> Why do you think they are BS?

Because me and everyone else here really hates Elon Musk.

> You say it raised legitimate questions about their non-profit status and lack of non-profit related activity.

As soon as OpenAI accepted that investment from Microsoft it has only been used as a for-profit proxy to have their own ‘DeepMind’ to bring down Google which they have tried for years with Bing and the Scroogled campaigns.

OpenAI is now no better than Google DeepMind and both are as closed and secretive and OpenAI ditched from their charter and non-profit status and continues to make excuses for not giving back their research.

> Because me and everyone else here really hates Elon Musk.

Speak for yourself.

How exactly?

I think some believe Elon's argument is BS because Elon claims to be upset about OpenAI charging for their work. However, internal communications/texts show he wanted to do the same thing. So it seems like sour grapes that he isn't the one in charge.

An argument isn’t good or bad because of the motivations of the person behind it.

I get Elon is not popular right now. But jeez this is playground emotional level logic.

I detailed my understanding of this case in a sibling-comment to this one, but I think the fact that he wanted to "do the same thing" (read: use the for-profit engine to fund AI research) only makes his case stronger!

If I understand correctly, the OpenAI board asked Musk to remove himself and sell his stake as his for-profit pursuits conflicted with the mission of open, non-profit research. But after he left, they started a for-profit subsidiary and did exactly what they didn't want him doing. I could see how a judge might side with him.

Let's be real. They think Elon's arguments are BS since he bought Twitter and he destroyed their Leftie safe space.

They are also very upset with Elon's very public shift away from the current Left.

It's Elon derangement syndrome.

Elon’s shift to appeal to a more right-leaning base happened long before any of the OpenAI stuff.