Connect with us

Published

on

Elon Musk, owner of Tesla and the X (formerly Twitter) platform, attends a symposium on fighting antisemitism titled ‘Never Again : Lip Service or Deep Conversation’ in Krakow, Poland on January 22nd, 2024.

Beata Zawrzel | Nurphoto | Getty Images

When it comes to legal disputes, Elon Musk’s definition of victory may not always be winning in court.

Last week, Musk sued OpenAI and co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman for breach of contract and fiduciary duty. Experts say the case is built on a questionable legal foundation, because the contract at the heart of the suit isn’t a formal written agreement that was signed by all parties involved.

Rather, Musk is alleging that the early OpenAI team had set out to develop artificial general intelligence, or AGI, “for the benefit of humanity,” but that the project has been transformed into a for-profit entity that’s largely controlled by principal shareholder Microsoft.

Musk used much of the 35-page complaint (plus attached exhibits) on Friday to tell his side of the story and to remind the world of his central position in the creation of a company that’s since become one of the hottest startups on the planet, (OpenAI ranked first on CNBC’s Disruptor 50 list in 2023) thanks largely to the viral spread of ChatGPT.

“It’s certainly a good advertisement for the benefit of Elon Musk,” Kevin O’Brien, partner at Ford O’Brien Landy LLP and former assistant U.S. attorney, told CNBC. “I’m not sure about the legal part though.”

O’Brien, who isn’t involved in any cases with Musk, added, “One thing that jumped right out at me is there’s no contract.”

In the suit, Musk’s lawyers say they want OpenAI to return to its work as a research lab and no longer exist for the “financial benefit” of Microsoft. Musk, who’s worth over $200 billion, is unconcerned about the legal costs of floating a suit that has no clear personal economic benefit and is of questionable merit.

Shannon Capone Kirk, global head of e-discovery and AI for Ropes & Gray LLP, told CNBC that Musk might just be seeking to force more information into the public realm about how OpenAI has been operating and how its business objectives have morphed in recent years.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, during an interview at Bloomberg House on the opening day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 16, 2024.

Chris Ratliffe | Bloomberg | Getty Images

It’s a “high-profile case with great public interest, a consequence of which might lead to OpenAI being available to everyone,” said Kirk, who isn’t working on any cases involving Musk. “Is that the real objective?”

In their complaint, Musk’s attorneys allege that OpenAI “has been transformed into a closed-source de facto subsidiary of the largest technology company in the world: Microsoft.” They also say the arrangement goes against a founding agreement and 2015 certification of incorporation that OpenAI established with Musk, who was a pivotal donor to OpenAI in its early years.

Musk’s attorneys said their client contributed over $15 million to OpenAI in 2016, which was “more than any other donor” and helped the startup build a team of “top talent.” The next year, Musk gave nearly $20 million to OpenAI, which the attorneys reiterated was more than other backers. In total, Musk invested over $44 million into OpenAI from 2016 through September 2020, according to the suit.

The lawsuit fits a pattern for Musk, who has frequently posted on X and commented in public forums about his importance to the creation of OpenAI.

In November, Musk told an audience at the The New York Times’ DealBook conference that OpenAI had deviated from its original mission.

“OpenAI should be renamed ‘super closed source for maximum profit AI,’ because this is what it actually is,” Musk said onstage at the event. He noted that it’s transformed from an “open source foundation” to multibillion-dollar “for-profit corporation with closed source.”

Read more CNBC reporting on AI

Is there injury?

In the suit, Musk’s attorneys allege that the inner workings of OpenAI’s GPT-4 AI model are “a complete secret except to OpenAI—and, on information and belief, Microsoft,” and that the secrecy is driven by commercial gain rather than safety. Musk has publicly beefed with Microsoft for a while, and in May 2023, Musk attorneys accused the company of using X (formerly Twitter) data in unauthorized ways.

Even if OpenAI’s mission has changed, that doesn’t mean Musk has a solid legal case.

“If he has any hopes to recover, he’s going to have to prove that there was this agreement – that the company be open and not for profit and all these other things, and that the failure to do so has caused him injury, which is a separate problem,” O’Brien said. “It’s hard to see where the injury is here.”

Musk’s attorneys didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Musk has an AI company of his own, X.AI, which introduced a competing chatbot called Grok in November after two months of training. In December, X.AI filed with the SEC to raise up to $1 billion in an equity offering. And Musk is also developing autonomous vehicle tech and humanoid robotics, which require AI advances, at Tesla.

He’s been known to hire bigwigs from OpenAI, poaching Andrej Karpathy, a former OpenAI software engineer, over to Tesla in 2017. More recently, Musk hired Kyle Kosic from OpenAI to join X.AI.

One of Musk’s goals with this case, lawyers said, may be to shed light on details of OpenAI’s GPT-4 in the discovery process, should it get that far. O’Brien said it can be tough to keep intellectual property and other internal details private when a lawsuit is brought.

Elon Musk could face an uphill battle regarding his standing in the case: UCLA Law's Rose Chan Loui

Kirk agreed, saying that in the discovery stage, there may be “lots of document requests for all kinds of communication,” such as internal conversations, text messages and more. Some of the documents produced may come with protective orders that keep them out of the public.

A portion of Musk’s lawsuit rests on the idea that OpenAI has already reached AGI, typically defined as AI that can operate on the same level — or higher — than humans when completing a wide array of cognitive tasks. The suit claims that since GPT-4 is “better at reasoning than average humans” based on test scores on the Uniform Bar Exam, GRE Verbal Assessment and even the Advanced Sommelier exam.

As part of its contract with OpenAI, Microsoft only has rights to OpenAI’s “pre-AGI” technology, and it’s up to OpenAI’s board to determine whether the company has reached that milestone.

In a memo to employees on Friday following the lawsuit, OpenAI said that “GPT-4 is not an AGI.”

“Importantly, an AGI will be a highly autonomous system capable enough to devise novel solutions to longstanding challenges,” Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon wrote. “GPT-4 can’t do that.”

Much of the AI community is in agreement with Kwon.

Kirk said “part of what they’re going to be litigating” is the question of what is AGI.

Read the full complaint here:

Elon Musk wants OpenAI to break the Microsoft contract and be a nonprofit again: Walter Isaacson

Continue Reading

Technology

These Chinese apps have surged in popularity in the U.S. A TikTok ban could ensnare them

Published

on

By

These Chinese apps have surged in popularity in the U.S. A TikTok ban could ensnare them

Lemon8, a photo-sharing app by Bytedance, and RedNote, a Shanghai-based content-sharing platform, have seen a surge in popularity in the U.S. as “TikTok refugees” migrate to alternative platforms ahead of a potential ban. 

Now a law that could see TikTok shut down in the U.S. threatens to ensnare these Chinese social media apps, and others gaining traction as TikTok-alternatives, legal experts say. 

As of Wednesday, RedNote — known as Xiaohongshu in Chinawas the top free app on the U.S. iOS store, with Lemon8 taking the second spot. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, or PAFACA, that would lead to the TikTok app being banned in the U.S. if its Beijing-based owner, ByteDance, doesn’t divest it by Jan. 19.

While the legislation explicitly names TikTok and ByteDance, experts say its scope is broad and could open the door for Washington to target additional Chinese apps. 

“Chinese social media apps, including Lemon8 and RedNote, could also end up being banned under this law,” Tobin Marcus, head of U.S. policy and politics at New York-based research firm Wolfe Research, told CNBC. 

If the TikTok ban is upheld, it will be unlikely that the law will allow potential replacements to originate from China without some form of divestiture, experts told CNBC.

PAFACA automatically applies to Lemon8 as it’s a subsidiary of ByteDance, while RedNote could fall under the law if its monthly average user base in the U.S. continues to grow, said Marcus. 

The legislation prohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services to any “foreign adversary controlled application.” 

These applications include those connected to ByteDance or TikTok or a social media company that is controlled by a “foreign adversary” and has been determined to present a significant threat to national security.

The wording of the legislation is “quite expansive” and would give incoming president Donald Trump room to decide which entities constitute a significant threat to national security, said Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond. 

Xiaomeng Lu, Director of Geo‑technology at political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, told CNBC that the law will likely prevail, even if its implementation and enforcement are delayed. Regardless, she expects Chinese apps in the U.S. will continue to be the subject of increased regulatory action moving forward.

“The TikTok case has set a new precedent for Chinese apps to get targeted and potentially shut down,” Lu said.

She added that other Chinese apps that could be impacted by increased scrutiny this year include popular Chinese e-commerce platform Temu and Shein. U.S. officials have accused the apps of posing data risks, allegations similar to those levied against TikTok.

The fate of TikTok rests with Supreme Court after the platform and its parent company filed a suit against the U.S. government, saying that invoking PAFACA violated constitutional protections of free speech.

TikTok’s argument is that the law is unconstitutional as applied to them specifically, not that it is unconstitutional per se, said Cornell Law Professor Gautam Hans. “So, regardless of whether TikTok wins or loses, the law could still potentially be applied to other companies,” he said. 

The law’s defined purview is broad enough that it could be applied to a variety of Chinese apps deemed to be a national security threat, beyond traditional social media apps in the mold of TikTok, Hans said. 

Trump, meanwhile, has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hold off on implementing PAFACA so he can pursue a “political resolution” after taking office. Democratic lawmakers have also urged Congress and President Joe Biden to extend the Jan. 19 deadline

Continue Reading

Technology

Nvidia-backed AI video platform Synthesia doubles valuation to $2.1 billion

Published

on

By

Nvidia-backed AI video platform Synthesia doubles valuation to .1 billion

Synthesia is a platform that lets users create AI-generated clips with human avatars that can speak in multiple languages.

Synthesia

LONDON — Synthesia, a video platform that uses artificial intelligence to generate clips featuring multilingual human avatars, has raised $180 million in an investment round valuing the startup at $2.1 billion.

That’s more than than double the $1 billion Synthesia was worth in its last financing in 2023.

The London-based startup said Wednesday that the funding round was led by venture firm NEA with participation from Atlassian Ventures, World Innovation Lab and PSP Growth.

NEA counts Uber and TikTok parent company ByteDance among its portfolio companies. Synthesia is also backed by chip giant Nvidia.

Victor Riparbelli, CEO of Synthesia, told CNBC that investors appraised the businesses differently from other companies in the space due to its focus on “utility.”

“Of course, the hype cycle is beneficial to us,” Riparbelli said in an interview. “For us, what’s important is building an actually good business.”

Synthesia isn’t “dependent” on venture capital — as opposed to companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and Mistral, Riparbelli added.

These startups have raised billions of dollars at eye-watering valuations while burning through sizable amounts of money to train and develop their foundational AI models.

Read more CNBC reporting on AI

Synthesia’s not the only startup shaking up the world of video production with AI. Other startups offer solutions for producing and editing video content with AI, like Veed.io and Runway.

Meanwhile, the likes of OpenAI and Adobe have also developed generative AI tools for video creation.

Eric Liaw, a London-based partner at VC firm IVP, told CNBC that companies at the application layer of AI haven’t garnered as much investor hype as firms in the infrastructure layer.

“The amount of money that the application layer companies need to raise isn’t as large — and therefore the valuations aren’t necessarily as eye popping” as companies like Nvidia,” Liaw told CNBC last month.

Riparbelli said that money raised from the latest financing round would be used to invest in “more of the same,” furthering product development and investing more into security and compliance.

Last year, Synthesia made a series of updates to its platform, including the ability to produce AI avatars using a laptop webcam or phone, full-body avatars with arms and hands and a screen recording tool that has an AI avatar guide users through what they’re viewing.

On the AI safety front, in October Synthesia conducted a public red team test for risks around online harms, which demonstrated how the firm’s compliance controls counter attempts to create non-consensual deepfakes of people or use its avatars to encourage suicide, adult content or gambling.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology test was led by Rumman Chowdhury, a renowned data scientist who was formerly head of AI ethics at Twitter — before it became known as X under Elon Musk.

Riparbelli said that Synthesia is seeing increased interest from large enterprise customers, particularly in the U.S., thanks to its focus on security and compliance.

More than half of Synthesia’s annual revenue now comes from customers in the U.S., while Europe accounts for almost half.

Synthesia has also been ramping up hiring. The company recently tapped former Amazon executive Peter Hill as its chief technology officer. The company now employs over 400 people globally.

Synthesia’s announcement follows the unveiling of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s 50-point plan to make the U.K. a global leader in AI.

U.K. Technology Minister Peter Kyle said the investment “showcases the confidence investors have in British tech” and “highlights the global leadership of U.K.-based companies in pioneering generative AI innovations.”

Continue Reading

Technology

SEC sues Elon Musk, alleging failure to properly disclose Twitter ownership

Published

on

By

SEC sues Elon Musk, alleging failure to properly disclose Twitter ownership

Beata Zawrzel | Nurphoto | Getty Images

The SEC filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk on Tuesday, alleging the billionaire committed securities fraud in 2022 by failing to disclose his ownership in Twitter and buying shares at “artificially low prices.”

Musk, who is also CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, purchased Twitter for $44 billion, later changing the name of the social network to X. Prior to the acquisition he’d built up a position in the company of greater than 5%, which would’ve required disclosing his holding to the public.

According to the SEC complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., Musk withheld that material information, “allowing him to underpay by at least $150 million for shares he purchased after his financial beneficial ownership report was due.”

The SEC had been investigating whether Musk, or anyone else working with him, committed securities fraud in 2022 as the Tesla CEO sold shares in his car company and shored up his stake in Twitter ahead of his leveraged buyout. Musk said in a post on X last month that the SEC issued a “settlement demand,” pressuring him to agree to a deal including a fine within 48 hours or “face charges on numerous counts” regarding the purchase of shares.

Musk’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, said in an emailed statement that the action is an admission by the SEC that “they cannot bring an actual case.” He added that Musk “has done nothing wrong” and called the suit a “sham” and the result of a “multi-year campaign of harassment,” culminating in a “single-count ticky tak complaint.”

Musk is just a week away from having a potentially influential role in government, as President-elect Donald Trump’s second term begins on Jan. 20. Musk, who was a major financial backer of Trump in the latter stages of the campaign, is poised to lead an advisory group that will focus in part on reducing regulations, including those that affect Musk’s various companies.

In July, Trump vowed to fire SEC chairman Gary Gensler. After Trump’s election victory, Gensler announced that he would be resigning from his post instead.

In a separate civil lawsuit concerning the Twitter deal, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System sued Musk, accusing him of deliberately concealing his progressive investments in the social network and intent to buy the company. The pension fund’s attorneys argued that Musk, by failing to clearly disclose his investments, had influenced other shareholders’ decisions and put them at a disadvantage.

The SEC said that Musk crossed the 5% ownership threshold in March 2022 and would have been required to disclose his holdings by March 24.

“On April 4, 2022, eleven days after a report was due, Musk finally publicly disclosed his beneficial ownership in a report with the SEC, disclosing that he had acquired over nine percent of Twitter’s outstanding stock,” the complaint says. “That day, Twitter’s stock price increased more than 27% over its previous day’s closing price.”

The SEC alleges that Musk spent over $500 million purchasing more Twitter shares during the time between the required disclosure and the day of his actual filing. That enabled him to buy stock from the “unsuspecting public at artificially low prices,” the complaint says. He “underpaid” Twitter shareholders by over $150 million during that period, according to the SEC.

In the complaint, the SEC is seeking a jury trial and asks that Musk be forced to “pay disgorgement of his unjust enrichment” as well as a civil penalty.

This story is developing.

Continue Reading

Trending