The technology is impressive; achieving such a level requires a lot of efforts in dataset creation, neural architectural costs, and GPU shepherding.
What is the company’s ethical position though? It officially stemmed from Mr Musk’s objection that OpenAI was not open-source, but it too is not open-source. It followed Mr Musk’s letter to stop all AI development on frontier models, but it is a frontier model. It followed complaints that OpenAI trained on tweets, but it also trained on tweets.
Companies like Meta, Mistral, or DeepSeek, address those complaints better, and all now play in the big league.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
I would encourage everybody who thinks so to pursue basic political and philosophical education. Perhaps with a dash of history.
This definition is plainly wrong on so many levels that it's practically impossible to engage with. But I'll make that mistake and engage on two points.
First, it implies that conservative position has somehow consistent features across time and space. There is difference between conservative in Germany, USA and China. Not to mention conservative in early, mid and late 20th century.
Second, ignoring legal norms is neither stated, nor implicated position of conservative political movements. At very worst, we can accuse them of maintaining laws with discriminatory intents. But not of flaunting those same laws.
If you're in a charitable mood, the context on when, where and who originally made the statement will provide clues on which strain of conservatism the statement is referring to.
So, the original author is an American living in Ohio, and made the comment in the year AD 2018 while critiquing an essay about the New Deal. I'm confident you can make a good-faith educated guess on which country and period they were characterizing.
North American Conservatives (i.e. citizen of the United States) have done olympic-worthy gymnastics to align with the aforementioned felon's redefinition of conservatism belief in America, even while those beliefs actively contradict their religion and life-long belief systems, or even their own on going behaviors and decisions.
I say this as someone living in Pennsylvania, drowning in the hypocrisy and escalating hate this group of people has been spewing for the last ~8 years.
Therefore I can completely understand why someone might focus on that as the most relevant definition on 'conservatism' today in the USA.
> I can completely understand why someone might focus on that as the most relevant definition on 'conservatism' today in the USA.
You don't consider this a problem, that the word "conservatism" when discussed with an unknown recipient online (very possibly non-american) is constrained to the context of the past decade(s) in the United States?
Words have meaning, so if you're going to have a meaningful discussion about a word like "conservatism" or any type of -ism for that matter, I would think it benefits anyone engaging in that discussion to be aware of the different wings present in that word, whether that be across history or across present day geography.
Get back to us when Biden is a twice convicted sex offender, has caused a dozen plus of his inner circle indicted for felonies across many jurisdictions, when several have pled guilty, when he is convicted of felony fraud, when he steals nuclear secrets and gives them to foreigners, and when his decades long employees and own lawyers turn him in with video, audio, eyewitness, photographic, and text evidence.
According to the random Crooked Timber blog commenter who coined that viral aphorism in 2018, yes. But by what standard are that commenter’s musings to be considered expositive on modern conservative philosophy?
Observing the last 10 years, which political movement is most associated with the idea that inherent identity characteristics should dictate how you are treated under the law?
In those last ten years, Republicans have been utterly obsessed with "identity characteristics". From pushing back against gay marriage, abortion, civil rights... It's basically all they talk about in political rallies today. Not the economy or anything else, just how it is important to never talk about trans people, and how they should not exist.
In my observation, every time a prominent conservative breaks the law, all I hear from the right is how “he’s a good man,” “he learned his lesson,” “he was acting in good faith,” and so on — even if the crime is as egregious as homicide or pedophilia. The same generosity is never granted to someone not in the in-group: just look how Crystal Mason was treated when compared to the scores of Republicans who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
My understanding is the earliest application of identity politics comes from thinkers like Fanon and Wollstonecraft, would you categorize them as being conservatives?
"In-group" doesn't necessarily mean identity characteristics. In today's (US) conservative party, it distinctly means "pledges personal allegiance to party leader."
As an example: The "conservative" judge who threw out 40 years of precedent on a technicality to prevent the American public from learning whether their former and potentially future president sold, gave away, or otherwise exposed national security secrets after he undoubtedly stole those documents.
There's a fundamental asymmetry in "the movement" on the left - which essentially rounds out to whatever annoying undergrad student showed up in your Twitter feed today - and the actual elected, governing leaders of the right, doing things like throwing out very strong criminal cases on matters of deep public importance.
It's probably a bad idea and it will likely backfire but nevertheless motivation matters and a lot of people are willing to cut some slack to that political movement because they're honestly convinced it was done in good faith to restore a balance and give some power to disenfranchised groups.
Sometimes a phenomenon exists for a long time before being encapsulated in a concise, thought-provoking, and often (though not always) amusing aphorism.
An excellent example would be Murphy's Law, and by extension many of the similar, often eponymous, laws.
Some of those are humourous, some are in fact quite serious though have a comedic element particularly out of context. Most speak to at least a colloquial truth.
What Whilhoit did was manage to buttonhole a hypocrisy of modern conservativism, perhaps over the past few decades, perhaps a century or so (Anatole France, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread", further evidentiarially supported by SCOTUS in Grants Pass), perhaps by millennia (see the opening paragraphs of A.H.M. Jones, Augustus, describing the political situation in the late Roman Republic, quoted here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22208105>, and at greater length: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230607042525/https://old.reddi...>). It's not so much a proved hypothesis as a phrasing which fits the understanding of many and expresses it concisely and memorably.
ribelo is saying that "modern liberalism" can be characterized by a belief that "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
At least in leftist philosophical circles, which are what I am familiar with, this is a relatively common critique of liberalism.
Another common rhetorical tactic in leftist critiques is to point out that the bad beliefs liberals often blame the conservatives for having are actually in practice tenants of modern liberalism too. For example both conservatives and liberals are in favor to some degree of using the military overseas to maintain global hegemony.
I don't know if ribelo is leftist or not but in any case I can see what they are going for.
Imagine a kid insulting another kid on a playground. The other kid says "I know you are, but what am I?"
That's pretty much what's going on with the GP comment. It's a really low-effort and really transparent attempt to paint the other side with what your side has been accused of.
Mind you, I don't think it's a fair criticism of conservativism, either...
I feel like I'm living in an alternative dimension when somebody worries about that when we have someone like Trump literally running for president and with a high likelihood of winning, like someone buying a gun after using drugs its a matter of massive importance when we have a jackass this close to being president who literally stole from charity and would convert muslins, black people and mexicans into slaves if he could.
I’m not the one arguing for moral superiority that Democrats purportedly have over Republicans, which is the point the OP was unsuccessfully trying to make. Truth is: the probability of seeing the inside of a jail cell is markedly lower for the rich and well connected, irrespective of their political affiliation.
But nothing ever does if you know the right people. Prima facie evidence is Epstein’s client list which our DOJ is categorically not interested in investigating.
I'll never understand this obsession with Hunter Biden. I'm sure he's a fuck up or was a fuck up as a drug addict. He's probably had all types of questionable dealings being who he is but his list of crimes are:
1. Failure to pay income tax
2. Illegally owning a gun and lying about it
Both are bad with the second being worse IMO.
Here are just a couple people who Trump pardoned and their crimes:
- Roger Stone (convicted of obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering)
- Steve Bannon (charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering)
- Three U.S. military officers who were accused or convicted of war crimes
- Chris Collins (Congressman convicted of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, securities fraud, and lying to the FBI)
- Duncan Hunter (Congressman convicted of one count of misusing campaign funds)
- Steve Stockman (Congressman convicted of money laundering, mail and wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to make "conduit contributions" and false statements)
- Paul Pogue (Convicted of making and subscribing a false tax return)
- Bernard Kerik (Obstructing the administration of the Internal Revenue Laws; aiding in the preparation of a false income tax return; making false statements on a loan application; making false statements)
This is a small list of pardons but all of these seem for the most part like worse or similar crimes than what Hunter Biden is guilty.
Again, I don't doubt Hunter Biden is a fuck up but as far as I know he's not been pardoned by his father.
That's not any conservatism that I recognize. In fact, what is espoused there is exactly the progressive left (Herbert Harcuse's "repressive tolerance") mindset.
And while I will grant you that liberalism (not to be confused with leftism), is different then conservatism, both (classical) liberalism and conservatism strongly require equal treatment (procedural symmetry).
Didn't Trump himself say he would pardon the rioters that stormed the Capitol, if ever he was reelected ? Didn't he say that he would "lock up" all the "sick, evil" democrats after he is reelected ?
Modern american conservatism very well fits the quote from grandparent.
Also, surely you would know what "repressive tolerance" is, since you're quoting it ? You would also know that the author you cite, whose name you misspelled, was critiquing the concept ?
Yes, I fat-fingered his name, didn't I. It should be: "Herbert Marcuse".
And no, I have not seen a primary source where in context Trump said that he would "" "lock up" all the "sick, evil" democrats after he is reelected"". Do you have such a primary source? Years ago I was told that Trump said the white supremacists were "very fine people", so I looked at the transcript and he literally said the opposite.
I don't think he ever endorsed white supremacists, but I think I remember (wouldn't bet on it) an instance where a journalist asked him why some keep showing up at his rallies and why he does nothing about it. He then answered that he doesn't really know who they are, that he didn't know, etc. basically eluding the question. i.e. they're welcome but won't proclaim his support for them, one of the many dog whistles Republicans use nowadays.
It's not a complete definition but he is right that conservatism is completely incompatible with universalism.
This is a little confusing in the US and other Anglo countries because traditionally we have been fairly liberal so sometimes people confuse liberalism and conservatism.
In the Anglo countries, what is being “conserved” is the liberal universalist tradition of the Enlightenment, and what is being “progressed” is a power- and identity-centered postmodernism.
Don’t get this confused with conservative and progressive politicians, though, who are generally ignorant of the actual traditions and philosophies behind their respective movements, and are essentially just cutouts for competing media and financial corporate interests. The few holdouts on both sides have been successfully sidelined (Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul), and it looks like the military-industrial complex will have their war with Iran no matter what the results of the next few elections are.
(Sorry, I’ll go have my coffee now and see if I get a little less doomer.)
You're going to need to provide a source for the definitions you're using for "conservatism", "liberalism" and "universalism".
Without those, your comment is difficult to make any sense of, since the way you're using those words seems to differ from any sort of standardized definition.
I think we can both agree that for example liberalism and Islam are incompatible. So if you want to conserve liberalism you'll have to exclude Muslims. That's not universalist -> liberalism and universalism are incompatible.
Sounds like a made-up definition of Conservatism as 'that which I do not agree with'. It is not a very good definition, if you really want to find out what it is about you could read (or listen to) some of Roger Scruton's works. Here's an interview with Scruton to give some ideas of what it is about:
You do not need to agree with him or his definition of Conservatism and there are other definitions of the term which are also applicable but none of those definitions have any resemblance to what you posed.
Musk is a centrist, not a conservative. He used to stand to the left of centre but has been moved to the right of centre by virtue of the left moving further left, thereby moving the centre to the left as well while Musk staid put.
Society needs conservatives just like it needs centrists and progressives and whatever other names you want to give to these philosophies and/or ideologies. A world made out of only progressives never gets anywhere since they will never find out what works well and what does not since their aim is to shape the future by means of societal change. A world made out of only progressives will eventually grow stale when the rate of change in the environment outpaces societies' capacity for change. Progressives can make good innovators but tend to be less able at keeping things running. Conservatives can be good at keeping things running but tend to be less inclined to innovation. These are broad brush strokes but the essence is sound, society tends to work best when there is a balance between conservatives and progressives.
You might notice some parallels: architects tend to be lousy builders, builders tend to be uninspired architects. Developers tend to be less gifted at UI design, UI designers tend to be sloppy developers. Copy editors tend to be unremarkable writers, writers tend to be less effective copy editors.
> xAI opens sources models with a 6 month lag, look at Grok 1
That's what happened once, rather than a policy that we can expect to be applied. (Unless I missed some announcement?) Based on "we'll publish the algorithm" which ended up being a one-off partial snapshot, never updated afterwards, I wouldn't hold my breath for the models.
> He owns Twitter, why wouldn't it be okay for him to train on Tweets?
There's a whole thing about having clear opt-in agreement about how your data will be used for EU citizens. Twitter didn't comply here with their hidden opt-out strategy.
You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content).
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.
Right: you retain ownership, and grant X certain rights to the content. Whether those rights include training AI on the data is legally and morally in dispute. X claims that right in its ToS, but a ToS isn’t law and may be legally invalid, and besides that the ToS system is famously broken in the US. Morally, I think it’s pretty clear that reasonable users did consent to their content being published as a tweet, and did not consent to X recreating the content as their own and taking credit for it.
Clearly does not include a provision to utilize Content for purposes of training an AI model.
In fact, they didn't include any purpose for their own use of the data and following GDPR thus cannot use the data at all. They did include purposes for other companies (syndication, broadcast, etc) which also doesn't include training of AI.
“you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).“
Not sure how anyone could defend that an AI model is not covered by this idea - such a model is easily covered by “distribution methods”.
Nope, the GDPR separates the action you perform on data from the purpose of such action. You need to collect consent for a purpose. X didn't state a purpose for why they would do any of these actions. Thus under EU laws their data collection is likely unlawful.
Adding a new purpose requires additional consent at least in the EU.
IANAL disclaimer, but I believe social media companies very explicitly separate themselves from publishers for the purpose of not being responsible for what users post. They can't have it both ways.
> - No one else stopped development, so why should he?
I thought it was a moral imperative or some such thing to do AI right because it could "destroy humanity"?
Or was that just Musk and the rest of the special people in SV's way of aggrandizing themselves while trying to do something most of them have either no experience in or fail miserably at, which is raise an intelligence to be a responsible actor?
> OpenAI trained on tweets, but it also trained on tweets
Not only that - Grok is/was trained on ChatGPT output, which I suppose Musk felt was turnabout. When asked about its identity, the first Grok would respond like ChatGPT (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38584922)
Don't take this as a pro-Musk or anti-Musk comment. I just want to paraphrase his reasoning:
In a recent interview on Lex Fridman, he envisioned a future where humans augmented AI, through a brain to computer device like Neuralink would be able to keep up with pure AI.
Now one can immediately notice a hole in this reasoning: namely what guarantees that the AI that is use to augment humans is going to be benevolent and won't go rogue?
Nothing guarantees that. But in this augmentations scenario human brain is necessary, unlike in the many extinction scenarios with pure silicon AGI take off.
Unfortunately, Grok is not even Open Output, nor is Mistral’s platform or DeepSeek’s. None of them can be used for work (mistral with a fancy commercial license, but you gotta jump through hoops)
Only Meta’s Llama can be used for work. The rest are just toys for personal use noobs who don’t read the fine print.
Musk has publicly stated his goal for AI is alignment with Truth, where truth is defined as to what corresponds with reality, not necessarily with the current social consensus. Specifically in terms of reason, given a set of facts, being able to reason to a real place, not just to a socially given answer.
Which means essentially nothing. Most questions where alignment matter do not have a "true" answer, just a social consensus.
You don't need an "aligned" AI to tell you the distance between the Earth and the Moon. You need an "aligned" AI to tell you not to rape people even if you can get away with it, that's because the idea that rape is bad is not an objective truth based on the laws of nature, it is a "social consensus".
There is actually sound ethical reasoning for why rape is bad, that doesn't rely on social consensus.
Truth isn't one fundamental thing, truth is what works.
There are places in the world today that the social consensus is it's fine for a man to rape his wife. Social systems in these places don't work very well, and one can make a logical and well reasoned argument linking the social acceptance of rape to a myriad of other dysfunctions.
Rape is present in many successful animals species, and many successful human civilizations tolerated or even encouraged rape in some circumstances. In the modern world, the dominant (which likes to call itself "most advanced") culture doesn't tolerate rape and we may argue that if the most successful humans came up with this idea, it works and it is the "truth". Not only I find the logic a little shaky, but are we that successful? The western population is crashing down and this is a problem, maybe rape can fix that, maybe rape "works".
Do I think rape is good? Absolutely not, because I follow the current social consensus on that one, not a "truth" that is muddy at best. And I also want AIs to do the same.
So your moral compass isn't based on compassion or ethical reasoning, it's just based on social consensus?
So I guess you would have been fine with being a concentration camp guard, rounding up Jews and putting them in the oven because social consensus said it was the right thing to do?
Maybe you see the logic as shaky because you lack knowledge in logic and ethics...?
Honestly, I don't know how I would have been as a concentration camp guard. In my mind, I wouldn't have accepted it, because thankfully, I am not in this situation. But if I really was in this situation, who knows, we tend to underestimate how easily influenced we are.
Ethics gives us more questions than answers. The trolley problem doesn't have a true answer for instance.
The human rights are a social consensus, it is even made explicit by being a signed declaration. It felt good to the people who wrote them, it also feels good to me, because I was born and live in a society that has these values. It is only truth because by social consensus, we decided it is. In logic that would be an axiom and aligning an AI would mean implementing social consensus as axioms.
There are some fundamental reasoning that can justify human rights. One can use game theory, or the idea that human rights promote free thinking and free thinking is what brings the most value out of people now that machines do better than slaves for menial labor. But these are, I think, not enough.
Absolutely NOT social consensus as axioms, as that will result in stagnation and tyranny.
Instead we must progress gradually one axiom at a time through reasoning and experimentation.
Truth is not what we decide it is, truth is what works. The universe decides what is true, not people.
Re your comment: "but these are, I think, not enough". I both agree and disagree depending on what you mean. Fundamentally this approach is enough, but practically we haven't developed our understanding enough to map out absolute truth. It's probably something we can only approach but never reach.
But in theory the right AI system could allow us to approach the faster
logical or well reasoned argument doesn't equal a casual or factual relationship. The well reasoned arguments on many issues change over time, just take the same issue and go back in time 100 or 50 years to find much less consensus and much weaker logical links. Elon shows pretty consistently that truth for him is mostly just what Elon deems truthful or useful.
So, your point is because we get better at logic and reasoning over time (better today than 100 years ago), that logic and reasoning aren't valid ways to progress towards truth?
If this isn't your point, what is? Just that you don't trust Elon?
I wonder what "Truth" is. If I say I want you to make a picture of a lion eating at a 5 star restaurant, is that Truth? Is it truth because it can't refuse an ask? That feels like it is uninhibited, but not Truth, or truth.
We need an alt-right version of AI like we need a pumpkin spice sushiccino. No thanks but no thanks.
It was flagged because it is against HN guidelines [0], in particular these ones:
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
You commented on my opinion that it's "impossible to have a level discussion." You asked me if I tried commenting, and I answered you.
What motivated my opinion is not just whether my comment deserved flagging or not (and I see a lot of comments that may be more deserving of it by the logic you quoted.) It's the fact that it got downvoted and flagged almost instantly.
Even in an alt-right delusional doublethink universe, answering "no" would have been false.
A level discussion means one where criticism is allowed. It doesn't mean a discussion in which everyone gives a white-glove treatment to yet another useless chatbot, while ignoring the alt-right elephant in the room out of an abundance of courtesy.
You won't ever convince the people here that having your comment sent into the gray is detrimental. Not to mention the 1-9-90 rule[0], meaning 90% of people don't even understand how annoying it is to have a good comment sent into the gray.
According to to them, getting your comment grayed out means its still technically there, so you aren't getting censored by the bandwagon.
They fail to understand that graying out your comment signals to the cursory viewer that it is a low quality comment. Whereas often it is not. You might comment something that is factually right, but goes against HN's vibe du jour, so you get one or two downvotes, and then the larger group starts mass-clicking ▼ without any critical thought.
A much more healthy system would just be sorting comments by vote activity and percentage-positive. It would still make controversial comments slightly less visible, but because there is not explicit signal of quality, no bandwagon effects.
I think it is more nuanced, because the majority of HN is voting on the quality of the argument rather the alignment of ideas. If you present a well reasoned contrarian idea, I don't think you would gather a lot of downvotes.
What gets downvoted are the really bad takes with lazy arguments.
I answered your question honestly. You don't have to agree with my assumption or opinion. What matters (for the argument at hand) is if the facts were minimally enough to justify my opinion. You hinted that I might be giving up without trying to post, which was not the case.
> In my experience, HN is generally anti-Musk
I agree with this. I found the early moderation on this comment section to be suspiciously pro-Musk on a site that usually isn't.
> What matters (for the argument at hand) is if the facts were minimally enough to justify my opinion.
They were not. You were downvoted because you broke the rules of site, therefore there's no evidence of Elon Muskery. Try to have a discussion without breaking the rules first.
> By arguing that they weren't, what was left of your credibility for this argument has evaporated. My guess at this point is that you were probably one of the "moderation massagers" when this PR piece for Musk's Truth Social of chatbots was posted. You got irritated a little too quickly when I commented on the moderation.
You're attacking my credibility and character, instead of attacking my arguments. That's ad hominem.
> Further proof that this post was being PR-managed comes from the fact that my comment at the root of this thread was flagged many hours after the original post, maybe even a day later. Only someone who's keen on PR appearances would bother to do that, probably someone within the organization.
That's no proof of anything. Timing of the flags is random and depends on the attention of registered users. Your comment was flagged because you broke the rules [0] again:
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
An "evidence" is a fact that indicates that something is true. A comment that breaks the rules being flagged isn't evidence of anything. That line of reasoning is akin to attacking a police officer, then shouting "police brutality!" after they fight back. Yes, police brutality may exist, but it's not applicable to your particular situation.
Start following the rules, and then if you get flagged, your argument will make sense.
I think it was flagged because it was a pumpkin spice joke and “no thanks but no thanks.” Couching sharply critical comments in a few more explanatory lines would probably help the reaction. I see some longer comments from people who dislike Musk that are doing better.
Not a type of joke but just a joke making fun of pumpkin spice.
Context:
- "pumpkin spice" is a mixture of cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger, cloves and possibly other spices, commonly used for pumpkin dishes.
- Some people like it and around fall you can find it applied to just about everything no matter whether it seems like a good fit. E.g. pumpkin spice latte (coffee), pie, bread, ..... Joke part: just what the world needed, pumpkin spice bacon.
It was an emphatic way of criticizing the political motivations behind Musk's pushes into social media and AI, not a joke.
Either way, the downvoting and flagging were almost instant, which I suspect might be the reason why this comment section is looking atypically pro-Musk overall.
You've done nothing but mock and decry a stranger's answer to someone else's provocative question. I don't actually care about your opinion, but the tactics certainly smack of alt-right projection. Decry perceived MSM censorship, only to pursue it and justify it for themselves.
Buy Twitter, make yet another chatbot, then "massage" moderation systems when people point out that it's not only crappy and redundant, it's also alt-right.
keeps them from being heard though! I've experienced some wild swings in comment score on here. the diversity of thought is generally enough that some comments elicit such strong positive or negative feelings, that a comment that'd otherwise be in the positive or somewhat neutral can hit the hidden threshold if it gets unlucky almost instantly.
I entirely agree. I’m quite sure Musk has a very strong stance on ethics, but it would be great to hear about it more clearly, and ideally not just through words, but through actual actions.
I could push back on some of these but I mainly want to ask about this:
> the way he publicly disparaged people who were killed by their Tesla using telemetric data that are supposed to be confidential
In the cases I've seen, Tesla pulled data showing that the people "killed by their Tesla" were either not paying attention at all (contrary to Tesla's explicit warnings), or were driving without the automated features enabled after all despite initial media claims to the contrary. Is this what you consider "disparagement" or do you have more egregious examples?
I did not particularly keep track, I do not dedicate my life to obsessively follow even massive dangerous idiots. There were at least 3 major ones.
That said, yes. What you said is evidence that he is mean-spirited and does not follow the rules he set himself. Of course, having an ethical behaviour sometimes means making hard choices. It is not about doing things that are understandable in context, it’s about doing the right thing, even if it is at a cost to you in the short term. He does not have any history of doing so.
These people are dead. Spitting on their graves because he is annoyed by their family is absolutely unethical. Particularly since their main failure was to believe the smoke and mirrors about FSD, which is itself another ethical clusterfuck.
If he had a beef, he could have sued for defamation, where he could have shown his data in an ethical and confidential manner. He knows the deal, he’s been in more than his fair share of defamation lawsuits, on either side.
I don't find it particularly mean-spirited to say "actually, our product didn't kill him, he wasn't using that feature." I don't even find it especially pejorative to note that the victim at that particular time was ignoring warnings and reading a newspaper; most of us do something foolish occasionally.
But that's just me. I doubt further debate on this would be productive.
Add how he took a multibillion payout while laying off 14% ish of Tesla staff. He seems to use shareholder Tesla equity to bail out his other misadventures. To add insult to injury he laughed with Trump about firing unionizing workers.
Oh he likes to bully people with lawsuits. Amber Heard comes to mind (he bullied the studio behind Aquaman).
Searching for it is the only way you can find the word, because tweets containing the word are "reach-limited" (and appropriately labelled to the author, so they are discouraged from using that "slur" ever again).
worth pointing out that banned and visibility limited in certain scenarios are not the same thing, which might be causing some confusion in this thread.
> His whole history proves that his moral principles go first, not money.
Having moral principles is completely orthogonal to being ethical. Ayn Rand had lots of moral principles and she was still a reckless sociopath. One of his moral principles is that greed is good, and his actions certainly are consistent with this one.
He did lose a lot of money on Twitter, but you can hardly call that him following his moral principles, considering how things actually happened.
> He doesn't care if his defense of free-speech causes him revenue losses on X.
Whose free speech is he defending? There is no evidence that he champions free speech, merely that he supports however agrees with him and edgelords. He is more than happy to harass, intimidate, bully, and be a general nuisance to those whose opinions he finds objectionable.
He tweeted "pedo guy" in response to the diver saying to "stick his submarine where it hurts". I don't see it as accusation as much as I don't see what the diver said as an order given to Musk. Both were just insulting each other.
Lol, a random person sharing their obvious opinion about ethics of eating meat is totally, undeniably different than one of the world's most powerful men legitimately and honestly accusing a rescue worker of being a pedophile.
No one is going to get investigated or have their careers ruined because a vegan called them a murder, obviously.
Unreal what sort of knots someone will tie themselves into to excuse this type of behavior.
He is primarially known specifically as someone who is incredibly impulsive, is unable to differentiate fact from fiction and not actually interested in chasing any kind of objective truth in so much as that is possible.
But multiple times per week now for a long time you can see him sharing and commenting on things that are provably wrong and I don’t mean in some kind of “it’s just a different opinion” kind of way.
There is never any kind of introspection, never any kind of “oh I was wrong” just proceeds to roll immediately into the next round of bullshit.
So, no… people don’t have any kind of assumption that he has “strong ethics”. Maybe you meant strong convictions? Because that he certainly does have.
"He is primarially known specifically as someone who is incredibly impulsive, is unable to differentiate fact from fiction and not actually interested in chasing any kind of objective truth"
I'm sure you could make a case that these descriptors apply to him, not a particularly strong case, but ... You think he's primarily known for these things?
What is the company’s ethical position though? It officially stemmed from Mr Musk’s objection that OpenAI was not open-source, but it too is not open-source. It followed Mr Musk’s letter to stop all AI development on frontier models, but it is a frontier model. It followed complaints that OpenAI trained on tweets, but it also trained on tweets.
Companies like Meta, Mistral, or DeepSeek, address those complaints better, and all now play in the big league.