3 ms·

> Normally the word "whistleblower" means someone who revealed previously-unknown facts Not to be pedantic, but this is actually incorrect, both under federal

> Normally the word "whistleblower" means someone who revealed previously-unknown facts Not to be pedantic, but this is actually incorrect, both under federal and California law. Case law is actually very explicit on the point that the information does NOT need to be previously unknown to qualify for whistleblower protection. However, disclosing information to the media is not typically protected.

lolinder 2y ago
Right, but as you note the legal definition doesn't apply here anyway, we're clearly using the colloquial definition of whistleblower. And that definition comes with the implication that powerful people would want a particular person dead. In this case I see very little reason to believe that would be the case. No one has hinted that this employee has more damning information than was already public knowledge, and the lawsuit that he was going to testify in is one in which the important facts are not in dispute. The question doesn't come down to what OpenAI did (they trained on copyrighted data) but what the law says about it (is training on copyrighted data fair use?).
- anon373839 2y ago
  Well, I still disagree. In reality companies still retaliate against whistleblowers even when the information is already out there. (Hence the need for Congress, federal courts and the California Supreme Court to clarify that whistleblower activity is still protected even if the information is already known.) I, of course, am not proposing that OpenAI assassinated this person. Just pointing out that disclosures of known information can and do motivate retaliation, and are considered whistleblowing.
  - cleanerbob 2y ago
    [dead]
  - chgs 2y ago
    > I, of course, am not proposing that OpenAI assassinated Presumably you mean the company. How many decades before AI has that ability.
- stefan_ 2y ago
  We are? It's just you here, making a bizarre nitpick in a thread on a persons death.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    The thread looks very different than it did when I wrote any of the above—at the time it was entirely composed of people casually asserting that this was most likely an assassination. I wrote this with the intent of shutting down that speculation by pointing out that we have no reason to believe that this person had enough information for it to be worth the risk of killing him. Since I wrote this the tone of the thread shifted and others took up the torch to focus on the tragedy. That's wonderful, but someone had to take the first step to stem the ignorant assassination takes.
Terr_ 2y ago
I think their post boils down to: "This title implies someone would have a strong reason to murder them, but that isn't true." We can evaluate that argument without caring too much about whether the writer intended it, or whether some other circumstances might have forced their word-choice.
- blast 2y ago
  From the article: "The Mercury News and seven sister news outlets are among several newspapers, including the New York Times, to sue OpenAI in the past year." That's a conflict of interest when it comes to objective reporting.

lolinder 2y ago

Right, but as you note the legal definition doesn't apply here anyway, we're clearly using the colloquial definition of whistleblower. And that definition comes with the implication that powerful people would want a particular person dead. In this case I see very little reason to believe that would be the case. No one has hinted that this employee has more damning information than was already public knowledge, and the lawsuit that he was going to testify in is one in which the important facts are not in dispute. The question doesn't come down to what OpenAI did (they trained on copyrighted data) but what the law says about it (is training on copyrighted data fair use?).

anon373839 2y ago
Well, I still disagree. In reality companies still retaliate against whistleblowers even when the information is already out there. (Hence the need for Congress, federal courts and the California Supreme Court to clarify that whistleblower activity is still protected even if the information is already known.) I, of course, am not proposing that OpenAI assassinated this person. Just pointing out that disclosures of known information can and do motivate retaliation, and are considered whistleblowing.
- cleanerbob 2y ago
  [dead]
- chgs 2y ago
  > I, of course, am not proposing that OpenAI assassinated Presumably you mean the company. How many decades before AI has that ability.
stefan_ 2y ago
We are? It's just you here, making a bizarre nitpick in a thread on a persons death.
- lolinder 2y ago
  The thread looks very different than it did when I wrote any of the above—at the time it was entirely composed of people casually asserting that this was most likely an assassination. I wrote this with the intent of shutting down that speculation by pointing out that we have no reason to believe that this person had enough information for it to be worth the risk of killing him. Since I wrote this the tone of the thread shifted and others took up the torch to focus on the tragedy. That's wonderful, but someone had to take the first step to stem the ignorant assassination takes.

Terr_ 2y ago

I think their post boils down to: "This title implies someone would have a strong reason to murder them, but that isn't true." We can evaluate that argument without caring too much about whether the writer intended it, or whether some other circumstances might have forced their word-choice.

blast 2y ago
From the article: "The Mercury News and seven sister news outlets are among several newspapers, including the New York Times, to sue OpenAI in the past year." That's a conflict of interest when it comes to objective reporting.