In case anyone is confused I am referring to 126, 132 and 135. Not 127.
"126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount that is presently unknown, but that substantially exceeds this Courts jurisdictional minimum of $35,000, and, if necessary, will be proven at trial.
127. Plaintiff also seeks and is entitled to specific performance of Defendants contractual obligations.
132. Injustice can only be avoided through the enforcement of Defendants repeated promises. If specific enforcement is not awarded, then Defendants must at minimum make restitution in an amount equal to Plaintiffs contributions that have been misappropriated and by the amount that the intended third-party beneficiaries of the Founding Agreement have been damaged [how??], which is an amount presently unknown, and if necessary, will be proven at trial, but that substantially exceeds this Courts jurisdictional minimum of $35,000.
135. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff and the express intended third-party beneficiaries of the Founding Agreement have suffered damages in an amount that is presently unknown, but substantially exceeds this Courts jurisdictional minimum of $35,000, and if necessary, will be proven at trial."
The end result of this suit, if it is not dismissed, may be nothing more than OpenAI settling with the plaintiffs for an amount equal to the plaintiffs' investments.
According to this complaint, we are supposed to be third-party beneficiaries to the founding agreement. But who actually believes we would be compensated in any settlement. Based on these claims, the plaintiffs clearly want their money back. Of course they are willing to claim "the public" as TPBs to get their refund. Meanwhile, in real life, their concern for "the public" is dubious.
Perhaps the outcome of the SEC investigation into Altman's misrepresentations to investors, if any, may be helpful to these plaintiffs.
OpenAI, even the name was his suggestion from what I remember reading, wouldn't exist without him - other investors may not have invested either without his money essentially vouching for the organization, and also its primary AI developer likely wouldn't have joined the OpenAI either if it wasn't for AI; who I believe is the one who recently announced they're leaving OpenAI, and I'd speculate they're joining Elon's new AI effort.
Hard to say. Certainly his name would have been a draw, but you've also got Altman, head of YC as a founder, not to mention his buddy Peter Thiel.
Musk's influence in attracting/retaining talent is rather a mixed bag given that he poached Karpathy for Tesla around the same time he left.
I think the person you're thinking of who Musk helped recruit for OpenAI is Ilya Sutskever. The person who just left, after a second brief stint at OpenAI, is Karpathy who for time being seems content on going back to his roots as an educator.
> The end result of this suit, if it is not dismissed, may be nothing more than OpenAI settling with the plaintiffs for an amount equal to the plaintiffs' investments.
Musk's money kept the lights on during a time when OpenAI didn't do much more than get a computer to play Dota. If he wants the proceeds of what his money bought, then they should write him a check for $0, or ship him a garbage can full of the taco wrappers eaten by the developers during that time period.
In case anyone is confused I am referring to 126, 132 and 135. Not 127.
"126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount that is presently unknown, but that substantially exceeds this Courts jurisdictional minimum of $35,000, and, if necessary, will be proven at trial.
127. Plaintiff also seeks and is entitled to specific performance of Defendants contractual obligations.
132. Injustice can only be avoided through the enforcement of Defendants repeated promises. If specific enforcement is not awarded, then Defendants must at minimum make restitution in an amount equal to Plaintiffs contributions that have been misappropriated and by the amount that the intended third-party beneficiaries of the Founding Agreement have been damaged [how??], which is an amount presently unknown, and if necessary, will be proven at trial, but that substantially exceeds this Courts jurisdictional minimum of $35,000.
135. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff and the express intended third-party beneficiaries of the Founding Agreement have suffered damages in an amount that is presently unknown, but substantially exceeds this Courts jurisdictional minimum of $35,000, and if necessary, will be proven at trial."
The end result of this suit, if it is not dismissed, may be nothing more than OpenAI settling with the plaintiffs for an amount equal to the plaintiffs' investments.
According to this complaint, we are supposed to be third-party beneficiaries to the founding agreement. But who actually believes we would be compensated in any settlement. Based on these claims, the plaintiffs clearly want their money back. Of course they are willing to claim "the public" as TPBs to get their refund. Meanwhile, in real life, their concern for "the public" is dubious.
Perhaps the outcome of the SEC investigation into Altman's misrepresentations to investors, if any, may be helpful to these plaintiffs.