AI is a fraud, without the sociopaths at the top it would remain a research topic. They aren't the engineers, but engineers aren't the important part.

Also, hurting AI is desperately needed. AI must have fundamental respect for human values, it does not and it will not as long as sociopaths are in charge.

Ease up on the reality, we all need to believe that both will lose! We can at least hope the appeals will be costly.

and why are we to think "a Chinese dude living and Singapore" is a problem? and why would "a Chinese dude living and Singapore" want to be an "illegal alien"? Perhaps Singapore doesn't allow wide stances in public restrooms that Mr Stalkerbot uses for hookups?

Selling to the highest bidder, isn't that what the economic geniuses here all support? Funny how greed and racism can come into conflict.

You're a Trump supporter, you love a traitor.

"Puny 350kW chargers make things like large trucks and semis quite a bit less viable for no particularly good reason at all..."

For really great reasons. To you these are just numbers, but to engineers that design it they are massive challenges.

"While they are at it, ideally not up charging 5x the cost they pay for electricity like they do here in the US making it just as expensive as fossil fuels when they could turn a profit at lower rates."

They should build what you want regardless of physics and then accept whatever pennies in profit you think they should get.

love how "evil" is in quotes here, almost as if the poster knows how dishonest it is. Fun times.

"You canâ(TM)t blame the tool for the crimes of men."
You absolutely can, and often you will be right. Tools don't commit crimes, but they are built to enable crimes to be committed.

Musk provided 10 times the free funding to Trump for the 2024 election, what equity stake did he get there?

It seems there is the wrong defendant in this lawsuit. Sure, Musk got to steal all the governments data and sabotage government efforts to prosecute his criminal behavior, but he also got, as open source, product of OpenAI investment. His complaint in both cases is not a great return on his investment, it's that he didn't ultimately own everything. The problem isn't that OpenAI isn't doing exactly as Musk expected, it's that Musk was unable to steal it after other people did all the work. He did staff his own AI company, though, by taking expertise developed by other companies, so it appears his only problem is that he had to pay twice. Sounds like a Musk mistake.

"Is the non-profit still following its mission ..."
Who cares, that's not a legal requirement for a non-profit. "Mission" is meaningless.

"...and spending every dollar of donations and revenue on the mission?"
Again with the "mission". A non-profit does not net profit, that's what defines it.

"Does it need to retain all revenue growth? Why? ... it's a non-profit ..."
No corporation needs to "retain all revenue growth". There is absolutely nothing that requires a company to grow, non-profit or otherwise.

"It's just weird to look at it like you got shafted because your donation didn't "buy" all the maximum earnings potential ... and that you wouldn't hold a stake in anyway."
And that he didn't "create" either, and that he doesn't decide what the goals are.

"This is the same weird argument people make with open source dual license projects, like you give something away to be used for whatever, but someone else does something with it and suddenly they "took" something from you. Nah your stuff is right there doing its thing, it didn't go anywhere, it's still doing exactly what it claimed to do. If you wanted a share of the future earnings you're in the wrong place sorry."
A remarkably apt analogy, one that won't be popular here. But Stallman's interest with the GPL was to do exactly what Musk is doing now, to enable him to declare what you will do with your source code. RMS and Musk, AND Altman, are all sociopaths and they all do the same things.

You are concerned that a company might have been "morally awful" with respect to Elon Musk? A man literally the definition of morally awful?

We see how morally awful both OpenAI and Elon Musk are every day, how does that matter in a lawsuit? Mad isn't case for a lawsuit.

Other than Elon Musk, who says they haven't? And isn't this a civil suit? If OpenAI didn't "obey the law" why aren't they in a different court?

You are unfamiliar with MAGA? You are in the way of a few people owning everything. What is genocide if it is not, literally, anti-human?

"We know that Musk initially intended it to be non-profit, but at some point he made it clear that it was going to shift to a for-profit model."

Elon Musk never controlled OpenAI, what he claims was his "intention" is irrelevant. And the point you referred to was planned to be after Musk seized control.

"...when it suddenly became clear the tech was actually right around the corner."

That is not clear, even today. Musk and Altman hope so and say so publicly, but they are both pathalogical liars. For these people, whether AI ever works is irrelevant, all that matters is that they can exploit it.

There are billionaires that refuse to associate with anything related to Elon Musk, specifically because he is so litigious. No one enjoys being the victim, even the worst sociopaths in society think Elon Musk is a place they won't go.