3 ms·

Makes sense that it's from a group trying to make headlines. Sam isn't hiding from subpoenas. How to serve him isn't really an issue. His lawyers would be very

Makes sense that it's from a group trying to make headlines. Sam isn't hiding from subpoenas. How to serve him isn't really an issue. His lawyers would be very easy to find.

mmooss 11mo ago
> Sam isn't hiding from subpoenas. Do you know Sam and his intentions and tactics? (I don't.)
- __s 11mo ago
  I know that some rando was able to get on stage for this stunt
  - mmooss 11mo ago
    I guess if you ridicule them, it's like an argument but without any basis for truth (I think that's why poeple use ridicule). What about their claims? What about the GP's claim about serving Altman and Altman's response? What about the value of public demonstrations to bring awareness to issues - hardly a new or illegitimate tactic.
    - nickthegreek 11mo ago
      no one has stated it was illegitimate.
      - mmooss 11mo ago
        GGP called it a "stunt" by a "rando". I think there's an implication there about its legitimacy.
        __s 11mo ago
        Nope. I've mostly ignored AI hype. You expressed we don't have enough info on whether they could've served this in a less flashy way, I found this clearly chosen for impact over efficacy of simply serving. Clearly they achieved notoriety since here we discuss. Ingrid Newkirk would be proud
fusslo 11mo ago
Theres a few things I dont understand Quote from the article: > "Valerie Ibarra, a spokesperson for the public law office, provided SFGATE with a statement on Tuesday: “An investigator from the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office lawfully served a subpoena on Mr. Altman because he is a potential witness in a pending criminal case. Our investigators first made several prior attempts to serve the subpoena at Altman’s company headquarters and via its online portal.”" The investigator made several prior attempts without success. So while I can't characterize his actions as 'hiding', I cant say that "His lawyers would be very easy to find". Additionally, depending on the type of subpoena, it may have to be served to the named individual, not to his lawyers. Second, I don't understand how we can say that it makes sense to make headlines when the investigator is a part of the Public Defenders office, not a member of the Stop AI group. The investigator should have no desire to make headlines, unless he has some personal motive.

Makes sense that it's from a group trying to make headlines. Sam isn't hiding from subpoenas. How to serve him isn't really an issue. His lawyers would be very easy to find.

mmooss 11mo ago

> Sam isn't hiding from subpoenas. Do you know Sam and his intentions and tactics? (I don't.)

__s 11mo ago
I know that some rando was able to get on stage for this stunt
- mmooss 11mo ago
  I guess if you ridicule them, it's like an argument but without any basis for truth (I think that's why poeple use ridicule). What about their claims? What about the GP's claim about serving Altman and Altman's response? What about the value of public demonstrations to bring awareness to issues - hardly a new or illegitimate tactic.
  - nickthegreek 11mo ago
    no one has stated it was illegitimate.
    - mmooss 11mo ago
      GGP called it a "stunt" by a "rando". I think there's an implication there about its legitimacy.
      - __s 11mo ago
        Nope. I've mostly ignored AI hype. You expressed we don't have enough info on whether they could've served this in a less flashy way, I found this clearly chosen for impact over efficacy of simply serving. Clearly they achieved notoriety since here we discuss. Ingrid Newkirk would be proud

fusslo 11mo ago

Theres a few things I dont understand Quote from the article: > "Valerie Ibarra, a spokesperson for the public law office, provided SFGATE with a statement on Tuesday: “An investigator from the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office lawfully served a subpoena on Mr. Altman because he is a potential witness in a pending criminal case. Our investigators first made several prior attempts to serve the subpoena at Altman’s company headquarters and via its online portal.”" The investigator made several prior attempts without success. So while I can't characterize his actions as 'hiding', I cant say that "His lawyers would be very easy to find". Additionally, depending on the type of subpoena, it may have to be served to the named individual, not to his lawyers. Second, I don't understand how we can say that it makes sense to make headlines when the investigator is a part of the Public Defenders office, not a member of the Stop AI group. The investigator should have no desire to make headlines, unless he has some personal motive.