Or Nvidia comes out of this damaged but not nearly as much as if they were glued to Jensen. "Superstar" CEOs that have complete control over a company are only benefits until they become enormous risks.
There is no way that would have been possible. And as I saw another commenter mention, even if NVidia were founded much more recently when dual share structures became much more common, you rarely (or maybe never, I can't think of any cases) see that dual share structure in very capital intensive industries like hardware where you have to sink a ton of money into the enterprise before you even see any revenue. Software is a whole different ball game.
You are correct, and I was wrong. I originally thought SpaceX was a bit of a special case because the board (pretty much Musk loyalists) gave Musk a ton of restricted stock right before the IPO, but the voting rights vested immediately. But the part I was wrong about is thinking that was just an IPO thing. All the many billions that SpaceX got pre-IPO was done with investors being fine having Musk alone having majority voting control.
Seems specific legislations on European Union, the United Kingdom and South Korea made it hostile to Open weights model, I think I have seen other models with similar exclusion
> The AI Act Article 53 requires anyone who places a general-purpose model on the EU market to keep technical documentation, give information to downstream developers, adopt a copyright compliance policy, and draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary about the content used for training the model.
Sounds like a pretty good reason. Maybe there should have be exemptions for open-weight models?
"Giving information to downstream developers" and a "copyright compliance policy" could get pretty expensive quickly.
> Sounds like a pretty good reason. Maybe there should have be exemptions for open-weight models?
Article 2.12: "This Regulation does not apply to AI systems released under free and open-source licences, unless they are placed on the market or put into service as high-risk AI systems or as an AI system that falls under Article 5 or 50."
When you're the engineer responsible for releasing an AI model at baidu, and one checklist item is 'check for local laws and either exclude that country or get a local lawyer to check for compliance', it is probably easier to just exclude any country with specific AI laws than to hire 200+ lawyers to meet every countries laws.
This applies even more so when revenue from the model release is likely nil. You will get the academic fame and PR no matter what the licence says.
What are you talking about. This site went absolutely batshit that "muh ai com'pnies are stealing everything, punish them!" And celebrated these anti ai laws
In Germany every adult has to have an ID card. You cannot not have one. As a consequence requiring one for voting is practically unproblematic.
In the US the situation is fundamentally different plus there is a history of heinous racial targeted disenfranchisement of voters to consider that is in the extremely recent past and alive and well.
Only Anglo-Saxon society thinks like that. I never ever see another society think like this.
It's like seething over criminal justice system (police, court, prisons), what if govt turns authoritarian? Criminal justice system will become a tool of oppression.
Sure criminal justice system can be and have been a tool of oppression, but no sane society would forgo criminal justice under this fear.
To be fair some things that are considered normal in non-Anglo Saxon societies are considered authoritarian in Anglo Saxon societies, in particular having to register your whereabouts with the government, or having to carry ID at all times.
The USA is currently on the road to proving you don't need mandatory identification to turn authoritarian. The Flock cameras have taken over the manual process of following people around.
reply