The reproduced messages follow a starkly different point of view Musk represented last week, when he sued OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman, alleging breach of contract and unfair competition.

  • robotica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    This feels like kindergarten, but with billions of dollars. Gotta love capitalism

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        The amount of people you have to exploit to make that much money guarantees all billionaires have some form of sociopathy and lack of empathy.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            The way companies and ownership work that’s actually quite possible and reasonable.

            The count of shares you have represent how much control you have over a company.

            If you own a company private or public that does well and you want to retain control of it, you need to own at least over 50% of the voting rights.

            Wanting to control your company isn’t that outlandish a desire. There have been plenty of stories of people getting ousted over the years.

            Simply owning a company that does well could result in you becoming a billionaire.

            And I’m not arguing against what the other poster said, to get to that point there’s gotta be some level of ruthlessness, disregard for others etc.

            Just that there is actually a reason to desire more even if you have all your needs met. Being rich shouldn’t mean you have to give up control, and its really hard to change corporate structure once public.

            Facebook for example is set up where Zuckerberg has >50% voting rights. Is that bad? Probably. But it’s his company, and I don’t fault him for wanting to keep it that way.

            Edit: and yes I’m aware of Zucks fuckery to get / maintain that share and his co-founders

    • Frisbeedude@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      How can we control a kindergartener with unlimited money and ressources just to, you know, make sure they don’t destroy everything around them? Like little kids do?

      That is my biggest fear for our future. It’s not a grumpy AI-engineer or evil dictator who wants to destroy humanity. It’s a handful of people with unlimited ressources who can decide if we go forward or not. And total power corrupts, that’s just a fact.

  • BargsimBoyz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Does this help them or hinder them though?

    Isn’t it possible they basically said no, and that they wanted to remain not for profit? So he quit and then they went for profit?

    Doesn’t really help their case…