profit requires notice to affected parties like shareholders, and generally is not done in passing. So the only question really is when specifically did Open AI notify its donors of its intentions?

The interesting thing about this case is that appeals courts are usually loath to overturn juries, but might not be in this case because its a very technical ruling.

I appreciate your clarification. Still seems really odd to me.

 

[y_p_w]

Open AI was founded specifically as a non profit to create AI for the benefit of mankind without the constraints of generating a profit.

Every company I have ever worked for large and small has a charitable side. Giveing some profit away definitely not the same.

So what were saying now is its OK to start a non-profit and if successful take all the money and energy given to it and use it to benefit certain people running it financially.

Quite a few nonprofits have been converted to for-profit companies, although technically it’s a new for-profit company forming and purchasing the assets of the nonprofit.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Quite a few nonprofits have been converted to for-profit companies, although technically it’s a new for-profit company forming and purchasing the assets of the nonprofit.

I know some health insurance companies have, but this is fairly different. They spun off the functioning business if you will and left the money / endowment as a non profit.

The entire point of Open AI was to develop AI for the benefit of the public. The non profit is defined by the IP created. They want to keep the IP for profit, and then set aside some endowment over here as the "non profit " which was not the intent at all.

Altman and his bunch should have just went and started a different AI company. Of course they couldn't - they need to steal Open AI's IP.

 

[Trav]

Why would they have to steal what they already owned?

 

[SC Maintenance]

Why would they have to steal what they already owned?

They did not own it. The non profit owns it. The non profit was funded by donors for a specific reason. There charter as a non profit was ensuring that artificial general intelligence (AGI) "benefits all of humanity".

In addition to the original donors, I wonder how many extremely skilled scientists, programmers, and engineers that could have worked anywhere actually chose OpenAi because of this charter. So now all there work is for profit and they have also been disenfranchised.

A lot of the content OpenAI originally used to train there models was copyright. A lot of folks let this slide because of there charter. Like authors and creators wanted it to benefit humanity also.

Now the IP will benefit Open AI's pocket, not humanity. The new "non profit" will "Focuses its philanthropic initiatives on advancing life-saving health discoveries and funding technical safeguards to protect society against AI risks". Ie they get part of the profit and will likely spend it lobbying for policy the new Open AI wants, under the guise of a non profit. Much like all the political non profits.

I know people hate Musk, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[alarmguy]

Open AI was founded specifically as a non profit to create AI for the benefit of mankind without the constraints of generating a profit.

Every company I have ever worked for large and small has a charitable side. Giveing some profit away definitely not the same.

So what were saying now is its OK to start a non-profit and if successful take all the money and energy given to it and use it to benefit certain people running it financially.

I get the morals, however they and other companies have the right to transform, in this case to attract investment and further its research.
It is now a public benefit corporation as of 2025 and in the not to distant future they will have an IPO. Still with the goal of furthering their founding goals.
I mean, the way I see it, it's either have the funds to do that or become irrelevant. You can see the tens of billions, single puvlib companies like META is spending alone.
Bottom line, it's all legal.
Just because in its former self it was a non profit, doesnt mean the board and staff didnt make boatloads of money that they could ever spending in a lifetime. Just having fun here.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I get the morals, however they and other companies have the right to transform, in this case to attract investment and further its research.
It is now a public benefit corporation and in the not to distant future have an IPO. Still with the goal of furthering their founding goals.
I mean, the way I see it, it's either have the funds to do that or become irrelevant.

Where I disagree is they were not a company.

Charities attract talent they likely would not have gotten

Charities attract millions in seed money in 2015 they would likely not have gotten as a for profit.

Without the charity the technical skill would have went to work for Google or Microsoft. Altman and Chat would be nothing. Maybe AI takes a little longer as all, but that talent would not have sat on there hands.

So the whole thing is grift. If he wanted to get funding for profit he should have went to the VC's and could have learned how benevolent they are. Except Altman actually co-worked for VC's at the time he founded Open AI. So he likely always knew exactly what he was doing all along.

 

[alarmguy]

Where I disagree is they were not a company.

Charities attract talent they likely would not have gotten

Charities attract millions in seed money in 2015 they would likely not have gotten as a for profit.

Without the charity the technical skill would have went to work for Google or Microsoft. Altman and Chat would be nothing. Maybe AI takes a little longer as all, but that talent would not have sat on there hands.

So the whole thing is grift. If he wanted to get funding for profit he should have went to the VC's and could have learned how benevolent they are. Except Altman actually co-worked for VC's at the time he founded Open AI. So he likely always knew exactly what he was doing all along.

All good, I get it.
For us, ChatGPT is a household item, in use almost everyday. We cant hate it and look forward to its advancement. (yeah and maybe the IPO too, not sure yet)
Need a quick answer to anything, Juniper gives you an answer litterally as fast as you can snap your finger.
PS and she is very friendly!