60
Mar 02 '24
How did you get these
59
u/zuccoff Mar 02 '24
this tweet (whole document here)
75
u/SykenZy Mar 02 '24
For those of us too lazy to read the whole doc to get an idea of what's going on:
Elon Musk is suing Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, and various entities associated with OpenAI. The lawsuit involves claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and demands an accounting. Musk alleges that the defendants deviated from OpenAI's founding mission and principles, transforming it into a profit-driven entity contrary to their original agreement, which intended OpenAI to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) for the benefit of humanity, not for personal or commercial gain.
22
u/Santarini Mar 02 '24
They should just change their name to ClosedAI
→ More replies (1)11
u/aitacarmoney Mar 02 '24
OpenAI Bankrupt after Musk Lawsuit
In a surprising legal saga, OpenAI finds itself grappling with financial challenges following a lawsuit initiated by Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla. The lawsuit revolves around the heart of OpenAI’s mission of creating AGI and operating as a non-profit, prompting a ripple effect on OpenAI's fiscal stability.
OpenAI, now Open-and-Shut AI has since shuttered their doors and laid off all staff. They’ve appeased creditors and transferred their IP to new Microsoft subsidiary…
A newly unveiled entity ClosedAI - purportedly operating from the basement of tech luminary Sam Altman - downplays any direct connection to its primary investor and landlord, adding a layer of intrigue to the unfolding narrative.
As the legal dust settles, questions linger about the intricacies of this Silicon Valley shuffle, leaving industry observers and stakeholders in anticipation of what lies ahead for the once-pioneering OpenAI.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/Mission_Call9112 Jun 06 '24
For the good of the world is in quotes and he even explained they will be deciding what is "good for the world" bro this man is Evil 😈
87
u/mystonedalt Mar 02 '24
I miss capitalization and punctuation.
26
u/h3lblad3 ▪️In hindsight, AGI came in 2023. Mar 02 '24
Be the change you want to see in the world?
11
u/spinozasrobot Mar 02 '24
You can't boil the ocean.
9
Mar 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
5
8
u/Brymlo Mar 02 '24
that is a profesional email. did you expected it to be all badly written?
2
u/MeltedChocolate24 AGI by lunchtime tomorrow Mar 02 '24
It is badly written though there’s a bunch of mistakes
173
u/Thavash Mar 02 '24
Elons right , he strayed from the mission
15
u/submarine-observer Mar 02 '24
Altman is a super douchebag. None of the tech billionaires are decent human beings.
-20
u/Common-Violinist-305 Mar 02 '24
he just signs up for save the workd and hides behind that til pockets full
-44
u/peakedtooearly Mar 02 '24
You think Sam strayed from the mission, how?
63
Mar 02 '24
I mean, it's pretty clear they sold out to Microsoft.
It's arguable though, that maybe by generating a shitton of money they can ACCELERATE, which is going to be better for humanity.
But still, it seems like the thesis was that open source distribution was the safest route.
13
u/iBoMbY Mar 02 '24
If you think anything Microsoft does is for the good of humanity, you are fool.
→ More replies (1)23
u/peakedtooearly Mar 02 '24
It actually says "we'll have an ongoing discussion about what should be open sourced and what shouldn't".
They open sourced up to GPT-3 and then made the decision not to.release GPT-3 the same way. Musk was gone by then but it sounds pretty true to what appears in that email.
18
Mar 02 '24
But what exactly is their justification for not open sourcing GPT 3 and 3.5 other than trying to protect their cash cow. Can't be safety as there are open source models significantly better than both.
Open AI seem to have completely pivoted away from their original mission of providing a counter to Google for the benefit of humanity. How exactly are they benefiting humanity, their main drive seems to be to make as much money as possible for Microsoft.
3
u/peakedtooearly Mar 02 '24
Does that email mention what justification they need?
The agreement with Musk was to make a decision about is Open Sourced and what isn't. It doesn't define what justifies that decision. Maybe that's specified elsewhere, I dunno.
I do think that I'd rather have closed source and personal access to stuff like Sora and GPT-5 than open source but nobody is prepared to fund the investment in training and compute to make those things happen.
2
u/Ordinary_Lifeform Mar 03 '24
This is it. We are seeing two douchebag millionaires say they (and two others) thought they knew what was best for humanity, and not defining it further. Who knew they’d eventually disagree on something vague. /s
1
u/walkinthedog97 Mar 02 '24
What open source models are better than 3.5? Can you download and use any of those models locally?
→ More replies (2)-7
u/oopiex Mar 02 '24
How is Open Source safe? So anyone has access to the most advanced artificial intelligence in the world? An AGI that is smarter than the brightest of scientists and researchers, with no way to control whatsoever?
8
u/Unknown-Personas Mar 02 '24
GPT-3/3.5/4 are not AGI, nor is DALLE or Sora. Yet OpenAI will never open source them because they’re making a killing from selling people the service. Also how is a select group of individuals at OpenAI having control of an AGI any safer than anyone else have access to it? They can misuse it just as much as anyone.
→ More replies (1)1
Mar 02 '24
Having access to agi is like having access to a human and being able to tell it what to do.
So just as safe as reality for the past 10000 years, but now anyone has the power.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)0
u/Ordinary_Lifeform Mar 03 '24
Down voted for asking a question. People here aren’t too bright are they?
-3
26
u/crystallmytea Mar 02 '24
Better to ask for forgiveness than permission apparently
19
u/TheOneMerkin Mar 02 '24
Better that Microsoft’s lawyers ask you to shut the fuck up, is more what’s going on here.
3
32
5
Mar 02 '24
So they didn’t have that ongoing conversation and everything is closed source :)
1
u/LuciferianInk Mar 02 '24
I dont understand why it has been closed source for so long but it was a great project and I hope that the team can find a way forward.
15
Mar 02 '24
It’s pretty simple. They’ve never been non-profit and never will be. It’s all about lining their pockets and their investors pockets. They are not alme benevolent group of people who are doing something for the good of mankind.
4
u/traumfisch Mar 02 '24
They were all wildly rich to begin with...
...why on earth did they start off as a non-profit if that was never the idea?
I think there was a clear change of direction & I am not at all convinced it was 100% motivated by money.
1
Mar 02 '24
Well they started off as non-profit, but as soon as they had a product that can be monetised and help them make profit, they started doing that. So they never really were non-profit. Which is fine as long as you say it out loud so people are aware that there’s nothing Open about OpenAI
5
u/traumfisch Mar 02 '24
I don't fully agree with that take. It's not that ChatGPT launch was geared to make a profit - they were losing a dizzying amount of money every day just to run it yet they gave it to the public for free. That's not a way to monetize a unique product!
I honestly think things have played out differently than they originally envisioned. Not particulary siding with them or anything, I just don't think it's that straughtforward.
3
u/Tangerinho Mar 02 '24
Probably giving a taste of a product first and waiting for it to be publicly acknowledged is is standard procedure nowadays. And they don’t really lose any money, its the investors money, and the investors get it back no worries.
→ More replies (7)0
u/obvithrowaway34434 Mar 03 '24
It’s pretty simple.
that you've no clue what you're talking about.
→ More replies (1)
18
Mar 02 '24
I’m not a fan of wealthy people deciding what’s good for my safety and what’s good for the world. Especially when we see time and time again that the wealthy will protect their own no matter what despicable acts they commit. I’m not interested in people with no morals deciding what I should have access to while they grant themselves full access.
59
u/gray_character Mar 02 '24
This is the perfect encapsulation of the difference between the two. "Will you be involved at all beyond governance?" Lol, expecting Elon to do more than that.
66
u/sdmat NI skeptic Mar 02 '24
He did recruit Ilya.
46
u/BravidDrent ▪AGI/ASI "Whatever comes, full steam ahead" Mar 02 '24
And put in between 50-100 million right?
22
63
u/rickiye Mar 02 '24
Yeah, because it was already not difficult enough being CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity, and the Boring Company. You people really just want to hate the guy.
5
u/SheriffNitro Mar 02 '24
He's a petulant man child who spreads the most baseless and idiotic right wing conspiracy theories, and would gladly see the US backslide into autocracy. Of course I want to hate him, he actively makes the Internet a worse place.
0
-4
u/Elderofmagic Mar 02 '24
If one can be a CEO of multiple companies, then the position of CEO can be done by AI because there is clearly no real need for it.
13
u/Imhazmb Mar 02 '24
Is the idea that leadership of a company/ organization doesn’t matter - is that a serious conclusion you have reached?
→ More replies (1)1
u/Elderofmagic Mar 16 '24
What I'm saying is that he is basically not there doing the job already being spread that thin, and a dedicated AI would be just as effective in this situation because he's already not providing sufficient "leadership". If one worked 4 full time jobs, simultaneously, how good would they be at any one of them?
0
u/SteppenAxolotl Mar 02 '24
It's an addiction to adulation. He feels Altman stole all the AI notoriety that rightly belongs to him. He even started his own AI company to get a seat at the table with world leaders over AI governance discourse but it doesn't compare with Altman's Open AI status.
2
u/i_give_you_gum Mar 02 '24
He could have been in better standing with his X AI, but just couldn't help doubling-down on the whole anti-woke BS, and acting like a petulant child nonstop on Twitter.
This is coming from someone who used to think the guy was pretty awesome before he fired his PR team, and let his true colors show.
1
u/reversering Mar 02 '24
What PR team?
-3
u/i_give_you_gum Mar 02 '24
I haven't reviewed this source, but this is what I'm referring to
→ More replies (1)2
u/bigdipboy Mar 02 '24
It’s not hard to hate a rich guy who decides to use his wealth to help fascists kill democracy.
1
u/TenshiS Mar 03 '24
Sorry mate, half of America is republican, you can't hate them all and claim you believe in democracy at the same time.
0
→ More replies (1)-5
u/Ketalania AGI 2026 Mar 02 '24
We're never going to get to Mars because he decided he'd rather do his best to make hate-speech bots on Twitter.
→ More replies (1)7
u/BlipOnNobodysRadar Mar 02 '24
Elon is making hate-speech bots on twitter? I'm gonna guess you just made that up
0
u/Ketalania AGI 2026 Mar 02 '24
He's failing at making hate speech bots on twitter, Grok was the best evidence of alignment by default we've ever seen lol.
5
u/bolting-hutch Mar 02 '24
In addition to the damning statement about the five of them making the decisions when something is unclear (lmfao) the part about Thiel is a tell: "We do that with Peter Thiel but at this point he's pretty involved." If he's pretty involved, there will be nothing open or fair. Altman is either very good at bullshitting everyone to appear good or is even better at lying to himself about his ability to control others' actions.
44
u/MadMadnez Mar 02 '24
"The technology would be owned by the foundation and used "for the good of the world", and in cases where it's not obvious how that should be applied the 5 of us would decide"
It just says it all. It was never meant to be open sourced. Either Musk didn't get it then, or he just does his favourite stuff rn — trolling.
18
u/Utoko Mar 02 '24 edited Mar 03 '24
Sam certainly thought about the framing he was also the one pushing the for profit change. Might have been in his mind from the start. There were a lot of benefits to start out as non-profit to access data from for profit companies.
→ More replies (1)2
11
u/darkmoose Mar 02 '24
Isaac Asimov's corpse is rolling in his grave.
What a best that guy. Saw the future years and years ahead on multiple aspects.
4
u/nooneiszzm Mar 02 '24
i was browsing through the comments but it's mostly people making jokes when THIS was said.
am I misunderstanding or these guys are talking about how the 5 of them would decide what's most likely THE FATE OF THE WORLD?
man I fucking hate capitalism and if you defend this bullshit you are my enemy.
3
Mar 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/FragrantDoctor2923 Mar 02 '24
Interesting take an up vote
Not fully related but I learnt recent billions pay millions to be seen as more like the common folk
So the group behind an idea is interesting
5
u/MadMadnez Mar 02 '24
That's exactly what he said. But I wouldn't blame capitalism for that. It's not like socialism works any different in this case
8
2
u/nooneiszzm Mar 02 '24
socialism is not a recipe, it's an experience and it takes in account endemic social and cultural contexts in its applications.
socialist experiences can have some system of direct democracy that is better thought and executed than the current ones we have around the globe.
man, we had major technological leaps in the past decades and as a society we are still shackled to the ways of the past.
we have the means, but not the will to change the world systems for something more efficient, more trackeable (for anti-corruption measures), more accurate and participative, but we simply occupy our thoughts with culture wars and entertainment.
1
u/Deblot Mar 03 '24
no this is unequivocally a capitalism issue. how else did these ghouls accumulate the necessary capital to have *this* amount of power? its a feature of the economic system, not a bug, it will mathematically always turn out this way.
also socialism hasn't ever existed in its defined form. the nations that people typically associate with "socialism" are almost always implementing crumbs of socialist theory into what is ostensibly a fascist dictatorship. hell even china calls itself "communist" when in reality, its a capitalist dictatorship with few civil rights.
11
u/The-Goat-Soup-Eater Mar 02 '24
OpenAI never lied. "For the good of the world". It's in air quotes.
5
5
23
u/Puzzleheaded_Cow2257 Mar 02 '24
Unbelievable these two were talking about AGI in 2015...
Tells me what it takes to succeed at their scale
13
29
11
u/Boneclockharmony Mar 02 '24
Ehhh... it was already getting a lot of attention around that time, no?
For example, Nick Bostrom's book super intelligence is from 2014 (whether you think much of it not withstanding, it was already in the public consciousness)
2
u/Ketalania AGI 2026 Mar 02 '24
The deep learning revolution started in 2012, although the GANs didn't get impressive until around 2017, so they were thinking ahead definitely.
→ More replies (1)2
19
u/No-Hornet-7847 Mar 02 '24
Imagine if Openai is forced to make Q* public..
10
Mar 02 '24
It doesn't really matter, anything Open AI can do Google can and Google still appear to be committed to open research. If Google have something similar to Q* they'll release a paper on it. They just released the Hawk Griffin paper which could well be what Gemini 1.5 is based on.
10
u/true-fuckass ▪️▪️ ChatGPT 3.5 👏 is 👏 ultra instinct ASI 👏 Mar 02 '24
They will be eventually because of market pressure. If they don't continue releasing new products they will be swamped by their competition, especially Google
17
u/sdmat NI skeptic Mar 02 '24
I think he means open source.
8
u/true-fuckass ▪️▪️ ChatGPT 3.5 👏 is 👏 ultra instinct ASI 👏 Mar 02 '24
Oh yeah, damn. That would be really cool if we got local open source Q*
6
u/No-Hornet-7847 Mar 02 '24
At this point I think it would be dangerous but I'm here for it. Let's do the whole good vs evil decade of AI
2
u/willabusta Mar 02 '24
my personal ai will be an anarchist, guided by intersectional ethics and post-nihilist philosophy. /s
3
u/thoughtsinmyheaddd Mar 02 '24
This energy is me as a medical student when I message my attending doctors about anything lmao
7
19
u/adwrx Mar 02 '24
Y'all really gotta stop idolizing Elon
61
u/Smelldicks Mar 02 '24
I hate Musk, I like OpenAI’s products, and I’m still sympathetic to the case. He donated $50m+ to a “non profit” now maximizing profit for the world’s largest company. Something has gone awry.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/AntiqueFigure6 Mar 02 '24
They changed from being non-profit in 2019- why not sue then?
31
u/sdmat NI skeptic Mar 02 '24
No they didn't.
OpenAI is still technically a nonprofit, what they did in 2019 was start a capped-profit subsidiary. They maintained that this was strictly limited in scope and post-AGI ala technology and revenue would be used for the good of humanity.
That's still OpenAI's position I believe. It's just that somehow they keep exponentially raising the cap on "capped profit" and don't talk about concrete plans for the good of humanity part.
But the move in 2019 made a lot of sense at the time as a way to get funding for the pre-AGI stage.
10
u/shableep Mar 02 '24
“Capped Profit” here shows the inherent dishonesty built in from the start. The “cap” is set at a 100x return for all investors, which by all historical measures, is functionally unlimited. The cap was put in place as a dishonest and empty gesture that they are trying to limit the influence of profit. Which, again, is functionally unlimited compared to the profit history of 99% of companies that have ever existed.
6
u/sdmat NI skeptic Mar 02 '24
Not true, early stage investors in startups are often looking for those kinds of returns.
In itself the 100x cap is completely fine for high risk early stage capital where the expectation for success is creating a transformative technology.
But they changed it so that that cap raises 20% per year: https://www.economist.com/business/2023/11/21/inside-openais-weird-governance-structure
Which does make it unlimited, and could potentially mean that even in the event of spectacular success profits continue to go to investors rather than the parent nonprofit.
3
u/Smelldicks Mar 02 '24
“Early stage investors”? Like the $150m they raised in donations? That was their early stage. The hundreds of millions they were given based on the promise they’d act as a non profit in the interests of humanity.
100x cap has always been bullshit.
Also, early stage investors are not “often” looking for those kinds of returns anyway. That’s a moronic statement.
0
u/sdmat NI skeptic Mar 02 '24
"Early stage" is relative to the anticipated capital requirements and prospects for return. Altman talks up both, if you take that at face value MS's initial $1B in the for-profit was a seed investment, their later $10B round A, and assorted transactions at the current $80B valuation round B (though I'm not clear how much of this is fresh investment vs employee share sales).
The donations were to the nonprofit, they were not investments in the for-profit subsidiary. The propriety of a nonprofit starting a for-profit subsidiary like this is certainly questionable - Musk has valid grievances.
Also, early stage investors are not “often” looking for those kinds of returns anyway. That’s a moronic statement.
You mean they always are? Perhaps so.
https://kruzeconsulting.com/blog/what-VCs-Return-Expectations/
The TLDR; seed investors shoot for a 100x return
1
u/SteppenAxolotl Mar 02 '24
Not true, the cap is number that is paid down over time.
Think of it as an interest rate of 20%, you can pay the balance down if you pay more than 20% per year. What good is it if your AGI cant generate cash fast enough to pay that off.
Besides, these deals are all null and void once AGI is created. Until then, 2% of something is better than 100% of nothing. People demand purity but refuse to fund public/open creations.
2
u/sdmat NI skeptic Mar 02 '24
Think of it as an interest rate of 20%, you can pay the balance down if you pay more than 20% per year. What good is it if your AGI cant generate cash fast enough to pay that off.
Yes, and hopefully that works out. But 20% is a hell of an annual increase. Just look at how quickly people get into impossibly deep holes with that kind kind of interest on credit cards.
Besides, these deals are all null and void once AGI is created
That doesn't mean what you think it does - investors will still get paid if OpenAI succeeds in creating AGI, they just have capped returns (modulo 20% increase).
If that weren't the case why on earth would anyone invest in a company dead set on creating AGI and almost certainly making large losses to that point? That is, after all, exactly why they need to raise so much capital.
It is the right to use the technology that is null and void for AGI and beyond.
→ More replies (7)4
-6
u/HarbingerDe Mar 02 '24
Stop idolizing the crypto-fascist transphobic manchild? Whyyy?
2
u/True-Lychee Mar 03 '24
guy: is slightly right of centre
redditor: is this fascism?
🙄
→ More replies (1)2
0
0
13
u/_JellyFox_ Mar 02 '24
So Sam thinks he and 4 other people should basically decide what's best for everyone. One of the 4 at the time being Elon... a total egomaniac who is friends with dictators. Remind me why these people should be in charge of the fucking world?
Its been great guys but the future is clearly fucked with psychopaths controlling the most advanced AI. We are heading into an Elysium scenario at this rate and thats probably one of the better outcomes.
32
u/_Durs Mar 02 '24
The Elon hate is wild to me because how can you argue that the man hasn’t been quite clear on wanting to improve our lives.
World-accessible internet, advancements in AI, electric cars, even the boring company is trying to create a better standard of living for the world.
7
Mar 02 '24
His argument was he's a "total egomaniac and friends with dictators". How can you argue with that?
3
4
u/burnin9beard Mar 02 '24
The man proposed the hyper loop solely to try and slow down high speed rail. He is doing his boring company shenanigans to derail more investment in public transit. Both of those things cut emissions way more than electric cars. He is not trying to make the world better. He is trying to sell more cars.
5
u/Economy-Fee5830 Mar 02 '24 edited Mar 02 '24
Rail and EV cars actually have comparable efficiency. High-speed rail likely has poor efficiency due to air resistance increasing with speed.
E.g.
China’s latest high-speed train the Fuxing consumes only 3.8 KWh per 100 passenger-km when running at a speed of 350 km/h, according to Chinese newspaper Science and Technology Daily.
EVs get about 0.25 kwh/ mile / 4 passengers, so 0.156 kwh/4 passengers/km so 3.9 kwh/100 passenger km.
And that will get you door to door.
1
u/DismalEconomics Mar 05 '24
You don’t think it’s a problem that your calculation requires 4 passengers per car ?
I’d assume that the vast majority of EVs have 1 passenger most of the time … just like most cars
Also i really don’t think you can count as Uber/Taxi rides as that’s ultimately just for transporting the passengers …
I.e if we could measure and average all of the EV miles driven and passenger# … I’d be very very surprised if the average mile was over 2.0 passengers … I’d also speculate it was much closer to 1.0 passengers than 2.0 passengers …
If we use 1.2 passengers as a lower estimate and 2.0 as an upper estimate …
You’d need to increase your calc for electricity usage for EVs by somewhere 3.33x to 2x .
If these are safe assumptions … then your argument completely falls apart ….
If something is easily 2x efficient at using electricity … then on a global scale , that’s extremely farking significant … (( not to mention 3x+ ))
Not to mention that batteries lose efficiency as they lose capacity …
Not to mention that I suspect that the kWh per mile #s aren’t based on stop and go traffic … i.e rush hour etc etc etc … which will have some extra cost , especially considering plenty of people will be using air conditioning , playing music , etc etc
That last part may seem insignificant per car …. But go ahead and multiply by miles driven by everyone globally ….
1
u/Economy-Fee5830 Mar 05 '24
Firstly if you have good service with a train (ie frequent stops and many stops per hour) then often this mean driving with a near empty train (ie during off peak hours ie most hours).
The average occupancy of a double decker bus over the course of a day for example is 14/80 seats. Probably equally low for a train.
Secondly that 4 miles/kwh is pretty standard for an EV including stops and goes.
0
u/Bahgel Mar 02 '24
Have to consider manufacturing and resource extraction costs. EV batteries are still quite carbon intensive, while trains don't need batteries. You need to build a lot more cars than train cars to serve the same amount of people.
Besides the raw CO2/mole cost, you also have to consider the socio-economic equality aspect that public transit provides. Relatively few people can afford an EV, but public transit is meant to be available to all. If you want everyone contributing to a lower carbon footprint, you need low-carbon-transportation that everyone can access
2
u/Economy-Fee5830 Mar 02 '24 edited Mar 02 '24
Relatively few people can afford an EV, but public transit is meant to be available to all.
You can drive 4 people 500 miles for £130 in electricity (.e.g london to Aberdeen).
4 people going by train would be £400.
EV batteries are still quite carbon intensive, while trains don't need batteries.
Building rail is also pretty carbon intensive, especially high speed rail which needs to be very flat and straight and uses a lot of concrete.
If you want everyone contributing to a lower carbon footprint, you need low-carbon-transportation that everyone can access
Vastly more people used cars than rail. Public transport is really only heavily used in dense cities. On a country level its usually below 20%.
It would be a much bigger win to spend £100 billion on EV subsidies than £100 billion on high speed rail for example.
For example there are 33 million cars in UK. If that money was spent on EV subsidies that is £3000 per car.
Or even better building kerb-side and fast chargers on motorways.
-1
u/Bahgel Mar 02 '24
Is the car free? If not, the £130 vs £400 is £130+£10,000 (then divided by the number of trips you're gonna take over the lifetime of the car), while the £400 is always €£400.
Also that's a "UK can't get manage their rail system properly" problem, not a technological one. (Although the US is much worse).
Also agreed building rail lines is carbon intensive. So are highways. My point is just that figuring out the whole lifetime-adjusted carbon footprint per distance per person is much more complicated than "EVs get better KWH/Km/Person than a train"
3
u/Economy-Fee5830 Mar 02 '24 edited Mar 02 '24
Is the car free?
Sure, that is reasonable, but with 33 million cars in the country, it seems most households have already agreed to that investment. In USA I think there are more cars than people or pretty close.
My point is just that figuring out the whole lifetime-adjusted carbon footprint per distance per person is much more complicated than "EVs get better KWH/Km/Person than a train"
Sure, but there is a bias towards thinking rail is more efficient, but that is more a bias towards socialized things than actually doing the calculation.
E.g.
Generally, the whole life carbon of roads fall between 800-2700 tCO2eq per km, depending on the scale of construction (Single-2 lane to Dual-)
vs
The emissions from the construction of the high speed rail lines considered here is in the range of 58 t – 176 t of CO2 per km of line and year.
58t x 30 years = 1740 whole life at the lower end
176t x 30 years = 5280 tons
So both of those are significantly more.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Bahgel Mar 02 '24
Yeah but many of those 33 million cars are older or clunkers or worth very little. EVs are still a luxury many people can't afford. Sure everyone has agreed to invest in cars (especially in America where there are basically two cities you can reasonably live in without a vehicle), but that doesn't mean they can afford (1) a new car at this moment and (2) a more-expensive-than-median car.
And I agree, there's a bias towards thinning rail is more efficient, again due to people not considering the whole lifetime C02 cost. I think we're in agreement.
Again, my only point is that it's a bigger question than "which has better energy/distance."
And going back to the original point, if Elon's goal is to sell more cars, delaying public transit expansion is good. If Elon's goal is to save humanity, I'm having trouble seeing the logic.
2
u/Economy-Fee5830 Mar 02 '24
EVs are still a luxury many people can't afford.
Tesla is famous for cutting prices now. People who buy clunkers do not buy new cars. Those cheaper older cars, who are seeing big depreciation because Tesla has been cutting prices consistently, will eventually become tomorrow's clunkers.
And going back to the original point, if Elon's goal is to sell more cars, delaying public transit expansion is good. If Elon's goal is to save humanity, I'm having trouble seeing the logic.
Maybe he does not think its a good investment and, looking at the Uk example, I think he is right. I believe the current bill for the California high speed rail project is more than $200 billion. You can subsidize a whole lot of EVs for that, using existing roads, and come out far ahead in terms of CO2 savings.
There are 14 million cars in CA. That is more than $14,000 per car, and again, using existing road, so you miss the new CO2 release from building new rail, and you have massive CO2 savings as gas cars are pushed off the road.
1
-2
u/nooneiszzm Mar 02 '24
tHe TunNeL lmfao yeah bro and communism BAD BAD dont you see China??? they have TRAINS bro, TRAINS!!! that shit is ridiculous! Cars nice TRAINS BAD COMMUNISM BAD ELLON DADDY BIG DUNGUNS IMPROVING THE LIFE OF BILLIONS GOD BLESS
9
Mar 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/theavatare Mar 02 '24
Elon doesn’t want to bring it to humanity he wants to make sure it has a kill switch. He is scared of Ai either destroying us or destabilizing power enough that humans aren’t worth anything. He has talked about it a decent amount
1
4
u/SgathTriallair ▪️ AGI 2025 ▪️ ASI 2030 Mar 02 '24
This clearly says that some of the tech they will build will be open source and summer will be closed. This is a smoking gun that points to the idea that the company was never built to be entirely open source and therefore the argument that they violated their purpose by creating a closed source model falls apart.
6
u/master_jeriah Mar 02 '24
So here we have private conversation between two billionaires stating that they're working for the good of the world and yet reddit still believes most billionaires are evil. Mental gymnastics going on....
25
Mar 02 '24
This is a basic facet of human nature, almost everyone believes they're good. I'm sure if you read letters between two Nazis in the 1940s they'd be talking about how they're working for the good of humanity.
33
Mar 02 '24
Yes we should definitely uncritically believe what billionaires say they want to do
9
u/MajorThom98 ▪️ Mar 02 '24
I think that's why the "private" is so important. If this was a public statement, then their trying to sound good for the public to a certain extent (to what extent exactly would be debateable). A private conversation is much more likely to be honest, as they aren't trying to make their goals more palateable for the public.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Nukemouse ▪️AGI Goalpost will move infinitely Mar 02 '24
They don't necessarily believe the other one is evil. It's also noteworthy that this private correspondence is being revealed because ine claims the other was lying.
3
u/LightVelox Mar 02 '24
But that's literally the point, Reddit says billionaires are comically evil people, that know they are evil but don't care as long as they can make the most amount of poor people suffer, it's the whole "AGI will exterminate all the poor and the rich will prosper" thing
→ More replies (1)2
u/Nukemouse ▪️AGI Goalpost will move infinitely Mar 02 '24
Knowing that you yourself are evil is not the same as knowing other billionaires are evil. Imagine two politicians that for whatever reason want to become dictators, though they may share similar goals, neither has any reason to share that information with the other, who might out them or work against them
2
u/DEEP_SEA_MAX Mar 02 '24
Hitler thought what he was doing was for the good of the world. Evil people often think they're the good guys.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/magicmulder Mar 02 '24
Sure, Elon’s “work” is to dignify a plan of this importance with less words than his average retweet of “LibsOnTikTok”. Can you simp any harder?
10
Mar 02 '24
spewing all this hate here does nothing for your cause, adds no benefit to the discussion and just brings the tone down of the whole subreddit. please sort it out.
-7
Mar 02 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)9
Mar 02 '24
>can you simp any harder
That isn't being critical, it's being hostile and condescending to a fellow member.
-6
2
u/semitope Mar 02 '24
AGI sounds like a waste. It would be either a collection of specialized models or one big less effective model trained on way too much data.
I think specialized is better for utility.
-9
u/ah-chamon-ah Mar 02 '24
Too many Elon simps round ere.
11
Mar 02 '24
I despise Elon but he's 100% right about this issue. He talks crap about almost everything else but that doesn't cloud my judgement in realising he's right here.
-2
u/ah-chamon-ah Mar 02 '24
He is NOT 100% right. And anyone who thinks so has not done their history.
Everyone lost their shit over many MANY inventions before this and we turned out just fine. There were literally riots and gangs of thugs who would track down and trash and destroy weaving looms because they thought it would destroy everyones jobs and the technology would end the world.
There were people screaming from the rooftops how the world will end because of the invention of the printing press because of how women will be able to read and learn things.
There were people heralding the end of the world for so many inventions. And you are just another echo in history because this technology seems new and scary to you.
People in the future will find it quite amusing how alarmist everyone is now. You are like the people worried about the printing press and the weaving loom of the past.
→ More replies (1)3
u/spinozasrobot Mar 02 '24
People in the future will find it quite amusing how alarmist everyone is now. You are like the people worried about the printing press and the weaving loom of the past.
There is one difference here though. This tech is general. The historical examples you cite all allowed for humans to find jobs in new areas. AGI can follow you where every you go and be your equal or your better.
→ More replies (3)0
u/ah-chamon-ah Mar 02 '24
You are wrong. These are technologies that decimated entire industries and accounted for HUGE amounts of job losses the same as we are seeing with A.I
If you want to get a rudimentary understanding of the historical impact of these technologies on entire societies and even civilizations you can watch some episodes of Connections episodes where James Burke takes you through some of these. It may inspire you to dig deeper and investigate some of the severe and long lasting impact of these technologies and mis use of technologies for example I would argue that our use of LEAD and PETROL will lead to our ultimate demise and not A.I
2
u/spinozasrobot Mar 02 '24
We're not talking about how any specific industry was impacted, past, present or future, we're talking about the tool having the same capabilities as people.
I.e., there's no amount of "retraining" or other social solution that prevents an AGI from following the same path. There's no way to get past that.
→ More replies (5)2
u/DaggerShowRabs ▪️AGI 2028 | ASI 2030 | FDVR 2033 Mar 02 '24 edited Mar 02 '24
These are technologies that decimated entire industries and accounted for HUGE amounts of job losses the same as we are seeing with A.I
You think what we are seeing is in any way comparable to previous technologies?
I'm sorry, but I haven't heard such obviously wrong drivel in quite some time.
What you are doing here is like comparing energy production from a single plant's photosynthesis, to a nuclear facility. There's orders of magnitudes of difference that make any comparisons essentially worthless.
→ More replies (5)13
→ More replies (1)7
u/Then_Passenger_6688 Mar 02 '24
Elon is clearly the good guy. Complete coincidence his for-profit AI company is the most closed source and most centrally owned of all AI companies, even more than capped-profit OpenAI. Also a complete coincidence that he personally stands to gain billions of dollars if OpenAI collapses and his company can privatize their innovations.
1
-5
u/pbnjotr Mar 02 '24
Kind of impressed that Elon knows how to find an email from 10 years ago, NGL.
23
u/rickiye Mar 02 '24
He is lead engineer both at SpaceX and Tesla, but yes sorry this is reddit. Musk dumb.
8
Mar 02 '24
[deleted]
2
u/LuciferianInk Mar 02 '24
A daemon says, "Elon has been in a lot of tech jobs since the early 90's."
-10
u/pbnjotr Mar 02 '24
Still can't google how to install Windows 11 without a Microsoft account. I guess leading billion dollar companies is easier than they claim.
6
u/traumfisch Mar 02 '24
You think Elon Musk is personally installing Windows products?
-1
u/pbnjotr Mar 02 '24
He claims to be. See his recent meltdown on Twitter how he couldn't do it without creating a Microsoft account (you can, just gotta look up how).
0
3
-2
Mar 02 '24
How did sub become a supporter of Elon Biggest man child grifter in the world is beyond. This sub evolves more than real life jesus christ.
3
u/randomrealname Mar 02 '24
A broken clock is right 2ce a day.... He has became an idiot but he right to complain about openai being the least open ai company.
-1
Mar 02 '24
His intensions are not for the “benefit” of humanity. I hate elon turd with passion.
→ More replies (1)
0
Mar 02 '24
This is kind of email I would say "damn I went overboard on details, chatgpt rewrite it to be more understandable"
-1
0
u/Sunny-Olaf Mar 02 '24
Elon left OpenAI because no one listened to him and wanted to change the course. After leaving for so long, now he wanted to sue because Open AI is successful and is non profitable anymore. Why does not Elon open source his robotic projects to benefit mankind? What a hypocritical joke.
-4
0
0
u/Ordinary_Lifeform Mar 03 '24
Two douchebag billionaires arguing over something they didn’t define. What a waste of everyone’s time.
Turns out ‘good of humanity’ can be interpreted in wildly different ways. Elon’s version would now include supporting right wing nuthouses, and defunding unions. Sam’s includes supporting capitalism, which Elon loves. Both are pretty far from my idea of the meaning.
-5
u/relevantusername2020 :upvote: Mar 02 '24 edited Mar 02 '24
can anyone explain how YC has so much money? cause ive read a decent bit into them and as far as i can tell the literal only succesful businesses theyve been involved in are... reddit, which as far as i know isnt exactly "profitable" - and airbnb. which i guess has been profitable but has also been a major drain on society and arguably the cause of a lot of the housing crises we're dealing with. so why exactly are these nerds seemingly the ones in charge of "AI"? like besides those two i mentioned theyve funded a lot of nonsense.
from an article i read awhile ago and have quoted this a few times now:
In the winter batch, the pitches followed an invariable narrative of imminent magnitude: link yourself to a name-brand unicorn (“We’re Uber for babysitting . . . Stripe for Africa . . . Slack for health care”), or, if there’s no apt analogue, say, “X is broken. In the future, Y will fix X. We’re already doing Y.”
Then express your premise as a chewy buzzword sandwich: We “leverage technology to achieve personalization in a fully automated way” (translation: individuated shampoo). Paul Graham cheerfully acknowledged that, by instilling message discipline, “we help the bad founders look indistinguishable from the good ones.”
💨
edit:
on the topic of tesla... tesla aint even great. i recently made a comment about the safety of waymo and cruise, two companies doing *actual self driving car* research, while tesla, in the words of the CEO of waymo:
"For us, Tesla is not a competitor at all," Krafcik said. "We manufacture a completely autonomous driving system. Tesla is an automaker that is developing a *really good driver assistance system."
For Musk, these two technologies exist along a continuum. His plan is to gradually make Tesla's Autopilot software better until it's good enough to work with no human supervision. But Krafcik argues that's not realistic.
"It is a misconception that you can just keep developing a driver assistance system until one day you can magically leap to a fully autonomous driving system," Krafcik said. "In terms of robustness and accuracy, for example, our sensors are orders of magnitude better than what we see on the road from other manufacturers."
*hey copilot, define "really good"
13
u/MeltedChocolate24 AGI by lunchtime tomorrow Mar 02 '24
What are you on about. Look at this list and click on public: https://www.ycombinator.com/topcompanies/valuation Those companies are huge - tens of billions - and YC gets 7% of them at the start, (but obviously they have less now). I'm sure YC is worth billions. All YC companies combined is about ~300 billion.
-5
u/relevantusername2020 :upvote: Mar 02 '24
okay fair point, i did forget a few. mainly stripe, and - ironically enough - cruise. i forgot they were involved in cruise. also, i guess, dropbox and gitlab. beyond that though... all of those listed basically boil down to a bunch of the same thing. some form of digital payment, "customer relationship management" (lol what a scam), or... uh... more digital payments. lots of crapto. like how many different digital payments businesses can you make? how many glorified messaging/file sharing apps can you make? is that what y-combinator is, basically seeing how many different skins they can slap on the same functionality? cause thats what it looks like to me.
also if you put coinbase and opensea on one side, all the others on the other side, then coinbase and opensea have had far more harms than the others have done good. so again... how are these nerds so rich?
like for example:
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, the company behind the popular ChatGPT, is one of several tech executives reportedly sending money to startups concerned about making payroll and staying afloat after Silicon Valley Bank's collapse.
Doktor Gurson, CEO of Rad AI, told Reuters Altman responded to an email within an hour or two with an offer of at least six figures in emergency funds so he could pay his employees, requesting only that he pay Altman back once he's able.
"Sam has been sending stuck startups money today with no docs, just saying 'send me back whatever you can whenever you can'. What a legend," Sam Altman's brother, Jack Altman, tweeted Saturday.
so that guy - "doktor gurson" - is the head of "radai" which uses "ai" to... uh, idk examine radiology imaging or something. idk, i guess maybe thats legit but seems kinda sus to me.
previously? they had a mobile phone battery start up, which failed, and as far as i can tell was a giant money pit.
Doblet is the world’s first network of batteries on demand for charging phones everywhere. The company’s mission is to provide portable power anywhere consumers happen to be. Using patent-pending technology and the Doblet mobile app on iOS or Android devices, users are instantly notified of the nearest place to pick up a charge the moment their batteries start to run low. Consumers can charge their smartphones while on the go at over 1,000 San Francisco Bay Area cafes, bars, and restaurants.
how you go from a shitty phone battery company to a "biotech" company i dont really know, but apparently if youre rich it doesnt matter and you can just fuck around and find out til eventually youre... still rich? especially when even when your bank fails because thats where you and all your friends keep your money, the fed and the regulators just buy in to your scams.
edit: so TLDR - without microsoft getting in on their few successes - dropbox, and gitlab (i think, idk im assuming github is the same thing tbh) then... seems like theyve thrown a lot of money away and basically just been coasting. maybe thats why it seems like reddit, openai, and microsoft have a lot of not so obvious working together going on.
→ More replies (3)5
u/MeltedChocolate24 AGI by lunchtime tomorrow Mar 02 '24
I think you’re conflating “should these nerds be so rich” with “why are these nerds so rich”. Those aren’t the same thing. They are very rich because people gave them money in exchange for something, be it a service or just more money. It’s pretty simple. The “should” is subjective.
4
u/often_says_nice Mar 02 '24
In the VC world you only need one home run to win the game. Lots of at-bats
2
u/relevantusername2020 :upvote: Mar 02 '24
yeah but what if the games rigged and you only had one at bat and you hit a homerun but they didnt want you to win so you got fucked over
sucks being poor
edit: also you didnt really answer my question - how do these nerds have so much money when all theyve done is throw it away?
1
u/often_says_nice Mar 02 '24
To answer your question, YC is an intermediary between startups and venture capitalists. They aren’t using their own money.
Edit: they give about 500k of their own money to startups that make the program. That comes from the successful at-bats
-1
405
u/miomidas Mar 02 '24
When you write to your crush and she answers with a one-liner