Elon Musk on Tuesday, June 11, 2024, dropped his lawsuit accusing ChatGPT maker OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman of abandoning the startup's original mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity and not for personal gain. Musk’s attorneys asked a California state court to dismiss the lawsuit originally filed in February 2024, without giving a reason for the move, according to documents filed in San Francisco Superior Court. 

A Superior Court judge there is set to hear OpenAI's request to dismiss the lawsuit at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2024. OpenAI and Musk's attorneys did not immediately respond to media requests for comment on the matter. Musk dismissed his case without prejudice, meaning he can refile it at a later time. 

The lawsuit marks the culmination of Musk’s long-simmering opposition to OpenAI, the startup he founded and which has become the face of generative AI through billions of dollars in funding from Microsoft. Musk in July last year founded his own artificial intelligence startup, xAI, which raised $6 billion in series B funding in May to reach a post-funding valuation of $24 billion. 

The lawsuit says Altman and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman approached Musk about creating an open source, nonprofit company, but the startup, founded in 2015, is now focused on making money. “OpenAI “burned its founding agreement” last year when it released its most powerful language model, GPT-4,” the lawsuit said.

Musk in the lawsuit asked a judge to force OpenAI to make its research and technology publicly available and to prevent the startup from using its assets, including GPT-4, for the financial gain of Microsoft and others. Meanwhile, OpenAI argues in court documents that the lawsuit is based on absurd claims, describing it as a fabricated attempt by Musk to advance his own AI interests.

"Seeing the incredible technological progress that OpenAI has achieved, Musk now wants that success for himself," OpenAI's attorneys said. Musk in an April filing said OpenAI was trying to “advance arguments based on disputed facts” that were beyond the scope of the lawsuit.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post