背景

起诉文件：Elon Musk OpenAI lawsuit^[1]

埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）起诉 OpenAI，声称该公司放弃了其造福人类的创始使命。马斯克指控，OpenAI 在追求利润的过程中，已经背离了其创立时承诺开发将造福人类的人工智能技术的目标（一文读懂 OpenAI）。在 2024.02.29 提交给旧金山法院的诉讼中，马斯克声称 OpenAI 与微软的合作将该机构转变为微软的“实际上的闭源子公司”，专注于利润最大化。

诉讼指出，OpenAI 的这些行为违反了马斯克、奥特曼（Sam Altman）和 OpenAI 总裁格雷格·布罗克曼（Greg Brockman）之间的创立协议。他们当初承诺将该项目作为一个非盈利组织，并将其技术开源。违规行为包括将 OpenAI GPT-4 模型设计保密，该诉讼声称此举主要是出于商业考量而非安全考虑，并称 GPT-4 模型现已成为“微软的实际专有算法”。对于这起诉讼，OpenAI 选择不发表评论。

该诉讼要求 OpenAI 遵守其创始协议，回归其“为人类利益开发 AGI” 的使命，而非仅仅造福奥特曼、布罗克曼和微软——“世界上最大的技术公司”。

在共同创立 OpenAI 之前，马斯克就曾对 AI 进步可能对社会带来的风险表示关切，并呼吁建立防护措施，防止这些系统替代人类。去年，马斯克和其他 AI 研究人员发起了一封公开信，呼吁暂停进行“巨型 AI 实验”。此后，他创立了自己的 AI 公司 xAI，并在社交媒体平台 X 上推出了 AI 机器人（xAI 发布 Grok，ChatGPT 新功能曝光，Induced AI 多任务助手）。

诉讼还称，OpenAI 在 2023.03 发布的 GPT-4 模型不仅能进行推理，实际上在推理方面“比平均水平的人类更出色”，该模型在律师统一考试中取得了第 90 个百分点的成绩。据传，该公司正在开发一个更先进的模型 “Q Star”（Sam 重回 OpenAI，Q-star 被曝光！），该模型被认为是真正的人工通用智能（AGI）。

2023 年，奥特曼因沟通问题被 OpenAI 解雇（随后五天内被重新雇佣）。诉讼指控在这一事件发生后，奥特曼、布罗克曼和微软“利用微软对 OpenAI 的显著影响”，将董事会成员替换为微软更认可的人选（OpenAI 大地震：Sam Altman 和 Greg Brockman 离职，微软加强与 OpenAI 合作！，没有员工，OpenAI 什么也不是！）。

诉讼声称，新董事会成员缺乏 AI 领域的深入专业知识，被有意设计为无法独立判断 OpenAI 何时达到 AGI，因而也无法独立判断何时开发出超出微软许可范围的算法。目前，英国、欧盟和美国的监管机构正在审查 OpenAI 与微软之间的合作关系，评估他们的共享关系是否影响了竞争。

OpenAI 公告

我们致力于 OpenAI 使命，并为实现这一使命而不懈努力。

OpenAI 的使命是确保全人类都能从通用人工智能（AGI）中受益，这包括构建安全且有益的 AGI 以及助力创造广泛的利益。目前，我们分享了关于实现这一使命所学到的经验，以及我们与埃隆·马斯克关系的一些事实。我们计划驳回埃隆提出的所有主张。

我们认识到，构建 AGI 所需的资源远超我们最初的预期。埃隆建议我们宣布向 OpenAI 提供 10 亿美元的初步资金承诺。截至目前，这个非盈利组织从埃隆那里筹集的资金不到 4500 万美元，而从其他捐赠者那里筹集的超过 9000 万美元。

在 2015 年底成立 OpenAI 时，Greg 和 Sam 最初打算筹集 1 亿美元。埃隆在一封邮件中提出，我们需要一个比 1 亿美元更大的数字，以避免显得没有希望，他建议宣布开始时有 10 亿美元的资金承诺，并表示会补齐其他人未提供的部分。

📌

From:  Elon Musk <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
To:  Greg Brockman <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
CC:  Sam Altman <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Subject: follow up from call

Blog sounds good, assuming adjustments for neutrality vs being YC-centric.

I'd favor positioning the blog to appeal a bit more to the general public -- there is a lot of value to having the public root for us to succeed -- and then having a longer, more detailed and inside-baseball version for recruiting, with a link to it at the end of the general public version.

We need to go with a much bigger number than $100M to avoid sounding hopeless relative to what Google or Facebook are spending. I think we should say that we are starting with a $1B funding commitment. This is real. I will cover whatever anyone else doesn't provide.

Template seems fine, apart from shifting to a vesting cash bonus as default, which can optionally be turned into YC or potentially SpaceX (need to understand how much this will be) stock.

我们花了大量时间设想实现 AGI 的可行路径。到 2017 年初，我们意识到构建 AGI 需要大量计算资源。我们开始评估实现 AGI 可能需要的计算量，明白我们需要远超过初期预期的资金——每年数十亿美元，这远超我们任何人，特别是埃隆，最初的预期。

随着对营利实体的需求日益明显，埃隆提出了与特斯拉合并或他全权控制的想法。后来，他选择离开 OpenAI，表示需要存在一个能与 Google/DeepMind 竞争的对手，并决定自己来建立这样的公司。他表示将支持我们寻找自己的融资道路。

2017 年底，我们和埃隆决定创建一个盈利实体是使命的下一步。埃隆希望获得多数股权、初始董事会控制权，并担任 CEO。在讨论期间，他暂停了资金支持。Reid Hoffman 介入帮助我们弥补了工资和运营的资金缺口。

由于对于任何个体对 OpenAI 拥有绝对控制权的担忧，我们无法与埃隆就建立盈利实体达成一致。随后他建议将 OpenAI 并入特斯拉。2018 年初，他转发了一封邮件，建议 OpenAI 依附于特斯拉成为其“摇钱树”，认为这是与谷歌竞争的唯一可能途径，尽管成功机会渺茫。

📌

From:  Elon Musk <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
To:  Ilya Sutskever <◼︎◼︎◼︎>, Greg Brockman <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
Date: Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:52 AM
Subject: Fwd: Top AI institutions today

◼︎◼︎◼︎ is exactly right. We may wish it otherwise, but, in my and ◼︎◼︎◼︎’s opinion, Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google. Even then, the probability of being a counterweight to Google is small. It just isn't zero.

Begin forwarded message:

From: ◼︎◼︎◼︎ <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
To:  Elon Musk <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
Date: January 31, 2018 at 11:54:30 PM PST
Subject: Re: Top AI institutions today

Working at the cutting edge of AI is unfortunately expensive. For example, ◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎ In addition to DeepMind, Google also has Google Brain, Research, and Cloud. And TensorFlow, TPUs, and they own about a third of all research (in fact, they hold their own AI conferences).

I also strongly suspect that compute horsepower will be necessary (and possibly even sufficient) to reach AGI. If historical trends are any indication, progress in AI is primarily driven by systems - compute, data, infrastructure. The core algorithms we use today have remained largely unchanged from the ~90s. Not only that, but any algorithmic advances published in a paper somewhere can be almost immediately re-implemented and incorporated. Conversely, algorithmic advances alone are inert without the scale to also make them scary.

It seems to me that OpenAI today is burning cash and that the funding model cannot reach the scale to seriously compete with Google (an 800B company). If you can't seriously compete but continue to do research in open, you might in fact be making things worse and helping them out “for free”, because any advances are fairly easy for them to copy and immediately incorporate, at scale.

A for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream over time and would, with the current team, likely bring in a lot of investment. However, building out a product from scratch would steal focus from AI research, it would take a long time and it's unclear if a company could “catch up” to Google scale, and the investors might exert too much pressure in the wrong directions.The most promising option I can think of, as I mentioned earlier, would be for OpenAI to attach to Tesla as its cash cow. I believe attachments to other large suspects (e.g. Apple? Amazon?) would fail due to an incompatible company DNA. Using a rocket analogy, Tesla already built the “first stage” of the rocket with the whole supply chain of Model 3 and its onboard computer and a persistent internet connection. The “second stage” would be a full self driving solution based on large-scale neural network training, which OpenAI expertise could significantly help accelerate. With a functioning full self-driving solution in ~2-3 years we could sell a lot of cars/trucks. If we do this really well, the transportation industry is large enough that we could increase Tesla's market cap to high O(~100K), and use that revenue to fund the AI work at the appropriate scale.

I cannot see anything else that has the potential to reach sustainable Google-scale capital within a decade.

◼︎◼︎◼︎

当埃隆在 2018 年 2 月底离开时，他表示我们成功的可能性为零，并计划在特斯拉内部建立 AGI 的竞争者。他还表达了对我们独立筹集数十亿美元的支持。到 2018 年 12 月，他在邮件中重申，仅筹集几亿美元是远远不够的，需要立即每年数十亿美元的投入。

📌

From:  Elon Musk <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
To:  Ilya Sutskever <◼︎◼︎◼︎>, Greg Brockman <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
CC:  Sam Altman <◼︎◼︎◼︎>,  <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
Date: Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 12:07 PM
Subject: I feel I should reiterate

My probability assessment of OpenAI being relevant to DeepMind/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%. Not 1%. I wish it were otherwise.

Even raising several hundred million won't be enough. This needs billions per year immediately or forget it.

Unfortunately, humanity's future is in the hands of ◼︎◼︎◼︎.

◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎

And they are doing a lot more than this.

◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎
◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎
◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎

I really hope I'm wrong.

Elon

我们通过开发广泛可用的有益工具来推进使命。我们使我们的技术广泛可用，以增强人们的能力并改善他们的日常生活，包括通过开源贡献。我们提供广泛访问当今最强大的AI技术，包括数亿人每天使用的免费版本。例如，阿尔巴尼亚使用 OpenAI 的工具加速其加入欧盟的进程，减少了多达 5.5 年的时间；Digital Green 利用 OpenAI 的技术帮助提高肯尼亚和印度农民的收入，通过降低农业推广服务的成本 100 倍；罗德岛州最大的医疗提供商 Lifespan 使用 GPT-4 简化手术同意书；冰岛利用 GPT-4 保存冰岛语。

埃隆明白我们的使命不意味着必须开源 AGI。正如伊利亚（Ilya Sutskever）对埃隆所说：“随着我们越来越接近构建 AI，开始变得不那么开放是有道理的。OpenAI 中的 ‘Open’ 意味着在 AI 建成后，每个人都应从 AI 的成果中受益，但完全没必要共享其背后的科学原理...”。

📌

From:  Elon Musk <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
To:  Sam Altman <◼︎◼︎◼︎>, Ilya Sutskever <◼︎◼︎◼︎>, Greg Brockman <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
Date: Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 8:18 AM
Subject: Fwd: congrats on the falcon 9

Begin forwarded message:

From: ◼︎◼︎◼︎ <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
To:  Elon Musk <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
Date: January 2, 2016 at 10:12:32 AM CST
Subject: congrats on the falcon 9\

Hi Elon

Happy new year to you, ◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎!

Congratulations on landing the Falcon 9, what an amazing achievement. Time to build out the fleet now!

I've seen you (and Sam and other OpenAI people) doing a lot of interviews recently extolling the virtues of open sourcing AI, but I presume you realise that this is not some sort of panacea that will somehow magically solve the safety problem? There are many good arguments as to why the approach you are taking is actually very dangerous and in fact may increase the risk to the world. Some of the more obvious points are well articulated in this blog post, that I'm sure you've seen, but there are also other important considerations: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/17/should-ai-be-open/

I’d be interested to hear your counter-arguments to these points.

Best
◼︎◼︎◼︎

From:  Ilya Sutskever <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
To:  Elon Musk <◼︎◼︎◼︎>, Sam Altman <◼︎◼︎◼︎>, Greg Brockman <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
Date: Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: congrats on the falcon 9

The article is concerned with a hard takeoff scenario: if a hard takeoff occurs, and a safe AI is harder to build than an unsafe one, then by opensorucing everything, we make it easy for someone unscrupulous with access to overwhelming amount of hardware to build an unsafe AI, which will experience a hard takeoff.

As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes).

---

From:  Elon Musk <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
To:  Ilya Sutskever <◼︎◼︎◼︎>
Date: Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:11 AM
Subject: Fwd: congrats on the falcon 9

Yup

我们对与一个我们深深敬佩的人的关系走到这一步感到遗憾——他激励我们设定更高的目标，随后告诉我们我们会失败，创立了一个竞争对手，并在我们开始在没有他的情况下取得 OpenAI 使命方面的实质性进展时对我们提起诉讼。

我们专注于推进我们的使命，并且还有很长的路要走。随着我们不断改进我们的工具，我们兴奋地部署这些系统，以便它们为每个人提供帮助。

注：这是整理后的公告内容，原文请查看：OpenAI and Elon Musk^[2]

References