This is a marketing step of course, no sane lawyer would agree to this.
And that is because, I don't think they show what they think and want to show.
That at some point Elon had an opinion that a lot of money is needed or that OpenAI maybe had no future?
That does not change the duty or obligations of a non-profit to the mission.
Also, it is clear some important information has been blacked out. And that critical conversation happened offline.
I don't think it will do Elon the image pressure they think it will. But if I was Microsoft... I would hedge my bets a lot...
This looks more and more as giving fuel to a dissolution action of OpenAI as a non-profit than anything else.
But the science and IP become public and open or under a non-profit that is tasked with opening them. And for-profit segments are stripped of any exclusive rights that arose from the OpenAI.
The irony is that the dissolution, overseeing by third special referee or permanent injunction (e.g. the Musk suit) of OpenAI is the only ways OpenAI is "opening their AI."
This is a marketing step of course, no sane lawyer would agree to this. And that is because, I don't think they show what they think and want to show.
That at some point Elon had an opinion that a lot of money is needed or that OpenAI maybe had no future? That does not change the duty or obligations of a non-profit to the mission.
Also, it is clear some important information has been blacked out. And that critical conversation happened offline.
I don't think it will do Elon the image pressure they think it will. But if I was Microsoft... I would hedge my bets a lot...
This looks more and more as giving fuel to a dissolution action of OpenAI as a non-profit than anything else.
reply