Yet interestingly kept donating to openai until september 2020 according to the document.

>That would let OpenAI lawyers keep this suit tied up for a very long time.

Why?

Same with Musk,'s warning about the dangers of AI but then he released one too.

The only real defense against dangerous AI is friendly AI.

If anyone is going to make AI that wants to destroy humans, its elon musk.

This is my main question, how open is Tesla's FSD "AI"? Why is it okay for his AI to be closed with a direct path of killing/harming people?

I think legally, because he didn’t take a bunch of money and promise the donors to make it open

Google started as “Don’t be evil”, but later changed. Did the early investors sue for that change in core belief? What about the bald face lie of FB’s “free and always will be” when they are robbing your privacy blind?

Parent might have been talking about Twitter's Grok AI?

if you can't fight them, join them

Could he be the one behind the recent coup at OpenAI, as well?

My impression from all the stuff I’ve looked at was that one board member wrote a paper praising Anthropic’s approach with implied (or not so implied?) criticism of OpenAI’s approach. This got Altman furious. So he was going to each board member and subtly (or not so subtly?) presenting a case for her removal, using whatever reasoning, sometimes contradictory, he could tack on, maybe trying to intimidate some into compliance. This approach may have rubbed them the wrong way? Those board members communicated with each other and noted the contradictions, so they summarily fired him without consulting lawyers and without gathering a workable case file to present to stakeholders and the public. Without Altman’s relationships with the largest funders, employees got nervous and wanted information the board was rather embarrassed not to have, exacerbating the anxiety in the workforce. I’m sure that whatever the charter says about investments as donations, Microsoft had the lawyers to ensure they did not have to sink hundreds of millions into a sinking ship.

No Musk required, the individuals at OpenAI did it to themselves.

No. Elon Musk was not involved with the firing of Sam Altman as far as I'm aware.

The real story behind that is... complicated. First, Sam Altman allegedly does stuff that looks to be setting up a coup against the board, so the board fires Sam, but they don't provide proper context[0] and confuse everyone. So Sam gets Microsoft and a bunch of OpenAI employees to revolt and pressure the board to bring him back. He then fires the board and instates a new one, basically the original coup plan but now very much open and in the public eye.

[0] To be clear, most corporate communications try to say as little as possible about internal office politics. That can easily lead into defamation lawsuits.

It suspicious, but the execution was utterly naive.

NY Times is unusually biased [1] and has been embroiled in strange activity over the years [2]

[1] https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...

I don't see why this is a problem for the case. It demonstrates that OpenAI had not released its tech to the public, which includes Elon Musk. He wouldn't have needed to try wresting control if they had done what the non-profit was supposed to do.