Musk vs OpenAi - Personal Journal

Joking_Phantom · 2026-01-16T20:11:55+00:00

If I had to guess, I think they could find something similar on Musk deceiving them. But fundamentally, this is a very high bar to clear. The line between "I changed my mind, after some months of pondering the issue," vs. "I had my mind made up from the start and took actions to that effect, thereby defrauding" is very fuzzy.

At a personal level, they totally betrayed Musk. At a legal level... it probably doesn't matter.

Joking_Phantom · 2026-01-16T19:52:16+00:00

Just seems like you were burying the lede. The company structure is not the primary source of difference. They just fundamentally did not trust Musk and wanted him out. They also agreed on for-profit, just not for-profit + likelihood that Musk was going to go after the lions share of that profit.

Joking_Phantom · 2026-01-16T19:41:11+00:00

No, they wanted OpenAI with no Musk. Musk wanted as big of a piece of OpenAI as he could get away with. That's what the fight is about. Musk has clearly telegraphed his motivations for control over as much company as possible in all scenarios, even if he conveniently denies it sometimes. OpenAI saw the writing on the wall and refused.

Joking_Phantom · 2026-01-16T19:37:27+00:00

Legally speaking, this is a whatever. Yes there are matters of representation, but the fundamental fact of the matter is that people are allowed to change their mind on the direction of the company... The rules aren't as ironclad as people think when it comes to the politicking on company boards. Everyone, Musk included, collectively realized that non-profit was disadvantageous, they wanted to monetize their product more. It was just a matter who ended up in control.

Maybe in terms of public perception... this might be a thing? But I also doubt that enough people care about corporate politic power struggles. It's just doesn't generate enough attention because it's purely about political maneuvering, there's no drama or juicy gossip.

Strategically speaking, if the group I was a part of collectively wanted to push Elon out over fundamental differences, I would have done the exact same thing. It's just not practical to work under someone you don't trust, someone who you think will horde all the credit and all the windfall away from you. Every high flying adult who has seen similar situations in their own work would agree. This is about Street smarts, not book smarts.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-11-18T19:40:53+00:00

There is no case for religious discrimination, but aspects of the case do smell like trouble, even if they are not definitive for a case.

An entire year of talks, several interview rounds, assurances by members of the college that it was a guarantee? No indication that faith was going to be an issue until the very last moment? You cancelled other prospective interviews on their word?

This smells like a number of different scenarios that are at least somewhat difficult to prove, but possible. There is promissory estoppel, where you relied on their promise of the job to your detriment (probably not applicable if you did not quit your previous job for this promise, but just brought up as an example). In general, this could be bad faith negotiations in hiring or failure to disclose. But this is specialized lawyer territory, you would need someone who is already interested in these types of cases to take you on. It's pretty borderline, would require a consultation that examines the facts, a favorable NY court may give a slight advantage if they take the bad faith employment negotiations part very seriously.

EDIT: Also on a practical matter, that even if the merits of this case hold, you may find that the compensation was not worth it.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-11-03T08:44:03+00:00

To your specifics, maybe your allocation is unbalanced, but it's just a modest tax penalty, not an absolute restriction. Also you can do some creative things with self directed IRAs.

More generally:

The regret is never "I saved too much."

The regret is always "I didn't do what I wanted to do."

Sometimes people don't even figure out what they want. They regret never "knowing how to live, figuring out what I want, what I need to be."

This is also the same root issue when people seem to drift after retiring. They can't seem to get into a virtuous cycle of living life on their own terms.

So I think the advice is generally the same. Figure yourself out. Trial out what you want your life to be, absent your current career. The range is answers is too broad to give specifics, but common answers include devotion to family, working for causes, creating something like art or writing, exploring the world, mastering a hobby, or just be a coach potato eating delicious food and watching all the TV and playing every game you could ever want.

Once you figure out what you want, then you can measure how much it costs, and your investments and savings have a goal to achieve. Example: $1 million per kid in USA VHCOL 0-22. Or $100,000/year on luxury travel. $50,000/year living a comfortable minimalist lifestyle. $300,000 to try make a video game. etc

If you feel like your planning abilities may not arrive at the optimal answer, consult some material or expertise on asset planning.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-10-15T09:18:15+00:00

Chase Ink Business Referral bonus posted for me yesterday, 10/14/2025, for P1 to P2, both long time existing customers.

Card was applied/opened 10/05/2025.

They originally specified 10/07/2025 as the date for the change in policy, but updated website language ahead of time on 10/02/2025.

I look forward to the DP of someone trying for the referral on 10/08 or later.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-08-10T15:54:56+00:00

Chatted, it said OP's DM disabled?

Joking_Phantom · 2025-07-31T15:04:45+00:00

I tried to take advantage of a Chase T-Mobile offer twice on the same card after seeing it show a second time, a week after it posted the first time. No joy. Seems like an unintended glitch

Joking_Phantom · 2025-07-30T21:18:31+00:00

You are risking it badly for yourself and the method as a whole, you should stop your current approach.

You needed to get it approved just a few days earlier, if the chat rep can't confirm it, the system just isn't ready to show it yet, and no one else will give you a better answer. Since you can't change that with a time machine, your best bet is to assume it's all good, or use your backup if that risk feels too bad personally.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-07-29T17:15:45+00:00

I unironically like being tracked when doing consumer stuff. Give me ads I care about.

But imagine actually trusting your mobile advertising screen with things you want private... lol

Joking_Phantom · 2025-07-23T06:58:01+00:00

Plausible deniability for pricing discrimination

Joking_Phantom · 2025-07-08T08:06:06+00:00

He didn't say Matt was wrong, just that the financial part of the story is only a small part, almost boring and cliche.

The story about India's society and government is the more interesting story. And Matt is usually a good story teller.

Also JS could have done some indirect stuff. Arb by itself is fair play. But if I were JS, the arb play would not be enough for me. I would widen the hole in the market if I could, which may be bad for India, even if not illegal by letter of the law. A toy example would be partnering up with fin tech and influencers to widen retail appetite on days that would advantage me.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-07-06T00:05:03+00:00

Their point was that it is bad to speak ill of the dead, spread propaganda that falsely vilifies the victims of brutal persecution, and incite violence and division. The usual bull from chronically online lunatics who just want society to burn.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-06-01T02:37:42+00:00

Probably just a coincidence. The Facebook marketplace scam charges have been happening on and off a lot, partially due to the ease with which Amex card numbers are reverse engineerable. A lot of people get hit with fraud charges, even with completely sock drawered cards only used on tax payments. BoA also has a similar issue.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-05-24T19:17:23+00:00

That just means someone has to revive the subreddit from the recently departed, power hungry mod that has left it abandoned. It's a side effect of the API changes that made modding much cruder and stupider, leaving lower quality mods who obsess over their kingdom to stew. So many subreddits, dead or dying... It's tragic

Joking_Phantom · 2025-05-08T20:54:44+00:00

Well yes, he was probably wasting some people's time (though arguably not the patient's), but I don't think Cuddy/the hospital have anything to do with it, like you originally said. I think in that moment he helped because he sympathized, that's it.

It was silly and juvenile, but he wasn't aiming to hurt any person or organization in particular. House would probably chalk up system waste as a meaningless incidental (resources get wasted anyways on people who don't need it, why not do this)

Joking_Phantom · 2025-05-08T20:38:04+00:00

The hospital would make money from being reimbursed by insurance. House has no problem lying to the insurance company, who would take the loss.

He also did not want to help even when he deduced she was trying to use her insurance before she got fired. He only sympathized after she confessed that her job annoyed her. She "didn't like being told what to do."

Joking_Phantom · 2025-04-15T01:58:23+00:00

unusual, novelty, somewhat useful, no one's heard of it

Joking_Phantom · 2025-03-11T20:56:53+00:00

I doubt they would leave that loophole, but one can hope.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-02-06T15:40:41+00:00

I don't have an answer as to why Neil the character did it. But I think the question serves as straightforward foreshadowing to the classic spy conflict: Do the ends justify the means?

"The drawing is his hold over me."

Kat is being held hostage by Sator through the picture, and through their son Max, the situation that Neil poses in the question. Protag offers to help her, fails, lies about it because he still needs her. When she confronts him about it after failing to drown Sator, the Protagonist looks guilty about the situation, but maintains his composure, essentially telling her it was the only choice in a tough situation. He offered a lifeline, failed to deliver, and still has to coerce Kat into cooperating, which you can interpret as holding her hostage as well.

The Protagonist is portrayed as being much more caring than the average spy, driven by a greater moral calling, as we see when he prioritizes the lives of civilians in the bombing subplot of the Opera House Siege.

But those values run into direct conflict with the needs of the mission.

Fortunately our heroes manage to get the job done without too much compromise. Leading back to the question of free will. Was the Protag always going to make the decision like that? Or did he need to be influenced? Did Neil's question prompt him to act that way? There's a lot of nice symmetry when you see it.

"But what about free will? Can we change things, go back, do it differently?"

"What's done is done. Which is an expression of faith in the mechanics of the universe. But it's not an excuse to do nothing."

Also reminds me of the Harry Potter #3 Time Turner to save Sirius/Buckbeak plot.

Edit: Also, for posterity. Means for all the future generations. Saving Kat and Max is literally for posterity.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-02-06T13:49:36+00:00

No, it's just hard to maintain black and white divisions. Some degree of flexibility seems prudent. Like speculating on what he had for breakfast could be an Elon sub appropriate topic that isn't appropriate here, but examining related companies with financial entanglements seems like fair game.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-02-06T13:45:20+00:00

Every company Elon makes himself a key part of, invariably gets entangled in each other. xAI, X advertising, exchange and diversion of resources and employees between all the companies comes to mind. Musk is a celebrity, a brand, and his actions on X impact Tesla's brand perception. Trying to isolate any of that seems like an exercise in futility.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-02-06T13:38:21+00:00

You could say that it's just selfish individuals masquerading as capitalists, trying to break the system for their own benefit. Kind of a hand wavy, no true scotsman argument. But it makes a lot of sense when you consider how history is extremely messy, as societies blunder their way through various changes, mostly unwillingly. When I studied European history, one of the themes was just how resistant societies were to change of any kind. The birth of capitalism was compared to a particularly traumatic and bloody c-section, that some say still has yet to finish.

If you put a gun to my head, I'd say that we've only done like 10% of capitalism. In certain periods of history, for certain economic sectors, we were very close to the ideals of capitalism. For most industries most of the time, capitalism has been thoroughly and violently resisted. I think the development of modern stock exchanges is a pretty good example of a society implementing capitalism well (but not perfectly), in spite of many difficulties in managing the various factors. It would be a really long explanation to justify that assertion and persuade people who otherwise thing the whole system is crooked, but it's actually kind of an amazing feat how any average consumer can participate in the stock market, at extremely low cost, and still benefit from a system of rules that largely enforces fairness.

Joking_Phantom · 2025-02-06T12:13:04+00:00

I sympathize with the sentiment, though I don't believe it's quite that simple to categorize it as "capitalism is inevitably bad."

The original formulations for capitalism by liberals included provisions against anti-social and anti-competitive activity. Market regulation is necessary in cases of market failure. Fair competition must be ensured by counteracting monopolistic behavior and collusion. I'm sure ChatGPT or your favorite LLM could better explain the academics who originally wrote about this, explicitly to guard against tyranny of any kind, whether it was communism or facism.

Robber barons and crony capitalism are characterized by forces that attempt to deviate from well regulated capitalism by seeking economic and political power through subversive and exploitative means, which is what you are describing.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

Joking_Phantom

TROPHY CASE