6 ms·

Watching the videos on the article, and this journalist is coming off pretty arrogant. Okay, I understand that you have a right to request those documents - bu

Watching the videos on the article, and this journalist is coming off pretty arrogant. Okay, I understand that you have a right to request those documents - but it's the day before Thanksgiving, and the right people aren't available. Yes, I get it - the law says "Immediately" if at the headquarters, but give some slack - it's a holiday. Come back on Monday. The guy got shoved because he was repeatedly told not to be on the private property, and instead he decided to walk in - and then start claiming he's on the sidewalk (Which she, now they were). He was told he was trespassing, he refused, and they have a right to use reasonable force to remove him. Considering they did that directly in front of a police officer, I think highlights the OpenAI guy is fine. This reeks of like "I'm right in one thing - so I'm right in everything". People are human man, again - come back Monday. Go enjoy time with your family and stop trying to pick a fight right now.

jhgg 3y ago
It's also worth mentioning that failure to immediately disclose said documents are... a $20/day fine [1]. A company being out of compliance does not give a civilian the right to trespass. The correct solution here is to raise a complaint with the appropriate authorities (the IRS), not to continue to remain on private property and have to be forcibly removed by the building's security. [1]: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-and-availability-of-exempt-organizations-returns-and-applications-penalties-for-noncompliance https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-...
- thinkcomp 3y ago
  This isn't quite right. Federal law requires that citizens be allowed to make requests in person. Trespassing is a state statute in each state. In general, federal law supersedes state law. Asking to see a non-profit's public records in person is not trespassing because it's expressly authorized by law.
  - jhgg 3y ago
    That is unfortunately not how the law works. I am not a lawyer, but I have studied this a bit in passing. It's important to understand the interplay between the scope of the law, private property rights and also reasonableness. Although 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B) mandates that the documents be available for inspection and copying upon request, it does not say anything about allowing civilians to remain on the property beyond the reasonable scope of inspecting these documents. Generally, laws are interpreted in the context of what's reasonable. It's unreasonable to interpret 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B) as allowing someone to stay on private property indefinitely. If they don't have the documents available, and ask you to leave, private property rights apply here and you must leave. The penalty you can seek for non-compliance clearly defined as a $20/day fine, not that you can continue to stay on the property and repeatedly ask for something they do not have a day before a holiday. The Supremacy Clause does not apply here, because there's no inherent conflict. The federal law does not explicitly (or implicitly) state that you can stay on the property after asked to leave, and thus it cannot trump state law. The fact that the initial presence on the property was for a legal, civil purpose does not provide ongoing protection from criminal trespass charges if an individual overstays their welcome or refuses to leave when asked.
    - thinkcomp 3y ago
      Happy to look at any legal citations to caselaw you have. But generally there's a difference between "stay[ing]" a prolonged period of time and being able to even get in the door to make the request in the first place, which is explicitly allowed by federal law. And the documents were available.
      - jhgg 3y ago
        Right, but the penalty for non compliance here is a $20/day fine. No where does the law state that you're granted license to enter the building if they refuse you entry or deny your request. You made your request, they refused and asked you to leave. Your only valid recourse here is to file a complaint with the IRS and let them do their thing. Alternatively return after the holiday break when the office has the staff there that can fulfill your request.
  - godelski 3y ago
    INAL but this really doesn't pass a sniff test, same with what the journalist is saying. If the people are gone they're gone. If you show up to a company at 1am on Christmas morning do you have a legal right to immediately get access to those records and enter the property? I would presume that there has to be a reasonable expectation. Now if this was Wednesday last week, the complaint sounds much more legitimate. Or if he's been trying several days and they told him "person will be back x date" and he comes back x date, yeah. But I'd actually be pretty upset if the legal system allowed unreasonable requests. Absolutely shady stuff is going down in OpenAI and I can absolutely understand fear that things will change as they get more time, but the consequences of unreasonable requests results in far more harm than any one company can do. Unless you're ultra Xrisk and think they're going to release paperclipping AI imminently. But then break in, get the proof, sort out the law later. You get that proof and you bet you'll have a lot of free money showing up for legal defense and a very sympathetic court who is going to learn about Jury Nullification. But if it's just about taxes? Chill. But again, not a lawyer and definitely don't know any law. This just does not sound right. It just sounds so much easier to get the video of them denying and take them to court and make them prove they had no one to give him the documents.
    - hunter2_ 3y ago
      > the journalist FYI you're replying to the journalist.
rnk 3y ago
I think trying to deal with big corporations requires being somewhat firm. This journalist looked like he was behaving well to me. He gave the guy his driver's license info after all. That's the opposite of shady. Clearly these people at openai didn't know what to do. The company is in chaos, it's almost in dumpster fire territory at this time (is the ceo sam back, do they even have a CEO or other leadership still left, did the board quit, is there anyone on the board, are lawyers in charge there?). And it is the day before Thanksgiving. But many companies that don't want to give up required information would do similar things, like say I don't know, we don't have the right people here today to decide what to do. If you are a journalist you have to require fair treatment and politely demand what is legally possible. It's just what you do to succeed. Companies don't treat you like you are Ted Kopell and just hand it over. It's the last thing anyone at openai wants to see, but it's what people have to do to get the facts. They don't usually post the videos where they get incorrectly refused maybe but this is an every day event for a journalist. Showing these kinds of videos shows what real journalists face every day. You think the person investigating say the public expense reports of a mayor just gets them without insisting? No, she does not, without being politely forceful.
th3byrdm4n 3y ago
Smart, foolish, arrogant. Officers handled it well.

jhgg 3y ago

It's also worth mentioning that failure to immediately disclose said documents are... a $20/day fine [1]. A company being out of compliance does not give a civilian the right to trespass. The correct solution here is to raise a complaint with the appropriate authorities (the IRS), not to continue to remain on private property and have to be forcibly removed by the building's security. [1]: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-and-availability-of-exempt-organizations-returns-and-applications-penalties-for-noncompliance https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-...

thinkcomp 3y ago
This isn't quite right. Federal law requires that citizens be allowed to make requests in person. Trespassing is a state statute in each state. In general, federal law supersedes state law. Asking to see a non-profit's public records in person is not trespassing because it's expressly authorized by law.
- jhgg 3y ago
  That is unfortunately not how the law works. I am not a lawyer, but I have studied this a bit in passing. It's important to understand the interplay between the scope of the law, private property rights and also reasonableness. Although 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B) mandates that the documents be available for inspection and copying upon request, it does not say anything about allowing civilians to remain on the property beyond the reasonable scope of inspecting these documents. Generally, laws are interpreted in the context of what's reasonable. It's unreasonable to interpret 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B) as allowing someone to stay on private property indefinitely. If they don't have the documents available, and ask you to leave, private property rights apply here and you must leave. The penalty you can seek for non-compliance clearly defined as a $20/day fine, not that you can continue to stay on the property and repeatedly ask for something they do not have a day before a holiday. The Supremacy Clause does not apply here, because there's no inherent conflict. The federal law does not explicitly (or implicitly) state that you can stay on the property after asked to leave, and thus it cannot trump state law. The fact that the initial presence on the property was for a legal, civil purpose does not provide ongoing protection from criminal trespass charges if an individual overstays their welcome or refuses to leave when asked.
  - thinkcomp 3y ago
    Happy to look at any legal citations to caselaw you have. But generally there's a difference between "stay[ing]" a prolonged period of time and being able to even get in the door to make the request in the first place, which is explicitly allowed by federal law. And the documents were available.
    - jhgg 3y ago
      Right, but the penalty for non compliance here is a $20/day fine. No where does the law state that you're granted license to enter the building if they refuse you entry or deny your request. You made your request, they refused and asked you to leave. Your only valid recourse here is to file a complaint with the IRS and let them do their thing. Alternatively return after the holiday break when the office has the staff there that can fulfill your request.
- godelski 3y ago
  INAL but this really doesn't pass a sniff test, same with what the journalist is saying. If the people are gone they're gone. If you show up to a company at 1am on Christmas morning do you have a legal right to immediately get access to those records and enter the property? I would presume that there has to be a reasonable expectation. Now if this was Wednesday last week, the complaint sounds much more legitimate. Or if he's been trying several days and they told him "person will be back x date" and he comes back x date, yeah. But I'd actually be pretty upset if the legal system allowed unreasonable requests. Absolutely shady stuff is going down in OpenAI and I can absolutely understand fear that things will change as they get more time, but the consequences of unreasonable requests results in far more harm than any one company can do. Unless you're ultra Xrisk and think they're going to release paperclipping AI imminently. But then break in, get the proof, sort out the law later. You get that proof and you bet you'll have a lot of free money showing up for legal defense and a very sympathetic court who is going to learn about Jury Nullification. But if it's just about taxes? Chill. But again, not a lawyer and definitely don't know any law. This just does not sound right. It just sounds so much easier to get the video of them denying and take them to court and make them prove they had no one to give him the documents.
  - hunter2_ 3y ago
    > the journalist FYI you're replying to the journalist.

rnk 3y ago

I think trying to deal with big corporations requires being somewhat firm. This journalist looked like he was behaving well to me. He gave the guy his driver's license info after all. That's the opposite of shady. Clearly these people at openai didn't know what to do. The company is in chaos, it's almost in dumpster fire territory at this time (is the ceo sam back, do they even have a CEO or other leadership still left, did the board quit, is there anyone on the board, are lawyers in charge there?). And it is the day before Thanksgiving. But many companies that don't want to give up required information would do similar things, like say I don't know, we don't have the right people here today to decide what to do. If you are a journalist you have to require fair treatment and politely demand what is legally possible. It's just what you do to succeed. Companies don't treat you like you are Ted Kopell and just hand it over. It's the last thing anyone at openai wants to see, but it's what people have to do to get the facts. They don't usually post the videos where they get incorrectly refused maybe but this is an every day event for a journalist. Showing these kinds of videos shows what real journalists face every day. You think the person investigating say the public expense reports of a mayor just gets them without insisting? No, she does not, without being politely forceful.

th3byrdm4n 3y ago

Smart, foolish, arrogant. Officers handled it well.