3 ms·

> Before others post about the definition of whistleblower or talk about assassination theories just pause to consider whether, if in his position, you would th

by csomar 2y ago

> 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. Sure, if I killed myself in silence I want to go in silence. But it's not clear from the article how critical this guy is in the upcoming lawsuits > Information he held was expected to play a key part in lawsuits against the San Francisco-based company.

ballooney 2y ago
I don’t think you’re using the word tribulate correctly here.
- lbrunson 2y ago
  Missing the forest for the trees.
that_guy_iain 2y ago
> 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 realistically, the lawsuit is, while important, rather minor in scope and damage it could do to OpenAI. It's not like folk will go to jail, and it's not like OpenAI would have to close its doors, they would pay at most a few hundred million?
- mu53 2y ago
  each missing piece weakens the case
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    His testimony via depositions would still be allowed and he wouldn't be able to be crossed. So in theory, wouldn't it benefit the lawsuit?
- chefandy 2y ago
  Do all lawsuits that are damaged by losing key witnesses lack legs, counselor?
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    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.
    - chefandy 2y ago
      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.
      - that_guy_iain 2y ago
        > 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.

by csomar 2y ago

ballooney 2y ago

I don’t think you’re using the word tribulate correctly here.

lbrunson 2y ago
Missing the forest for the trees.

that_guy_iain 2y ago

> 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 realistically, the lawsuit is, while important, rather minor in scope and damage it could do to OpenAI. It's not like folk will go to jail, and it's not like OpenAI would have to close its doors, they would pay at most a few hundred million?

mu53 2y ago
each missing piece weakens the case
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  His testimony via depositions would still be allowed and he wouldn't be able to be crossed. So in theory, wouldn't it benefit the lawsuit?
chefandy 2y ago
Do all lawsuits that are damaged by losing key witnesses lack legs, counselor?
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  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.
  - chefandy 2y ago
    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.
    - that_guy_iain 2y ago
      > 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.