So, a DEAD person is suing a company, and what you see as a problem with that scenario is that the DEAD person will never see those 50 million because the company, that this DEAD person is sueing, does not have that kind of cash?
It's weird that you would say Altman is a sociopath without also mentioning that Musk is one as well. Musk is also a narcissist and you can't be one without also being a sociopath.
Are you perhaps a member of the Musk cult of personality?
I have seen no evidence that Elon Musk is a sociopath. I prefer to base such decisions on logic and evidence. You have not provided evidence that he is a sociopath. So what "informational balance" are you providing exactly?
Sam Altman asked Elon Musk to cofound OpenAI as a non-profit entity, and fund it with tens of millions of dollars, with the understanding that the research will be open to the public (hence "Open" AI). After taking tens of millions of dollars from Musk, Sam Altman then turned around and sold out to Microsoft, and effectively changed OpenAI to a for-profit entity which only serves to financially benefit Microsoft shareholders and Sam Altman himself.
Elon Musk is now requesting that OpenAI disclose GPT-4 and their subsequent models inner workings to the public, for the benefit of humanity, in accordance with the OpenAI mission statement. How does this make Elon Musk a sociopath? Please explain.
> Musk is also a narcissist and you can't be one without also being a sociopath.
This is unscientific drivel. According to the DSM, Narcissism and Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) are separate disorders within the Cluster B group. A person can have one or the other, or both.
What exact criteria did you use to diagnose Musk with Narcissism and APD?
I can't say that Sam Altman truly has APD, but he certainly matches this criteria from my perspective:
"deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure"
I believe what he did with OpenAI is a blatant and obvious con job, for his own personal gain.
Pliny the Elder and his son Pliny the Younger are also involved in debunking another historical fakery. This one is about Jesus actually existing and not being made up 100 years later and 1000 kms away, in a different country and in a different language.
As much as you can prove a negative, this guys do it by never mentioning him, despite being at the right place and time, and writing about other religions and prophets.
Even the wikipedia entry on this subject starts with a huge logical phalacy.
I believe, that logic should be different. When you consider tank, you assume that some random process of sampling took one tank out of all tanks that existed from start to end. The reasoning assume that you might get any tank, with a serial number 1 or 500 or whatever. Any existed number.
When you look at civilisation with nuclear power, then sampling process had no chances to took civilisation existed for 120 years. Even if civilisation could live for 120 years. It is a different process of data generation, so the reasoning must be different.
Right! Why use port when left is right? Nonmariners left starboard right at port, left port there as well. Maybe modern mariners should port left back to their lexicon before they're left behind.
