BREAKING: ELON MUSK Drops OPEN AI BOMBSHELL "AGI Achieved" (Elon Musk Lawsuit) Q" QSTAR

So Elon Musk actually did shock me by this statement because he actually is suing OpenAI and accusing them of putting profit before humanity. So you can see right here, lawsuit says Chief Executive Sam Altman's deal with Microsoft has broken the organization's mission. And this is actually a really big deal, if you don't know. Elon Musk and Sam Altman have had a very tumultuous history and they have a very long history of dealing with each other with OpenAI. Now, this lawsuit is a really, really, really important thing because certain things that you are about to see that were disclosed aren't publicly being talked about. And it's important to actually talk about some of these things because we are literally on the edge of the cliff where humanity may jump off into an entirely new paradigm. Now, quickly, before we actually dive into the lawsuit, because I actually read the entire thing twice and I highlighted a bunch of important stuff, stuff that I think you guys should know. Essentially a quick overview is that it says that the world's richest man, a founding board member of the original AI company behind ChatGPT, claimed Outman had set Aflame OpenAI's founding agreement by signing an investment deal with Microsoft. The lawsuit filed in San Francisco on Thursday, claims OpenAI is now developing AGI, a theoretical form of AI that can perform any tasks above the level of human or profit, rather than for the benefit of humankind. And this is where things are going to get crazy. So I'm going to show you guys this lawsuit and highlight some insane things I've seen. And me stating that these things are actually shocking is not an exaggeration. So this is the 46 page lawsuit that I did actually read. And I'm going to give you guys the very, very important bits because when I was reading this, my jaw was on the ground at some of the information I found about. So one of the first things that we do see here is the fact that when we see the start of the document, you can see that Elon Musk is talking about, of course, you know, the risk of AGI, because there is a real risk, real risk of AGI. And then of course it talks about how we've shifted from a human labor based economy to primarily a human knowledge based economy. And essentially the point is that the value right now in society and in the economy is based on human intelligence. And that's why everyone is talking about AGI and why it's an insane paradigm shift. So this is something that of course sets the tone. Now there's a Lot of stuff here that you do know about, but of course it's talks about how you know Mr. Musk. Well, Elon, you know, talks about how AGI poses a grave threat to humanity, perhaps the greatest existential threat we face today. Now, if you don't know why AI is a, I guess you could say existential threat, which essentially just means that this threat is one that could wipe out all of us. That's what existential means. And the reason that this is existential is because superintelligence is going to be vastly smarter than any of us. So just think about the comparison between our intelligence and a chimp's intelligence and what we've managed to do with society. And then if we manage another beings intelligence that's that much smarter than us, what are they going to be able to do inside of the world? So essentially you can see right here, as Mr. Joy warned, with strong AGI, the future doesn't need us. And this is incredibly true, because with artificial general intelligence, you're not really going to have much economical value for humans then. In addition, it actually says that where Mistka must see existential threat in AGI, others see AGI as a source of profit and power. And this is why he's stating the, that some people see the existential nature of AGI because this is a system that actually gets us to artificial superintelligence. Superintelligence being the threat that not only could completely wipe us out, because it's going to have beings beyond our understandings. It's a threat because of course it means that many people are going to be unemployed. Society is going to change radically. And those that control superintelligence could actually do crazy things if they manage to control it. And of course, some people argue that you can, some people argue that you can't. And this is why they're stating that some see AGI as a source of profit and power. And this is why he's Talking about how OpenAI, they have changed. Okay, now as we continue to go on, this is where they talk about the founding agreement of OpenAI. So essentially this is where Sam Altman actually talks to Elon Musk and he says that this is the greatest threat to continued existence of humanity. And they are right in stating that. And essentially there are other threats that I think that are more likely to happen, but, but are unlikely to destroy every human in the universe in the way that super machine intelligence could. And later that same year, Mr. Altman approached Mr. Musk with a proposal that they join forces to form a nonprofit AI lab that would try to catch up to Google in the race for AGI, but that this would be the opposite of Google, because Google at the time was a company that was closed source, focusing on kind of profits and stuff, whereas OpenAI, the company that they were going to make, was going to be focused on sharing pretty much everything. So you can see right here, the Zigoat would be a non profit developing AGI for the benefit of economy and it would be open source. And this would not keep this technology closed for secret, proprietary, commercial reasons. And as I go through this, all of this important stuff is going to actually set the tone for why this lawsuit is actually rather fascinating because some of the things that you're about to see are truly, truly incredible. Because I was like, whoa, what on earth is this? So it says, of course, something that you didn't know is that Elon Musk was actually a moving force behind the creation of OpenAI, contributing a majority of the funding in the first several years. He which is of course important. And then of course, this is a name that actually does pop up quite a bit. We get the name, of course, recruiting Ilya Sutskeva. So if you don't know, there was actually a back and forth between Ilya Sutskova between him going to OpenAI and of course between him going to Google DeepMind. And it was really, really hard. But eventually, you know, they managed to get Elon Musk to convince Ilya Sutsova to join OpenAI. And that was something that was, I guess you could say, pivotal in making OpenAI to where it is today. And that's why he's including it. So he says, you know, there would have been no OpenAI without Mr. Musk' funding contributions and the early leadership. And remember, this is where things get crazy. So because they said that Transformers, which were of course initially invented by Google, and of course here we actually talk about how this is a crazy, crazy piece of information that most people keep forgetting is that the Microsoft license only applies to OpenAI's pre AGI technology. So Microsoft obtains no rights to AGI. And it was up to OpenAI's nonprofit board, not Microsoft, to determine whether OpenAI attained AGI. And that is a very, very difficult thing because, you know, determining whether AGI has been achieved or not is something that is pretty tricky because the definitions are vague. And whilst there have been recent research papers that have come out and, you know, presented us with a table based on what AGI could be, you know, this, this thing, and essentially this research paper from Google DeepMind, and they talk about, you know, where AGI is actually going to be classified. So I would recommend everyone take a look at this because this is actually something that does show us where AGI is and where it's going to be in the future. So you can see right here levels of AGI. You can see there's no AGI, you know, emerging AGI, competent AGI. We don't have competent AGI yet, which is general. So this is the, you know, this side here is the one that we want to pay attention to because we've already completed the narrow spectrum. We've already done superhuman AI, you know, alpha forward, alphazero, stockfish. These ones are like Chess and all these other programs. But general AI, you know, competent AGI hasn't been achieved, but emerging AGI such as chat, GPT, GPT4, and these systems are, are the first level one. So once we get to here, this is where things get crazy. And that's where expert AGI and virtuoso AGI is going to be pretty crazy. So these three levels are going to be pretty crazy. And that's what this they're talking about. And of course, that's why they say it's pretty much up to the nonprofit board to determine whether OpenAI achieved AGI. And something that Elon Musk says about this in the later parts of the lawsuit is pretty crazy. So he says in 2023, this is where they state that in 2023 they set the founding agreement aflame. So he's basically saying that in 2023 this is where everything to hell, you know, like the founding agreement was just gone. Okay, he says that, you know, they released their most powerful large language model, GPT4. And GPT4 is not just capable of reasoning, it's better at reasoning than the average human, which is very true. It scored on the 90th percentile on the uniform bar exam for lawyers, 99th percentile for GRE verbal assessment, 70% in the summer year examination. And essentially GPT4's internal design has been kept a secret and remains a complete Secret, except to OpenAI and on information belief, Microsoft. Okay, and what's crazy is that they state here that there are no scientific publications describing the design of GPT4. Instead there are just press releases bragging about performance, which is, I don't know, I found that kind of funny. And it says the secrecy is primarily driven by commercial considerations and not safety. So essentially the reason they brought up GPT4's advanced capabilities is because OpenAI is supposed to be an open company and they've changed everything with GPT4. And the secrecy in which they're keeping GPT4 secret, it's driven by commercial considerations, not the safety considerations. I do think that, you know, there are some safety issues with GPT4 because it is a very, very advanced system. I've seen some really, really crazy things recently. But the point is that it's not driven by safety, it's driven by commercial considerations, which is what they're claiming. So of course what's crazy here is that they're stating that, you know, on information and belief, GPT4 is an AGI algorithm and hence expressly outside the scope of Microsoft. September 2020 exclusive license with OpenAI. Okay? And then it says that we believe that and there are some crazy, crazy things coming on, like the juicy parts. It says we believe that we could reasonably be viewed as an early, yet still incomplete view of an artificial intelligence general system. Okay? And here's where things get crazy. Okay? So it says OpenAI is currently developing a model known as Q that has an even stronger claim to AGI. As noted by Microsoft only has the rights to certain of OpenAI's pre AGI technology. But for the purposes of the Microsoft license, it is up to OpenAI to determine whether they've achieved AGI. And that's pretty crazy because, you know, crazy things happen with the board. And of course you can see he was not consistently handled with the board. And this is like crazy because they're referencing Q Star once again. And of course, you know, they're developing this model, but we don't know exactly what Q Star is. And remember guys, Q Star was something that was true and, and the board members and everything. We had this entire debacle about what went on. And it's still something that is continually being brought up to today because everyone knows that this is potentially something that is rather dangerous. Now there's more about Q Star later on, and some of that information really did surprise me. So this is where they talk about Sam Alton being fired because he wasn't consistently candid with the board. And what's crazy here is they said that Mr. Altman and Mr. Brockman, in concert with Microsoft, exploited significant leverage over OpenAI and forced the resignation of a majority of OpenAI's board members, including Ilya Sutskova. So they're stating that, you know, Ilya Sutskova has resigned. I don't know if he has resigned because we haven't seen anything yet, but they're essentially stating that, you know, they forced a resignation of majority of their board members, including Sutskova. Mr. Altman was reinstated and then new board members were picked by Mr. Altman and blessed by Microsoft. I actually didn't know that the new board members were picked by Microsoft. I thought they were just picked by like, you know, maybe just Microsoft or someone else. But I'm picking them by Altman after he was fired is rather, rather fascinating. Definitely an interesting point. And then it says the new board members lack substantial AI expertise and on information and belief are ill equipped by design to make an independent determination and whether OpenAI has achieved AJI. And I think that is pretty much a rather true statement. So it's basically saying that, you know, when it has deployed an algorithm that is outside of the Microsoft Scope license. So, I mean, it's really, really, really, really difficult to say whether or not this is going to result in some further kind of development because we know that lawsuits can be drawn out for years. But some of the information that could come out of this lawsuit genuinely could change everything. Because at the end, I'm going to show you what this lawsuit actually does is requiring OpenAI to do. And if it does, you know, make OpenAI do that, then we are going to get a boatload of information regarding AGI. So essentially what they state here as well is that, you know, to this day OpenAI's website continues to professional that its charter is to ensure that AGI benefits all of humanity. In reality, however, OpenAI has been transformed into a closed sourced, de facto subsidiary of the largest technology company in the world, Microsoft. And here's where it's crazy, okay, crazy statement. It says it's not just developing but actually refining an AGI to maximize profits for Microsoft rather than for the benefit of humanity. So I think this question, okay, and this is a question I did ask people on Twitter. I said due to the fact that OpenAI has previously changed, okay, from being a closed source. It was previously an open source company and is now a closed source company. Will OpenAI once again change after AGI considering that Microsoft won't have access to the AGI technology? Because I mean, companies do change, they do evolve and they do move in different ways. And we've seen that OpenAI has done that. And I was saying, how do we know OpenAI won't change once again after they develop AGI technology? Because it's under no obligations to give this technology to Microsoft. So I mean, it could be something, I mean, I don't know, it's a question that I'm just asking and I think we're going to have to see. And here you can see it says GPT4 is closed source primarily to serve the proprietary commercial interests of Microsoft. Okay, now here's some crazy statements. Okay, this is the part where you're about to see some crazy stuff that I did not know this was said. It says Microsoft CEO boasted that it would not matter if OpenAI disappeared tomorrow. He explained that if we have all the IP rights and all the capability, we have all the people, we have all the computer, we have the data, we have everything, we are below them, above them and around them. This is a crazy, crazy statement. I think what he's trying to say here is that we have so much infrastructure around OpenAI that if they disappear tomorrow, we could still continue without them. And this is of course as the drama was unfolding when Sam Alan was being fired. And I'm guessing that they're basically saying that look, if anything happens to OpenAI we are just going to completely resume control and continue along with the mission. But I just think that the way that this was said, we are above them, below them and around them and is a pretty incredible way to frame things. And of course it says this case is far to compel OpenAI to agree to the founding agreement and return to the mission to develop AGI for the benefit of humanity and not to personally benefit the individual defendants and the largest technological company in the world. So they're basically saying that, look, okay, we've created this company, we started out with the benefit to develop Agile for humanity and now it's just benefiting you guys and of course Microsoft. Now this is another crazy statement, okay, and this is Mr. Musk's concerns over AI falling into the wrong hands. And here we have Demis hassabis of Google DeepMind and he was talking about the dangers that AI presents to society. And of course AI becomes super intelligent, surpass human intelligence and then threaten humanity because of course we know the intelligence spectrum is pretty crazy. Now I found it crazy that one of the investors remarked that the best thing that he could have done for human race was to shoot Mr. Hasabis then and there. And this was essentially there was a conversation between investors between Demis Hasabis and DeepMind and one of the investors said that. I have no idea why they said that. I'm guessing they realized existential nature, but I don't understand why they would want to shoot someone from Google DeepMind. This is what I'm saying. There are Some crazy statements that I've seen in this that just make me think what on earth is going on? Okay, and then here we go. Okay, you know Mr. Musk's previous conversation, and this is with Larry Page. He stated that unless safeguards are going to be put in place, AI systems are going to replace humans, making our species irrelevant or extinct. And then essentially this is where a famous quote has come where Larry Page basically said that Mr. Musk was being speciesist and that he favored the human species over the intelligent machines. And it's crazy because Larry Page, I think he was the CEO of Google at the time and he said, you know, that, you know, AI systems are merely the next stage of evolution. Okay, that is a crazy statement from the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world at the time. He's basically saying that look, it doesn't matter if humans go extinct, AI is the next stage of evolution. Like what kind of statement is that? I mean, you're human, you are a human, you're supposed to be focused on humanness. And then Mr. Musk is basically saying that, you know, well yes, I am pro human. I mean, you know, who are we dealing with? Is this guy a robot? Like why would a human say that? It doesn't matter, it's just evolution. Like why would you not want to still be alive and continue on the human race? That to me makes no sense. Okay, And I want to know your guys opinion on that. Okay? Of course this is also something that goes to show how, I wouldn't say how terrible legislation is, but just how slow things move. Because of course Mr. Musk felt that President Obama understood the dangers of AI, but regulation that became, I'm guessing that at this time there wasn't really any, you know, visual fears, things that you could see how quickly it's developing. And of course, you know, here's where we look at some important statements where Mr. Altman stated that if AGI was made, it would be the biggest development in technology ever. Which is very, very true. And that's why I'm so focused on all of this AGI technology. Because this is literally going to be the invention of a lifetime. Okay. What's crazy as well is that, you know, it says Mr. Altman pointed out that there are many companies making strides towards achieving AGI, but acknowledge the unfortunate reality that the good ones are very, very secret about it. Which is of course, you know, very true. So many companies are making advances towards AGI. Okay? Now in addition, superhuman machine intelligence referred to by Sam Altman in 2015 said that, you know, we should fight it. Of course super machine intelligence was dangerous, but those who dismissed it as never going to happen and far off accused them of being engaged in sloppy and dangerous thinking. And here Sam Altman is basically saying that, you know, people that believe superintelligence, you know, is far off is not the right way to think because it could happen at any time. Okay? And this is something that we need to be aware of. Now. There's also something here that I want you guys to be aware of. Okay, so this is where they're talking about, you know, the Manhattan Project for AI. They're stating, and you know, this was in 2015, they're stating that a Manhattan Project for AI, we could structure it so that the tech belongs to the world via some sort of non profit and people working on it get like startup like compensation if it works. So this is where they're actually talking about how they were going to form OpenAI. Because of course at this time, you know, they realized how crazy this was and the only way to create it safely was to create it openly. And of course the mission was to create the first general AI. Now here's where we get to some further pieces of information. It says that Microsoft stands to make a fortune selling GPT4 to the public, which would not be possible if OpenAI as required to do, makes that technology freely available to the public. And this is of course contrary to the founding agreement of making everything open. And then here's where we get to even more meatier stuff. Okay? This is where we get to this crazy algorithm. Okay? So it says that researchers have pointed out that one of the remaining limitations of GPT architecture based AIs is, is that they generate their output at a piece in time and cannot backtrack. Okay? And these issues have been seen before in AI research and have been largely solved for other applications in path and maze finding. AI must be able to find the right path despite the existence of dead ends along the way. And the standard algorithm to perform this is called A pronounced A star. And then here's where we go. Okay? Reuters has reported that OpenAI is developing a secretive algorithm called Q. While it's not clear what Q is, Reuters has reported several OpenAI staff members wrote a letter warning about the potential of Q. And it appears Q may now or in the future be a part of an even clearer and more striking example of artificial general intelligence that has been developed by OpenAI. And as an AGI, it would be explicitly outside the scope of OpenAI's. License with Microsoft and must be made available for the benefit of the public at large. So here, once again, we get another reference to Q, okay? And what's crazy is that we referenced the A search, which is, you know, that previous algorithm that people are saying that Q Star was kind of based off. They kind of iterated on that and made something even crazier. And here's the craziest statement that I read in the paper that made me go, whoa, okay? And it says, on information and belief, Mr. Altman's firing was due to, in part of OpenAI's breakthrough in realizing AGI. Okay? And in fact, news reports suggested that there was a rift among OpenAI board members and executives regarding safety concerns and the potential threat posed by OpenAI's next generation Q Star. So it's clear that what they're stating in this lawsuit is that the firing, the reason that Sam Altman was fired because they realized AGI, they know how to get there, and that the board members and their executives regarding safety concerns, the letter that they did was of course because of Q Star or whatever it was that led to Q Star, that led to this AGI kind of development that they know they're going to hit. Now, for those of you guys thinking if they had AGI, wouldn't they just do X or Y? The thing is, it's not about them having AGI right now, but it's about them having the roadmap of knowing how to get there. So how do they know how to get the roadmap to get there? And this is the tweet that I've been referencing for quite some time. Okay, this is from the GPT4 blog post when they released it. Essentially they're saying that they can predict the level of intelligence based on the level of compute that they use. So you can see that this is the graph. This is the graph going down. You can see that they have the observed prediction, then they have GPT4's capability. It says predictable scaling. Okay? Remember their architecture, whatever it is that they use, it's predictable scaling. It says a large focus on. The GPT4 project has been building a deep learning stack that scales predictably. The primary reason is that for very large training runs like GPT4, it is not feasible to do extensive model specific tuning. We developed infrastructure and optimization that have very predictable behavior across multiple scales to verify the scalability we accurately predicted in advance. Okay, now remember this stuff because when I show you the next slide, you're going to be like, okay, that makes Sense. Remember, we accurately Predicted in advance GPT4's final loss on our internal code base, not part of the training set by extrapolating from models trained using the same methodology but by using 10,000 less compute. So what they're stating is that they accurately predicted things in advance. And this is why the other day when I made a video stating that, look around the time when this all fiasco was going on, okay, around that crazy time, they started trade making like crazy GPT5, GPT6, GPT7, okay, why would they do that if they weren't predicting what those systems were going to be like? Think about it guys, think about it. At the time when they trademarked GBT6 and GPT7, this was at the time when they were doing some kind of, I don't know what was going on OpenAI, but I'm guessing that they were probably trying to predict, accurately predict which they could GPT6 and GPT7 based on this training loss, okay? I'm guessing that that's what they've done because it's clear that they can predict things in advance so they can verify the scalability and it is predictable scaling. That's what they talk about. That's why these trademarks are so important because people are stating that, look, it's nothing, they're just trademarking something that they know they're going to use. I don't think so guys. I really do think that they decided to trademark these future models because at that time, like literally at that time, Jimmy Apples were treating like crazy about some internal stuff going on on OpenAI. And in these trademarks they put that this one is going to have music and this one is going to have agents. Like they know where these models are going to go, which makes sense for them to do that because they know exactly how they can accurately predict these models. And then literally a month later after they did that, that crazy letter, you know, Reuters reported on was written to OpenAI, okay, about Q Star and about how this technology is literally going to change and potentially damage everyone and everything. And that's why I stated that, you know, this Q Star thing was something real. But of course we don't know what exactly that is. Now here was another statement, okay? Satya Nandela stated that we were very confident in our own ability. We have all the IP rights and all the capability. If OpenAI disappeared tomorrow, I don't want any customer of ours to be worried about it, quite honestly, because we have all the rights to continue innovation, not just to serve the product. But we can go and just do what we were doing in partnership ourselves. We have all the people, we have all the compute, we have the data, we have everything. So this is why they're stating that, you know, if Satya Nadella is stating that, you know, we have the people, we have the compute, we have everything, he's stating that, look, AGI is going to be something that is a Microsoft product, and it's not going to be something that is widely distributed. It's going to be something that they profit off of, something that they sell and something that they distribute based on, you know, just sheer ability to control this technology. Now, what is crazier here was that apparently Helen Toner was being intimidated by a lawyer. She said that Ms. Toner, who described the lawyer's actions as an intimidation tactic, said that, you know, Mr. Altman's continued removal would, in fact, advance the company's mission by promoting the safety of humanity over profit. So apparently, you know, they thought that removing Sam Altman was going to promote safety of humanity over profit, but apparently none of this dissuaded the shareholders and Mr. Altman pushing for his reinstatement. So apparently safety was just, you know, kicked out the window and Satman was just, you know, reinstatement. So, of course, this is a statement by Satya Nadella. We are in there, we are above them, below them and around them. We do the kernel optimizations, we build the tools, we build the infrastructure. That's why I think a lot of the industrial analysts are saying, oh, wow, it's really a joint project between Microsoft and OpenAI. So I think from this as well, what we are seeing is that Microsoft is much more deeply embedded than OpenAI than I initially had believed. But it makes sense. You know, they're using all of their servers, I'm guessing they build the tools, the infrastructure. So it's clear that essentially what they're alleging from this lawsuit is that, look, you know, Microsoft and OpenAI are going to be the only people that kind of benefit from AGI, which is pretty crazy. And then, you know, Microsoft don't even benefit AGI if they, you know, still around. Because of course, you know, Microsoft, their license is only to pre AGI tech. And then this is the craziest statement as well. Okay? It says, given Microsoft's a normal financial interest in keeping the gate closed to the public, OpenAI's new captured, conflicted complaint board will have every reason to delay ever making a finding that OpenAI has attained AGI. I'm going to read that Again, okay, given Microsoft's a normal financial interest in keeping the gate closed to the public, OpenAI News captured conflicted and complaint board will have every reason to delay ever making a finding that OpenAI has attained AGI. So basically they're stating that Microsoft are not going to be like, look, you guys have achieved AGI because of course then they kind of get shut out because of course that's where their license kind of ends. And that is not going to be good for anyone. Of course it says to the contrary, OpenAI's attainment of AGI like Temoru and Annie will always be a day away, ensuring that Microsoft will be licensed to the OpenAI's latest technology and the public will be shut out. Precisely the opposite of the founding agreement. So they're basically stating that OpenAI is never going to admit that they have AGI because they want Microsoft to be able to license the technology. They're just going to keep their synergy going and that's going to keep the public out. And of course, okay, this is a crazy statement as well, says it's important to reflect on what has transpired here. A non profit startup has collected tens of millions of dollars in contributions for the express purpose of developing AGI technology for public benefit. And shortly before achieving the very milestone that the company was created to achieve, the company has become closed for profit partner with the world's largest corporation, thereby personally enriching the defendants. So they're basically saying that, look, OpenAI was created to achieve general AGI for the public, but instead of doing that, the moment they did that, they went and partnered up with Microsoft and shut it out from the public just to make profit. So it's pretty, pretty crazy. Okay? It's, it's pretty crazy crazy. Then they talk about the investments and stuff. Okay. And I think one thing that I do want to know, it says the public is still in the dark regarding exactly what the board's deliberative review process was that resulted in the initial firing of Altman. And I agree so much. What on earth was he fired for? Like, what did he say? What did he do? Because there is definitely some internal documents and I'm guessing they kind of want these in discovery. So when discovery happens, which is when, you know, the documents get released and these people are making their cases, we're going to really find out exactly what happened. And of course, it says the Economist emphasized that the new board is far more likely to allow Mr. Altman to scale up OpenAI as quickly as possible, no matter the severity of societal costs, which is a damning statement and a little bit worrying if I'm going to say the least. And of course, someone wrote a letter stating that should the nonprofit abandon its original mission, it should be dissolved, with the proceeds going to another charitable enterprise. And what's also crazy was that OpenAI has also recently shuttered the public access to previously available key documents, in line with OpenAI's original promise of transparency. And then here's where we talk about the $7 trillion. They talk about how Sam Altman of course is in reportedly discussions with Middle Eastern investors to raise up to $7 trillion, didn't mean to do that, and of course build an insane network fabrication. And that's why people are stating that if they can predict with small levels of compute how smart these systems are going to be. The fact that they need $7 trillion means that they most likely do have AGI because they already know what kind of compute they're going to need. And that just kind of proves it. And then of course it says Mr. Altman has been quoted stating that making the UAE a regulatory sandbox where AI technologies are tested, which also goes to say that maybe they're going to try and debut somewhere where there's less regulations around the AI technology. And this statement as well, stating that whilst OpenAI was once a pioneer of safe, responsible development of AGI based on open communication with the public, it's now shut its doors, brought the biggest investor for profit subsidiary onto a board which owes only a fiduciary duty to humanity and continues in secrecy towards a profit centric future with possible calamitous implications for humanity. So that is not a good statement. This isn't good for anyone. I do think that OpenAI, I do hope they stick to their mission. But essentially what happens now, what they essentially want to happen, they essentially want three things to happen, okay? Number one is they want OpenAI's long standing practice of making AI research and technology available to the public, which is number one. So they want this available to the public. Again, number two is the fact that they also, they essentially also want GPT4 to be AGI. So basically they're stating that GPT4 constitutes artificial general intelligence and is thereby outside of the scope of OpenAI's license to Microsoft. So this would mean that Microsoft loses the GPT4 access, which would of course be a dent to Microsoft. And I'm wondering if that is something that actually helps us, because I'm guessing that maybe Elon Musk perhaps, just maybe he has a personal reason for this, because if Microsoft loses access to GPT4, I guess maybe that kind of helps him with his AI company. I'm not sure. Just pure speculation. And of course the biggest thing is that for jury to decide whether or not Q Star and other OpenAI next generation large language models in development constitute AGI. So this thing, the reason why this last bit is so crazy is because they want a jury to decide whether or not Q Star and the next generation. So GPT5, GPT6, GPT7. I don't know if they're there yet, but basically want a jury to decide whether or not they have AGI and of course if they're outside OpenAI's license to mark. So that is going to be an insane thing for a jury to decide. Like, how is that even going to go down? I mean, are OpenAI going to give the jury GPT 5, going to let them test it? I mean, like, is the, I mean, I'm speechless right now because I don't even think the jury are going to, you know, are the jury going to test it on benchmarks? Are they just going to see it, you know, do certain things? I mean, how is that going to go down? How is the jury? Like, I'm just trying to think the average 12 people who don't pay attention to AI development, if they see GPT 5 or a Q Star like system, how are they going to know if it's AGI if they don't even know about the definition of AGI when the worst thing about this at all is that some of the greatest minds in AI cannot agree on whether GPT4 is AGI and don't agree on what AGI is. And a lot of this stuff and basically how all of this stuff even works to begin with. So this is a confusing, confusing part. But I do hope some of the QStar information does get released. And this lawsuit by far was one of the most surprising things I've seen because it now means that there is a war between two sides, that side being Elon Musk and that side being OpenAI. And I wonder where this lawsuit would go. And I think we've seen this trend of increasing lawsuits being thrown at OpenAI and there are just so many things going on here. But let me know what you think about this lawsuit. What do you think about this lawsuit? Do you think that Q Star is going to be the AGI system that eventually gets released during discovery? Do you think OpenAI are going to downplace Q Star? They're going to be like, you know what? This system isn't that good. Do you think they're gonna, you know, potentially nerf some of the abilities with this model? How do you think the future is going to be? I mean, we are at a very, very crazy time, and this lawsuit has proven to be rather, rather surprising. So let me know what you all thought about this.