If they game-end a whistleblower because of what he's said against them, it's not out of their purview to do something like this. They don't do stuff like that once....
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
71 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
40485 readers
476 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
People keep forgetting all these Boeing suicides
But they love Russian window memes
I never forgot about the Boeing "suicides". Those are Boeing whistleblowers who were murdered because they spoke too much, and broke a sort of NDA that basically requires game-ending if, and when, the NDA is violated.
That latter part is for those that don't know about how this works.
This is an inflammatory way of saying the guy got served papers. I'm not in love with OAI, but it rankles me when someone nakedly tries to manipulate the narrative.
I don't understand the nuances of whether it's normal for the guy to be subpoenaed—it could all be as dirty as he says, but the title makes me assume the rest of the article is just as skewed, and I walk away feeling like someone tried to recruit me to a cause rather than inform me.
I agree, and the actual real implication in the article sounds just as bad as the headline, so I feel it's a clickbait machine editor who did this.
The claim BTW is that OpenAI is alleging that random people criticising them are actually in a conspiracy with Elon Musk (the actual person involved in a lawsuit with OpenAI) to discredit them, and the court is humouring this nonsense by subpoenaing random people's private messages.
He's not just a random dude, though. His organization is involved in lobbying efforts around OAI. The article claims there's no connection between the case being subpoenaed for and the stuff he did, and that's the part that might be abnormal and dirty, but it's nuanced and the clear bias on display demands their claims be taken with a grain of salt.
It looks to me like this article is carrying the guy's PR water for him. But just because the article feels manipulative doesn't mean there's necessarily no factual basis for it.
So I just... don't feel informed at all.
I get you. I feel that way about most news I consume these days.
Signed by an attourney. Is that normal, that "evidence collection" doesn't go through a court or state protection?