OpenAI fired back at billionaire Elon Musk on Friday, publishing a series of emails and texts that the company claims show Musk’s lawsuit against it is misleading. Musk’s legal battle with OpenAI, which has been going on for months now , at its core accuses the company of abandoning its original nonprofit mission to make the fruits of its AI research available to all. Things escalated last month, when Musk’s legal team filed for an injunction to halt OpenAI’s in-progress transition from a nonprofit to a for-profit corporation. OpenAI says Musk’s complaints are baseless — and simply a case of sour grapes. As far back as 2015, Musk floated the idea of an OpenAI with both a nonprofit and for-profit component, the OpenAI-published emails and texts show. OpenAI ultimately launched as a nonprofit, but several years later faced financing challenges. On June 13, 2017, according to the OpenAI-published exchanges, Musk suggested that OpenAI merge with a hardware startup — possibly chip company Cerebras . Several members of OpenAI’s leadership agreed, per the messages, and OpenAI started down a path to what president Greg Brockman called an “AI research + hardware for-profit.” Musk demanded majority equity, OpenAI claims — between 50% and 60%. And he laid out an org structure where he would “unequivocally have initial control of the company” — and be installed its CEO. Musk went so far as to create a public benefit corporation called “Open Artificial Intelligence Technologies, Inc,” registered in Delaware. But OpenAI leadership rejected Musk’s terms. Musk then recommended that OpenAI spin into Tesla, his electric vehicle company, with a $1 billion budget that would “increase exponentially.” OpenAI leadership shot this proposal down, too. It’s at that point, in 2018, that Musk resigned from OpenAI — and largely cut ties with its C-suite. OpenAI claims that it’s offered Musk equity in its for-profit wing on more than one occasion, but that Musk has always declined. “You can’t sue your way to [ artificial general intelligence ,]” OpenAI said in a statement. “We have great respect for Elon’s accomplishments and gratitude for his early contributions to OpenAI, but he should be competing in the marketplace rather than the courtroom.” Musk formed his answer to OpenAI, xAI, last year. Soon after, the company released Grok , an AI model that now powers a number of features on Musk’s social network, X (formerly known as Twitter). xAI also offers an API that allows customers to build Grok into third-party apps, platforms, and services. In a complaint filed late last month, Musk’s attorneys allege OpenAI is depriving xAI of capital by extracting promises from investors not to fund it and the competition. In October, the Financial Times reported that OpenAI demanded investors in its latest funding round abstain from also funding any of OpenAI’s rivals, including xAI. Of course, xAI has had no trouble raising money lately. Last month, the firm closed a $6 billion round reportedly with participation from prominent investors including Andreessen Horowitz and Fidelity. With around $12 billion in the bank, xAI is one of the best-funded AI companies in the world. Musk’s motion for an injunction also alleges that OpenAI and Microsoft, its close collaborator and an investor, illegally share proprietary information and resources. Google reportedly has also called for investigations into Microsoft’s relationship with OpenAI, specifically the two orgs’ cloud computing arrangements. OpenAI is under pressure to complete its for-profit transition quickly. According to Bloomberg, investors in its latest funding round will be able to claw back their cash if OpenAI doesn’t convert from a non-profit within two years.Information on these pages contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Markets and instruments profiled on this page are for informational purposes only and should not in any way come across as a recommendation to buy or sell in these assets. You should do your own thorough research before making any investment decisions. FXStreet does not in any way guarantee that this information is free from mistakes, errors, or material misstatements. It also does not guarantee that this information is of a timely nature. Investing in Open Markets involves a great deal of risk, including the loss of all or a portion of your investment, as well as emotional distress. All risks, losses and costs associated with investing, including total loss of principal, are your responsibility. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FXStreet nor its advertisers. The author will not be held responsible for information that is found at the end of links posted on this page. If not otherwise explicitly mentioned in the body of the article, at the time of writing, the author has no position in any stock mentioned in this article and no business relationship with any company mentioned. The author has not received compensation for writing this article, other than from FXStreet. FXStreet and the author do not provide personalized recommendations. The author makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of this information. FXStreet and the author will not be liable for any errors, omissions or any losses, injuries or damages arising from this information and its display or use. Errors and omissions excepted. The author and FXStreet are not registered investment advisors and nothing in this article is intended to be investment advice.

AFNQL WELCOMES HYDRO-QUÉBEC'S STRATEGY FOR ECONOMIC RECONCILIATION

Deepening professionalism in Nigeria's police forceWASHINGTON — The House Ethics Committee on Monday accused Matt Gaetz of “regularly” paying for sex, including once with a 17-year-old girl, and purchasing and using illicit drugs as a member of Congress, as lawmakers released the conclusions of a nearly four-year investigation that helped sink his nomination for attorney general. The 37-page report by the bipartisan panel includes explicit details of sex-filled parties and vacations that Gaetz, now 42, took part in from 2017 to 2020 while the Republican represented Florida’s western Panhandle. Congressional investigators concluded that Gaetz violated multiple state laws related to sexual misconduct while in office, though not federal sex trafficking laws. They also found that Gaetz “knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct” the committee’s work. “The Committee determined there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress,” the report said. Before the report came out, Gaetz denied any wrongdoing and criticized the committee’s process. “Giving funds to someone you are dating — that they didn’t ask for — and that isn’t ‘charged’ for sex is now prostitution?!?” he posted on X, the website formerly known as Twitter. “There is a reason they did this to me in a Christmas Eve-Eve report and not in a courtroom of any kind where I could present evidence and challenge witnesses.” Gaetz , who was first elected in 2017, spent the majority of his time in Washington enmeshed in scandals that ultimately derailed his selection by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Justice Department . Gaetz abruptly resigned from Congress last month. His political future is uncertain, although Gaetz has indicated interest in running for the open Senate seat in Florida. The committee painted a damning portrait of Gaetz’s conduct, using dozens of pages of exhibits, including text messages, financial records, travel receipts, checks and online payments, to document a party and drug-fueled lifestyle. The committee said it compiled the evidence after issuing 29 subpoenas for documents and testimony and contacting more than two dozen witnesses. In addition to soliciting prostitution, the report said Gaetz “accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts.” That same year, investigators said, Gaetz arranged for a staffer to obtain a passport for a woman with whom he was sexually involved, falsely telling the State Department that she was his constituent. In some of the text exchanges made public, he appeared to be inviting various women to events, getaways or parties, and arranging airplane travel and lodging. At one point he asked one woman if she had a “cute black dress” to wear. There were also discussions of shipping goods. One of the exhibits was a text exchange that appeared to be between two of the women concerned about their cash flow and payments. In another, a person asked Gaetz for help to pay an educational expense. Regarding the 17-year-old girl, the report said there was no evidence Gaetz knew she was a minor when he had sex with her. The woman told the committee she did not tell Gaetz she was under 18 at the time and that he learned she was a minor more than a month after the party. But Gaetz stayed in touch with her after that and met up with her for “commercial sex” again less than six months after she turned 18, according to the committee. Florida law says it is a felony for a person 24 or older to have sex with a minor. The law does not allow a claim of ignorance or misrepresentation of a minor’s age as a defense. Joel Leppard, who represents two women who told the committee that Gaetz paid them for sex, said the findings “vindicate” the accounts of his clients and “demonstrate their credibility.” “We appreciate the Committee’s commitment to transparency in releasing this comprehensive report so the truth can be known,” Leppard said in a statement. At least one Republican joined all five Democrats on the committee earlier this month in voting to release the report despite initial opposition from GOP lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, to publishing findings about a former member of Congress. While ethics reports have previously been released after a member’s resignation, it is extremely rare. On behalf of the Republicans who voted against making the report public, the committee chairman, Rep. Michael Guest of Mississippi, wrote that while the members did not challenge the findings, “we take great exception that the majority deviated from the Committee’s well-established standards,” to drop any investigation when a person is not longer a member of the chamber. Guest added that releasing this report sets a precedent that “is a dangerous departure with potentially catastrophic consequences.” But Maryland Rep. Glenn Ivey, a Democratic member of the committee, said that for transparency, it was crucial for the public and Congress as an institution to read the findings. “I think that’s important for my colleagues here in the House to know how the committee reviews certain acts,” he told The Associated Press. “Some of these were obviously conduct that crossed the line, but some of them weren’t.” Mounting a last-ditch effort to halt the publication of the report, Gaetz filed a lawsuit Monday asking a federal court to intervene. He cited what he called “untruthful and defamatory information” that would “significantly damage” his “standing and reputation in the community.” Gaetz’s complaint argued that he was no longer under the committee’s jurisdiction because he had resigned from Congress. The often secretive, bipartisan committee has investigated claims against Gaetz since 2021. But its work became more urgent last month when Trump picked him shortly after the Nov. 5 election Day to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer. Gaetz resigned from Congress that same day, putting him outside the purview of the committee’s jurisdiction. But Democrats had pressed to make the report public even after Gaetz was no longer in the House and had withdrawn from consideration for Trump’s Cabinet. A vote on the House floor this month to force the report’s release failed; all but one Republican voted against it. The committee detailed its start-and-stop investigation over the past several years, which was halted for a time as the Justice Department conducted its own inquiry of Gaetz. Federal prosecutors never brought a case against him. Lawmakers said they asked the Justice Department for information about its investigation, but the agency refused to hand over information, saying it does not disclose information about investigations that do not result in charges. The committee then subpoenaed the department for records. After a back-and-forth between department officials and the committee, the department only handed over “publicly reported information about the testimony of a deceased individual,” according to the committee’s report. The report said Gaetz was “uncooperative” throughout the committee’s investigation. He provided “minimal documentation” in response to the committee’s requests, it said. “He also did not agree to a voluntary interview.” Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.