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

OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 499 posts

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#481

Post by z3c0 »

justin66 wrote: post #461
z3c0 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh... Holy shit... Just saw your post history. As far as HN users go, you're the genuine article in propagandists. If you're ever up for an interview in your sources, I'll entertain it.

What cause am I propagandizing? Just curious.

Sorry, I meant to leave that on the comment I originally called out (the one pushing a neo-Nazi adjacent conspiracy theory, the one you rushed to defend.)

You are just terminally online and woefully overly-opinionated. Not entirely harmless, when paired with someone like greenavocado, but mostly benign.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#482

Post by pyuser583 »

esperent wrote: post #236
pyuser583 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American press is much more independent than European press. When WSJ broke the Elizabeth Holmes story, much ink was spilled showing how no European paper would take on a corporation strong government support. Looking at Europe, governments first instinct is to protect national favorites. European whistleblowers are likely to face defamation suits, something thankfully difficult in America.

> much ink was spilled showing how no European paper would take on a corporation strong government support Could you provide some examples of this? I know it's possible in the UK to get a court order to prevent media coverage, but I didn't know that was the case in other European countries.

I was thinking of the Wirecard scandal in Germany. The regulators responded to concerns by silencing silencing critics of the company.

I read either "defamation" or "libel" somewhere, but this article says:

[German regulators] banned investors from betting against Wirecard shares for two months, the first such restriction on an individual company in German stock market history. That was quickly followed by a criminal complaint against two Financial Times journalists who had reported the whistleblower allegations about the payments company.

https://www.ft.com/content/f62f7f56-3d45-492c-ae88-172948d21...

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#483

Post by chefandy »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #327
csomar wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before others post about the definition of whistleblower or talk about assassination theories just pause to consider whether, if in his position, you would that want that to be written about you or a friend. Yes, if I was a few months away from giving the court a statement and I "suicided" myself, I'd rather have people tribulate about how my death happened than expect to take the suicide account without much push.…

> But it's not clear from the article how critical this guy is in the upcoming lawsuits If he was the key piece to the lawsuit the lawsuit wouldn't really have legs. To get the ball rolling someone like him would have to be critical but after they're able to get the ball rolling and get discovery if after all that all you have is one guy saying there is copyright infringement you've not found anything. And realistica…

Do all lawsuits that are damaged by losing key witnesses lack legs, counselor?

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#484

Post by that_guy_iain »

chefandy wrote: post #483
that_guy_iain wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's not clear from the article how critical this guy is in the upcoming lawsuits If he was the key piece to the lawsuit the lawsuit wouldn't really have legs. To get the ball rolling someone like him would have to be critical but after they're able to get the ball rolling and get discovery if after all that all you have is one guy saying there is copyright infringement you've not found anything. And realistica…

Do all lawsuits that are damaged by losing key witnesses lack legs, counselor?

I said if _ALL_ they have is him it lacks legs.

But realistically was it damaged? He would have been deposed, no? That deposition can be entered into evidence. And because he is dead the defence can't cross so his word is basically untested. My understanding being able to bring in witness testimony and that the witness not being able to be crossed on the stand is beneficial to the side entering the witness testimony. So really, was the lawsuit actually damaged or is this just a bunch of people on the internet shouting conspiracy thinking a company worth 157b and invested into by companies worth trillions are going to kill someone over a copyright lawsuit?

Did he have special information no one else had? Or was he a rank-and-file researcher? My understanding is he was a rank-and-file researcher, so that would mean anything he knew others knew.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#485

Post by chefandy »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #484
chefandy wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do all lawsuits that are damaged by losing key witnesses lack legs, counselor?

I said if _ALL_ they have is him it lacks legs. But realistically was it damaged? He would have been deposed, no? That deposition can be entered into evidence. And because he is dead the defence can't cross so his word is basically untested. My understanding being able to bring in witness testimony and that the witness not being able to be crossed on the stand is beneficial to the side entering the witness testimony.…

a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person?

b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentence question.

c) If testimony doesn't impact trials and it's all a matter of competing paperwork, why do we have testimony at all? Well, juries for one. Court cases aren't merely about dispassionately weighing competing facts: they're adversarial pursuits of persuasion.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#486

Post by chefandy »

hnfong wrote: post #459
unraveller wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct derivative works of a single work is easy to prove by model activation but input/output similarity is much easier to get outrage points. True internal function would show that no-use is required to "distribute" derivative seeming content which is rather confusing and is effectively the defense. At these levels a derivative of a derivative is indistinguishable to the human eye anyway. Soon people will get that…

No, you don't only look at the end result when determining whether a work is derivative of another. The process with which one produced the work has implications whether it is a derivative or not. For one, if you can show that you didn't use the original copyrighted work, then your work is not a derivative, no matter how similar the end results are. And then if the original work was involved, how it was used and what…

Few things frustrate me more than so many developers’ compulsion to baselessly assume that their incredible dev ultrabrain affords them this pan-topic expertise deep enough to dismiss other fields’ experts based on a few a priori thought experiments.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#487

Post by chefandy »

bmacho wrote: post #420
sashank_1509 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t obfuscate, your view is that the stack overflow commentator, Quora answer writer, blog writer, in fact anyone who did not invent the knowledge he’s disseminating, is committing a small amount of evil. That is radical and makes no sense to me.

> Don’t obfuscate, your view is that the stack overflow commentator, Quora answer writer, blog writer, in fact anyone who did not invent the knowledge he’s disseminating, is committing a small amount of evil. :/ No, it's not? I've written "haven't caused any problem" and "harmless". You've changed it to "small harm" that I've indeed missed. I don't think that things that don't cause any problem are evil. That's a rid…

Yes, that dichotomy is present everywhere in the real world.

You need lye to make proper bagels. It is not merely harmless, but beneficial in small amounts for that purpose. We still must make sure food businesses don't contaminate food with it; it could cause severe — possibly fatal — esophageal burns. The "A little is beneficial but a lot is deleterious" also applies to many vitamins… water… cops?

Trying to turn this into an “it’s either always good or always bad” dichotomy serves no purpose but to make straw men.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#488

Post by that_guy_iain »

chefandy wrote: post #485
that_guy_iain wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said if _ALL_ they have is him it lacks legs. But realistically was it damaged? He would have been deposed, no? That deposition can be entered into evidence. And because he is dead the defence can't cross so his word is basically untested. My understanding being able to bring in witness testimony and that the witness not being able to be crossed on the stand is beneficial to the side entering the witness testimony.…

a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person? b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentence question. c) If testimony doesn't impact trials and it's all a matter of competing paperwork, why do we have testimony at all? Well, juries for one. Court cases aren't merely about dispassionately weighing co…

> a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person?

Well, you take up the lawsuit with not much. You get most of the evidence during discovery. And this is quite a common thing someone says "This happened to me" they sue and get discovery. So this universe.

> b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentence question.

It was all relevant, you just seem to be extremely ignorant of the subject. You said the case was damaged, however, it appears you're starting to realise it may not be damaged at all.

> c) If testimony doesn't impact trials and it's all a matter of competing paperwork, why do we have testimony at all? Well, juries for one. Court cases aren't merely about dispassionately weighing competing facts: they're adversarial pursuits of persuasion.

So the other side can cross.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#489

Post by gregw2 »

smeeger wrote: post #401
snozolli wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people dont kill themselves because they dont have a good job. Countless people have killed themselves upon losing a job. Jobs are fundamental to our identity in society and the ramifications of job loss are enormous. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9530609/

people kill themselves after lots of different stressful life events. the reason is that the stress induces depression/ mental dysfunction. the difference between people who do and dont, besides having the information or wisdom to put the situation in context and avoid the stress in the first place, is robustness of mental health. its a mental health issue not a jobs issue.

I think mental health is more stressful nowdays because people have fewer in-person hangout friends outside of jobs+school. So when they lose a job, there is less of a social network to process it with. Just my speculation tho.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#490

Post by chefandy »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #488
chefandy wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person? b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentence question. c) If testimony doesn't impact trials and it's all a matter of competing paperwork, why do we have testimony at all? Well, juries for one. Court cases aren't merely about dispassionately weighing co…

> a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person? Well, you take up the lawsuit with not much. You get most of the evidence during discovery. And this is quite a common thing someone says "This happened to me" they sue and get discovery. So this universe. > b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentenc…

> Well, you take up the lawsuit with not much. You get most of the evidence during discovery. And this is quite a common thing someone says "This happened to me" they sue and get discovery. So this universe.

> I said if _ALL_ they have is him it lacks legs.

... so you're referring to instances where discovery didn't yield anything useful but the attorney keeps litigating against a company with a ton of resources based on unsupported assertions made by one person. Ok, sure. That sounds like a great point that's germane to this situation.

> It was all relevant, you just seem to be extremely ignorant of the subject.

Ok, Perry Mason. Re-read the single sentence question I asked and then tell me how that implies I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist.

> You said the case was damaged, however, it appears you're starting to realise it may not be damaged at all.

What?

> So the other side can cross.

Are you seriously implying testimony does not influence the outcome of a trial without cross-examination. You should see how much thought attorneys put into what they wear because it influences outcome.

I'm done here.

Post reply on HN