While I have no doubt everything in the complaint is correct, it's hard to see it as Elon being genuinely concerned about open and safe AI vs just having FOMO that he isn't part of it anymore and doesn't get to call the shots. For example his own AI startup is exactly as closed off and unregulated as OpenAI. Why is that not equally concerning?
I don't really want to defend Elon, because I very much dislike him, but there's a bit if a difference between OpenAI vs his own AI startups, which is that his AI startup isn't called Open AI. There's no compunctions about it being a for-profit enterprise, unlike OpenAI which kind of gives a veil of a non-profit.
Like, if a doctor in Manhattan found out that Doctors Without Borders was charging Manhattan medical rates to all the people it was treating in Uganda, that doctor might criticize them for doing that, and I don't think it'd be a good excuse for DWB to say "You charge Manhattan medical rates at your practice, how is that not equally concerning???" because the obvious retort would be to say "Yeah but I'm not pretending to be a non-profit.".
His entire lawsuit rests on the premise that AI/AGI is dangerous for humanity and cannot be developed in secret by large corporations but should be fully open and regulated. Looking at xAI and several other of his efforts (like the Optimus robot), those arguments fall flat. He is seemingly perfectly fine with closed off corporate AI as long as he is the one holding the strings.
I don't want to be in the position of defending Elon Musk, but in this case his complaint seems to be that OpenAI claims one thing and does another. If X.ai started out telling everyone it's for-profit and closed off, then it's not hypocritical at all for it to be that. It's something else, sure.
I don't think that follows; Apple is a closed-off, for-profit company, but I do think that a Macbook or an iPhone can be used to assist humanity in its quest for understanding and knowledge. I would agree it might be more helpful for them to be open, but it doesn't imply that it's inherently unhelpful if they're not.
So then you can apply the same logic to OpenAI. Either companies are allowed to define, implement and justify their charter in their own way, or we hold all of them to task.
Elon Musk is all about Elon Musk. One of the biggest hypocrites on Earth right now. He might be right about OpenAI not being open as they promised, but, if anyone, its not Musk who should sue them. He claims his goal is to save humanity, but he is actively working on destroying it for profit.
It isn't lmao. I've always seen people say pretty much what they want on Twitter unless it was super bigoted and even those posts were allowed at times. The only different is nazi content and that's a fact. Hence the reason why most of the banned users with the most followers were literally nazi/extremist users.
Uncontrolled free speech benefits the more powerful, manipulative forces the most. Apparently a huge portion of people's minds can be bent with disinformation in order to create supporters, voters, haters, etc. Probably this is the biggest threat to humanity currently, and this is what Elon Musk's X platform (and himself) supports.
Free speech is very important and powerful, but truth (the real truth) is what matters the most. Free speech of lies and conspiracies is a very dangerous thing until most people gets good enough in critical thinking.
If you have standing, you are always free to file a suit against X on that basis. Even so, I'm not sure how X is relevant to lawsuit Musk made against OpenAI. If you're just saying that Musk is a hypocrite, you won't hear me arguing, but it has nothing to do with a lawsuit against a different company. I think the word for it is whataboutism.
