Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury

#31

Post by cogman10 »

jeffwask wrote: post #27
dgellow wrote: post #18

> OpenAI submitted the journals as evidence in October that was initially sealed and then unsealed in January. How does that work? How can a company submit a personal journal as evidence? That feels extremely intrusive

He kept them on his work laptop, and they were swept up in discovery. Don't ignore your security team when they talk about data protection and not doing personal business on work devices.

Even if it were a notebook, it could end up in court. If someone sees you writing in a book and talks about it during discovery, you can end up with a court order to produce that book.

Re: OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury

#32

Post by jeffwask »

skrebbel wrote: post #6

Seriously is nothing sacred anymore? Like I think the entirety of OpenAI leadership are scumbags but how is it OK to force someone, anyone, to publish their most private thoughts? EDIT: I sorry read over this part: > OpenAI submitted the journals as evidence in October that was initially sealed and then unsealed in January So they chose to submit it as evidence themselves. I stand corrected, insane move though, why w…

Because he had them on an OpenAI device and when OpenAI lawyers saw them, they knew they would be penalized more if they hid them. This happens a lot, I believe it was a Sony lawsuit where personal emails on work devices exposed a number of affairs unrelated to the case because it was all part of discovery.

Re: OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury

#33

Post by notnullorvoid »

Xunjin wrote: post #7
koolba wrote: post #2

From the article, emphasis mine: > Additionally, Brockman’s journal showed him grappling with whether voting against Musk’s plan or for Musk’s ejection from the board would be morally wrong. > “Can’t see us turning this into a for-profit without a very nasty fight,” Brockman wrote in another entry. “ It’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. That’d be pretty morally bankrupt. ” This is pretty damning for OpenAI…

Another part also says: "After Musk announced he was resigning from OpenAI in February 2018, Musk gave a departing speech at an all-hands meeting, Brockman testified. In front of about 40 OpenAI employees, Musk said that he was leaving because the only viable path that he saw forward was for OpenAI to merge with Tesla. However, the other leaders did not think so, Musk said, choosing a different path that Musk would n…

I don't really want to advocate for Musk, but is it not possible that his goal was to merge with Tesla as an alternative to OpenAI becoming a seperate for-profit. If the option of staying a non-profit was going off the table I'd also probably want to advocate for merging with an existing for-profit I own that had aligned interests.

Re: OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury

#34

Post by palmotea »

watwut wrote: post #26
Xunjin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another part also says: "After Musk announced he was resigning from OpenAI in February 2018, Musk gave a departing speech at an all-hands meeting, Brockman testified. In front of about 40 OpenAI employees, Musk said that he was leaving because the only viable path that he saw forward was for OpenAI to merge with Tesla. However, the other leaders did not think so, Musk said, choosing a different path that Musk would n…

I mean, the claim here is not that Musk is not an asshole. This is a court case where two assholes fight about who defrauded that other one more successfully. Whoever wins and whoever looses, we know both involved men have pretty non-existent morality. And in the grand scheme of things, OpenAI being charity was always bullshit too.

> Whoever wins and whoever looses, we know both involved men don't have pretty non-existent morality.

I'm guessing that double negative is a mistake. Do you mean to strike the "don't" to make it "have pretty non-existent morality" or just "both involved men don't have morality"?

Re: OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury

#36

Post by JackFr »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #13
lesuorac wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the Framers of the constitution felt the same as you and the 5th amendment used to apply to your belongings as well so a diary you wrote couldn't be used against you.

> your belongings as well so a diary you wrote couldn't be used against you What's the history around this? And don't these protections only relate to criminal proceedings? edit: seems the parent is referring to the historical entity of the mere evidence rule which isn't the same as saying that the Framers believed a certain interpretation for the 4/5th amendments.

The right against self-incrimination is limited in civil trials. Additionally, unlike criminal trials where a jury will be instructed that a defendant's refusal to answer cannot be construed as evidence, there is no such instruction in civil trials, and it is common to argue that a refusal to answer indicates hiding something.

Re: OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury

#37

Post by rithdmc »

THansenite wrote: post #4

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. I keep a journal where I can get thoughts out of my head so I can move on. Like the article, its nothing I'd really be ashamed of, but I see it as a kind of personal therapy where I can dump my thoughts. I write with the assumption they are my private thoughts and even I don't have any plans on going back and rereading. I know I'm not a CEO, but even I wouldn't want my pri…

Have you considered shredding the journal pages after?

Re: OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury

#38

Post by jwolfe »

skrebbel wrote: post #28
arduanika wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anymore? This is how discovery has always worked. > submitted Doesn't necessarily mean they volunteered it. Either submission or the unsealing could have been in response to a subpoena or court ruling. Maybe the solution is to write at the top of your journal that you are cc'ing your lawyer on it. (Not legal advice!)

> > anymore? > This is how discovery has always worked. So if I say a worry to my therapist, and years later I get sued in a civil lawsuit, my opponents can just ask the therapist for their meeting notes and those get submitted and then published on the internet? No, I assume? So then where's the line? I'm no lawyer (in fact I'm a total noob in this area) but seems very weird to me that private notes can just be subp…

Your work laptop documents are not private personal notes.

This is also partially why I do not log in to work accounts on personal devices or personal accounts on work devices.

Re: OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury

#39

Post by Fraterkes »

watwut wrote: post #26
Xunjin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another part also says: "After Musk announced he was resigning from OpenAI in February 2018, Musk gave a departing speech at an all-hands meeting, Brockman testified. In front of about 40 OpenAI employees, Musk said that he was leaving because the only viable path that he saw forward was for OpenAI to merge with Tesla. However, the other leaders did not think so, Musk said, choosing a different path that Musk would n…

I mean, the claim here is not that Musk is not an asshole. This is a court case where two assholes fight about who defrauded that other one more successfully. Whoever wins and whoever looses, we know both involved men have pretty non-existent morality. And in the grand scheme of things, OpenAI being charity was always bullshit too.

Ianal but openais defense seems to actually have spent some time in the hearings showing examples of Musk’s (perceived) hypocrisy (him not giving to charity because he views his companies as societally beneficial), which suggests to me that this stuff is legislatively relevant
Post reply on HN