Aw Zone Media. Hello On, Welcome to this week's Better Offline Monologue. I'm your host ed ZiT Trump, and I know some of you are going to say, Ed, didn't you say we'd get a second part? Didn't you say we get a second part? Ed? Where's the second part? It's coming tomorrow. You get a monologue as well. Good Lord. The complaints from some of you just kidding. You're all very nice. Now, because I deeply hate myself, I decided to sit down and read case four to two four CV zero four seven two to two ygr from the United States District Court of West the Northern District to California. Nevertheless, what I'm talking about, of course, is Elon Musk's lawsuit against Open a I, filed in August. November of last year, there was an amended complaint. Nevertheless, Elon Musk is alleging multiple kinds of fraud, as well as violations of the Sherman Act and to monopoly law from the late eighteen hundreds, which most notably was the same law that might lead to the breakup of Google's ad taken search businesses. Elon Musk, he's suing, and he loves to sue, but in Layman terms. Musk alleges that Sam Wortman tricked him into funding open ai as a charity when he actually wanted it to be more like a for profit entity, a classical start up model. Musk also alleges a conspiracy by open ai to stop people who invested in open ai from investing in other generative AI companies, specifically Musk zons Ai as long as others like Anthropic. This sounds like some Musky and bullshit, but this is actually true. It was reported by The Information and other outlets. The lawsuit itself is contrived, including annoying things like Musk's lawyers referring to open AI's tax exempt nonprofit as a for profit market paralyzing Gorgan Just you don't need to write like this. He fucking loses anyway. It is pretty interesting, though, and it explores the deeply weird beginnings of open ai itself. To explain Joe and was originally founded in twenty fifteen by Elon Musk, Sam Mortman and a selection of other engineers specifically as a non profit making open source artificial intelligence, and it was meant to be a research house. Now another thing is it was specifically made as a reaction to Google's acquisition of artificial intelligence firm deep Mind. The plan, according to emails shared as part of the lawsuit, was to beat Google to the punch by making artificial general intelligence, you know, the entirely fictional concept of a conscious autonomous computer, and then they go and open source it in what Sam Moortman called an AI Manhattan project. Just I could go into the history there, but is that really what you want to compare this anyway? Anyway? Aortmand would go on to tell Elon Musk that the mission would be to create the first general AI AGI and use it for an individual empowerment i e. The distributed version of the future that seems the safest. More generally, safety should be a first class requirement. And that is a quote, by the way, with the technol owned by the foundation referring to open AI and use for the gift of the world. Just a lot of bollocks really, Anyway. Things began to get tense in September twenty sixteen when Sam Wortman arranged a deal with Microsoft to buy sixty million dollars of Compute for Well for ten million dollars in exchange for evangelizing Microsoft as zero as their preferred cloud provider, along with some sort of vague consultancy services over Microsoft's models. Musk would respond to the terms by saying, fine with me. If they don't use the active messaging would be worth way more than fifty million. Nots seemed like a Microsoft's marketing bitch. Two months later, Microsoft were put out a blog post saying that open ai was choosing as zero as their primary cloud platform and that open ai would become an early adopter of as zure En series virtual machines, some of Microsoft's early GPU compute instances. It's been going quite a while. A year later, in an exhibit from the trial from September twenty to twenty seventeen, things would get a little more fraid with Iliasuitskava, a gifted engineer recruited by Musk in AI's earliest days, sending an email to both Musk and Aortman sharing concerns about the future. Aortman worried about how much money would cost the fund. Open Ai had been considering finding a way to make it a wouldn't you guess it? For profit entity, but Sitzkev had other problems and was far more worried about Altman and Musk. In the email, Suitzkeave of raised concerns that Elon Musk wanted unilateral absolute control over the AGI, and that while Musk had claimed otherwise in negotiating how to keep open Ai going, it was very clear that and I quote absolute control was extremely important to him. As an example, Suitzkeaver added that Musk had said that he needed to be CEO of the new company so that everyone would know that he was the one in charge, even though he also stated that he hated being CEO and would much rather not be CEO. Suitzkeva added the Musk's concerns that there would be an AGI dictatorship run by Demis Hassabis, CEO of Deep Mind, but that in the current structure that Musk was suggest he would become a dictator if he chose to all very good stuff. Siitzkav bizarrely then immediately moved on to say something very very similar to Sam Altman, saying that and I quote he didn't understand why the CEO title was so important, and that Sam Altman's reasons had changed, and that it was really hard to understand what was driving them Siitzkev also added a question and I quote, is AGI truly your primary motivation? How does it connect to your political goals? How has your thought process changed over time? Ortmand would reassure Musk, both personally and through others, that he remained focused on open AI's nonprofit mission. In January twenty eighteen, Orton would suggest a ridiculous idea selling cryptocurrency to fund open Ai, which Musk would warn would simply result in a massive loss of a credibility for open Ai everyone associated with the ico, referring of course, to an initial coin offering, a flimsy idea that just means just buy a bunch of tokens before the thing goes live, basically how crypto works. I guess it was a whole boom. I'm not doing a fucking podcast about it. Let's move on. Musk would step down from open ai in February twenty eighteen, and a month later, Sam Wonan would propose a fixed maximum term equity race, essentially selling stock in open ai but an associated entity. Yet it was still a nonprofit at the time, and that had a maximum amount you could make on buying it. It's just very confusing and What it basically means is it means that they would create an entity on the side that you could raise money for that would also own all the bits. I'll get to that in a second. Nevertheless, this is all extremely dodgy and weird. Around a year later, in twenty nineteen, Sam Wonman would eventually create the legally precarious for profit arm of open Ai what I was just talking about, and it was called open AILP and immediately, according to Elon Musk's lawsuit, transferred most of the company's assets and stuff. The same year, open Ai would strike an exclusive partnership with Microsoft to provide the compute for their models. As part of the deal, open Ai would give Microsoft full license to use their pre AGI intellectual property and research, which is to say, literally everything they've ever made, and this would in turn make well, this is the funny, weird part. This is the really crazy. This is the part that really gets me. They would own everything. Microsoft would own everything until they hit AGI. Now, AGI at this point has been defined by open Ai and Microsoft as when they hit one hundred billion dollars in profit. Every time I read about and talk about this stuff, I just think, who is the idiot? Here, is it Satching the Dellar, Is it Sam Altman or they both just the kind of mediocre rich guy who just bounces their skulls together and they say who has the shittiest idea? Who will be the dumbest boy today. Nevertheless, Microsoft owns everything open Ai makes until they invent Agi, by which I mean they make one hundred billion dollars in profit. It's all so goddamn stupid. It's also stupid. Now at some point I want to do an entire episode on this lawsuit because it's got so many exhibits and so many warring incentives. Elon Musk's Xai competes directly with open ai to make large language models that no one really needs and that cost more to run than they will ever make. And this lawsuit, as with others, features broad demands for discovering depositions of people at LinkedIn co founder and former open ai board member Read Hoffman, and attempts to name both Microsoft and Hoffman himself as co defendants. Since filing the lawsuit, and the Elon Musk led consortium of Bias has offered ninety seven point four billion dollars for the assets of open AI's charity, an often that would require multiple different government agencies to approve, which open Aies board has now declined either way. While Musk is regularly full of ship, he's right about one thing. Sam Woman clearly had no intention of ever keeping open ai as nonprofit, nor was he ever dedicated to doing so, or really anything of them make in himself CEO and getting a billion dollars. Since twenty nineteen, open ai has raised over twenty billion dollars in funding, and it's reportedly raising as much as forty billion dollars in the next round, led by fucking Masayoshi son of soft Bank. It's so good. I love it. And they're likely doing this because the company burned five billion dollars in twenty twenty four, and it is said to as much as double that in twenty twenty five, according to estimates. Musk lawsuit is likely an attempt to interfere with this funding or to destabilize open Ai. It's week its point, it's flimsy status as a nonprofit that will require a great deal of legal effort to unwind if it's even possible at all, And I must be clear it may not be possible. I don't think there's any precedent of anyone ever taking a nonprofit of this size, of this weirdness connected to like twenty different for profit entities, and turning it into a for profit. It just doesn't make sense. But I will tell you something that might make you happy or might just make your laugh, which is open AI only has a a year and a half to do so, a year and a half to turn from a nonprofit into a for profit because a year and a half all that equity they raised, but it's not equity, it's some weird for profit sharing. Nevertheless, all the money they've raised in the last round, the six point something billion dollar one, yeah, it all turns into debt. Oh well, I'm sure they'll work it out. They sure haven't yet

Aw Zone Media. Hello On, Welcome to this week's Better Offline Monologue. I'm your host ed ZiT Trump, and I know some of you are going to say, Ed, didn't you say we'd get a second part? Didn't you say we get a second part? Ed? Where's the second part? It's coming tomorrow. You get a monologue as well. Good Lord. The complaints from some of you just kidding. You're all very nice. Now, because I deeply hate myself, I decided to sit down and read case four to two four CV zero four seven two to two ygr from the United States District Court of West the Northern District to California. Nevertheless, what I'm talking about, of course, is Elon Musk's lawsuit against Open a I, filed in August. November of last year, there was an amended complaint. Nevertheless, Elon Musk is alleging multiple kinds of fraud, as well as violations of the Sherman Act and to monopoly law from the late eighteen hundreds, which most notably was the same law that might lead to the breakup of Google's ad taken search businesses. Elon Musk, he's suing, and he loves to sue, but in Layman terms. Musk alleges that Sam Wortman tricked him into funding open ai as a charity when he actually wanted it to be more like a for profit entity, a classical start up model. Musk also alleges a conspiracy by open ai to stop people who invested in open ai from investing in other generative AI companies, specifically Musk zons Ai as long as others like Anthropic. This sounds like some Musky and bullshit, but this is actually true. It was reported by The Information and other outlets. The lawsuit itself is contrived, including annoying things like Musk's lawyers referring to open AI's tax exempt nonprofit as a for profit market paralyzing Gorgan Just you don't need to write like this. He fucking loses anyway. It is pretty interesting, though, and it explores the deeply weird beginnings of open ai itself. To explain Joe and was originally founded in twenty fifteen by Elon Musk, Sam Mortman and a selection of other engineers specifically as a non profit making open source artificial intelligence, and it was meant to be a research house. Now another thing is it was specifically made as a reaction to Google's acquisition of artificial intelligence firm deep Mind. The plan, according to emails shared as part of the lawsuit, was to beat Google to the punch by making artificial general intelligence, you know, the entirely fictional concept of a conscious autonomous computer, and then they go and open source it in what Sam Moortman called an AI Manhattan project. Just I could go into the history there, but is that really what you want to compare this anyway? Anyway? Aortmand would go on to tell Elon Musk that the mission would be to create the first general AI AGI and use it for an individual empowerment i e. The distributed version of the future that seems the safest. More generally, safety should be a first class requirement. And that is a quote, by the way, with the technol owned by the foundation referring to open AI and use for the gift of the world. Just a lot of bollocks really, Anyway. Things began to get tense in September twenty sixteen when Sam Wortman arranged a deal with Microsoft to buy sixty million dollars of Compute for Well for ten million dollars in exchange for evangelizing Microsoft as zero as their preferred cloud provider, along with some sort of vague consultancy services over Microsoft's models. Musk would respond to the terms by saying, fine with me. If they don't use the active messaging would be worth way more than fifty million. Nots seemed like a Microsoft's marketing bitch. Two months later, Microsoft were put out a blog post saying that open ai was choosing as zero as their primary cloud platform and that open ai would become an early adopter of as zure En series virtual machines, some of Microsoft's early GPU compute instances. It's been going quite a while. A year later, in an exhibit from the trial from September twenty to twenty seventeen, things would get a little more fraid with Iliasuitskava, a gifted engineer recruited by Musk in AI's earliest days, sending an email to both Musk and Aortman sharing concerns about the future. Aortman worried about how much money would cost the fund. Open Ai had been considering finding a way to make it a wouldn't you guess it? For profit entity, but Sitzkev had other problems and was far more worried about Altman and Musk. In the email, Suitzkeave of raised concerns that Elon Musk wanted unilateral absolute control over the AGI, and that while Musk had claimed otherwise in negotiating how to keep open Ai going, it was very clear that and I quote absolute control was extremely important to him. As an example, Suitzkeaver added that Musk had said that he needed to be CEO of the new company so that everyone would know that he was the one in charge, even though he also stated that he hated being CEO and would much rather not be CEO. Suitzkeva added the Musk's concerns that there would be an AGI dictatorship run by Demis Hassabis, CEO of Deep Mind, but that in the current structure that Musk was suggest he would become a dictator if he chose to all very good stuff. Siitzkav bizarrely then immediately moved on to say something very very similar to Sam Altman, saying that and I quote he didn't understand why the CEO title was so important, and that Sam Altman's reasons had changed, and that it was really hard to understand what was driving them Siitzkev also added a question and I quote, is AGI truly your primary motivation? How does it connect to your political goals? How has your thought process changed over time? Ortmand would reassure Musk, both personally and through others, that he remained focused on open AI's nonprofit mission. In January twenty eighteen, Orton would suggest a ridiculous idea selling cryptocurrency to fund open Ai, which Musk would warn would simply result in a massive loss of a credibility for open Ai everyone associated with the ico, referring of course, to an initial coin offering, a flimsy idea that just means just buy a bunch of tokens before the thing goes live, basically how crypto works. I guess it was a whole boom. I'm not doing a fucking podcast about it. Let's move on. Musk would step down from open ai in February twenty eighteen, and a month later, Sam Wonan would propose a fixed maximum term equity race, essentially selling stock in open ai but an associated entity. Yet it was still a nonprofit at the time, and that had a maximum amount you could make on buying it. It's just very confusing and What it basically means is it means that they would create an entity on the side that you could raise money for that would also own all the bits. I'll get to that in a second. Nevertheless, this is all extremely dodgy and weird. Around a year later, in twenty nineteen, Sam Wonman would eventually create the legally precarious for profit arm of open Ai what I was just talking about, and it was called open AILP and immediately, according to Elon Musk's lawsuit, transferred most of the company's assets and stuff. The same year, open Ai would strike an exclusive partnership with Microsoft to provide the compute for their models. As part of the deal, open Ai would give Microsoft full license to use their pre AGI intellectual property and research, which is to say, literally everything they've ever made, and this would in turn make well, this is the funny, weird part. This is the really crazy. This is the part that really gets me. They would own everything. Microsoft would own everything until they hit AGI. Now, AGI at this point has been defined by open Ai and Microsoft as when they hit one hundred billion dollars in profit. Every time I read about and talk about this stuff, I just think, who is the idiot? Here, is it Satching the Dellar, Is it Sam Altman or they both just the kind of mediocre rich guy who just bounces their skulls together and they say who has the shittiest idea? Who will be the dumbest boy today. Nevertheless, Microsoft owns everything open Ai makes until they invent Agi, by which I mean they make one hundred billion dollars in profit. It's all so goddamn stupid. It's also stupid. Now at some point I want to do an entire episode on this lawsuit because it's got so many exhibits and so many warring incentives. Elon Musk's Xai competes directly with open ai to make large language models that no one really needs and that cost more to run than they will ever make. And this lawsuit, as with others, features broad demands for discovering depositions of people at LinkedIn co founder and former open ai board member Read Hoffman, and attempts to name both Microsoft and Hoffman himself as co defendants. Since filing the lawsuit, and the Elon Musk led consortium of Bias has offered ninety seven point four billion dollars for the assets of open AI's charity, an often that would require multiple different government agencies to approve, which open Aies board has now declined either way. While Musk is regularly full of ship, he's right about one thing. Sam Woman clearly had no intention of ever keeping open ai as nonprofit, nor was he ever dedicated to doing so, or really anything of them make in himself CEO and getting a billion dollars. Since twenty nineteen, open ai has raised over twenty billion dollars in funding, and it's reportedly raising as much as forty billion dollars in the next round, led by fucking Masayoshi son of soft Bank. It's so good. I love it. And they're likely doing this because the company burned five billion dollars in twenty twenty four, and it is said to as much as double that in twenty twenty five, according to estimates. Musk lawsuit is likely an attempt to interfere with this funding or to destabilize open Ai. It's week its point, it's flimsy status as a nonprofit that will require a great deal of legal effort to unwind if it's even possible at all, And I must be clear it may not be possible. I don't think there's any precedent of anyone ever taking a nonprofit of this size, of this weirdness connected to like twenty different for profit entities, and turning it into a for profit. It just doesn't make sense. But I will tell you something that might make you happy or might just make your laugh, which is open AI only has a a year and a half to do so, a year and a half to turn from a nonprofit into a for profit because a year and a half all that equity they raised, but it's not equity, it's some weird for profit sharing. Nevertheless, all the money they've raised in the last round, the six point something billion dollar one, yeah, it all turns into debt. Oh well, I'm sure they'll work it out. They sure haven't yet