granzymes

5 ms·

1.
by granzymes 10d ago
I'm not really worried about the labs, it's misaligned governments that keep me up at night. ASI landing during the current administration is not ideal. I also would prefer to avoid needing to indoctrinate myself in Xi Jinping Tho
2.
by granzymes 10d ago
>I have focused in this essay only on the first point, as I believe it is by far the most urgent. However, I hold a deep hope and appreciation for the benefits that further technological progress will bring. Future aligned AI could advan
3.
by granzymes 23d ago
It’s a cost-saving measure and a marketing story.
4.
by granzymes 1mo ago
If the goal was to launch on a day when GitHub had issues, most days are good launch days.
5.
by granzymes 2mo ago
At this point I assume Google is just budgeting for a $1B annual tax for operating in the EU.
6.
by granzymes 2mo ago
We call things AI until they start working. See also: robots (your washing machine is a robot, but it works so you don’t think of it that way).
7.
by granzymes 2mo ago
The “overlap” is that all machine learning is AI, but not all AI is machine learning.
8.
by granzymes 3mo ago
>The proposal would also involve other US AI companies giving a similar stake to the government, the FT reported, although it is not clear yet whether companies such as Anthropic, Google and Meta would agree to the plan. I can't see
9.
by granzymes 3mo ago
To be clear, that is not "Google's memo". It's a memo by a guy who happened to work at Google. There is a diversity of opinions at a company that employs 180,000 people.
10.
by granzymes 4mo ago
HN is of course not a monolith, but from my recollection most of the frustration and criticism w/r/t Mozilla is about its product strategy and executive team, not its corporate structure. Some other examples of nonprofits with for
11.
by granzymes 4mo ago
I'm curious why you think that creating a for-profit subsidiary is objectionable, since it is extremely common for large nonprofits. A good example for this forum would be Mozilla, but many more were mentioned during the trial. Also cu
12.
by granzymes 4mo ago
Elon's purchase offer was in 2025, after the success of ChatGPT showed that OpenAI's IP (much if not most of it developed after 2019) could be commercially valuable. I think it is also debatable whether Elon's purchase offer
13.
by granzymes 4mo ago
>I for one will only buy Chinese RAM from now on, no matter the prices. Memory is a commodity, so I think you will be very lonely in your quest.
14.
by granzymes 4mo ago
I think it would be helpful for you to clarify which part of the chain you found objectionable: - in 2015, OpenAI was founded as a Delaware nonprofit - in 2017, OpenAI discovered the scaling laws and realized they needed far more compute (a
15.
by granzymes 4mo ago
Thanks, dang! The blog post[1] might be a better source than the twitter thread. Also I regret my typo above (lab -> labs) but too late now! [1] https://cursor.com/blog/composer-2-5
16.
by granzymes 4mo ago
The intellectual property (code, data) was transferred from the nonprofit to the for-profit for about $60M, which is what an independent firm hired to assess the value said the IP was worth in late 2018 / early 2019. The nonprofit itse
17.
by granzymes 4mo ago
This is not correct. jongjong is correct that a nonprofit does not have owners in the sense that a for-profit has owners. Nonprofits are dedicated to their mission, and are run by a board of directors. You cannot have a % ownership in a non
18.
by granzymes 4mo ago
Correct, Musk based his claims on the 2023 Microsoft deal. The 2025 recapitalization was discussed at trial, but it was ancillary since all that changed was the existing for-profit changed from a capped-profit with weird cash flow mechanics
19.
by granzymes 4mo ago
Surprised this got pushed off the front page so quickly! It’s exciting to see what the Cursor team has been able to do with significantly fewer resources than the frontier labs. I do wish they weren’t joining xAI. Something tells me there w
20.
by granzymes 4mo ago
Evidence at trial showed that Musk attempted to pursue AGI at Tesla starting in 2017 before he left the board of OpenAI. He was unsuccessful in that endeavor and later restarted his efforts in xAI after the success of ChatGPT.
21.
by granzymes 4mo ago
You are correct that which statute of limitations applies is a question of law. If facts are undisputed, that is the end of the issue. In this case, the facts were disputed, and the jury found for the defendants. The jury instructions are p
22.
by granzymes 4mo ago
The statute of limitations is not a trivial issue. Defendants have rights just as much as plaintiffs do, and our justice system does not allow plaintiffs to unreasonably delay in bringing their claims.
23.
by granzymes 4mo ago
This case sets no precedent one way or the other on that question. The IP was transferred to the for-profit for fair value in 2019, and Musk never argued otherwise in this case. The attorneys general of California and Delaware could challen
24.
by granzymes 4mo ago
The statute of limitations takes into account when the plaintiff discovered or with reasonable diligence should have discovered their injury. In this case, the jury found that Musk knew or should have known of his alleged injury prior to 20
25.
by granzymes 4mo ago
Whether the claim accrued before the statute of limitations expired is a question of fact, and is therefore reserved for the fact-finder which in this case was the jury.
26.
by granzymes 4mo ago
The statute of limitations exists to prevent unreasonable delay, to protect defendants from prejudice due to loss of evidence to the passage of time, and to recognize that people who are injured tend to complain immediately and not sit on t
27.
by granzymes 4mo ago
My own thoughts: If I had been on the jury, I would have found against Musk on every point. His lawyers created a “3 phases of doubt” to try and sidestep the statute of limitations, but it was clearly bogus and he was on notice of OpenAI cr
28.
by granzymes 4mo ago
Because no one has commented yet on the legal significance: Musk lost today because the jury found that he waited too long to bring his claims. The jury answers only yes/no questions, so we do not know their exact thoughts, but it is l
29.
by granzymes 5mo ago
Power companies are a classic example of a natural monopoly because they require a ton of extremely expensive physical infrastructure to connect every house to the grid that would be wasteful to duplicate for every competitor. The whole poi
30.
by granzymes 5mo ago
This is a truly incredible exchange. >Savitt asked Musk if he’d raised any objection to the structure then, when he’d received the documents. Musk said that he didn’t read beyond that first box. >>Musk: I didn’t read the fine print

More ›