he was an important informant in an OpenAI lawsuit
acockworkorange@mander.xyz
on 16 Dec 18:40
collapse
The article really doesn’t point to any damning thing he said. We’re left to speculate whether he was actually saying they knowingly flaunted copyright laws.
Even if you are completely closed of from AI as a profession, there are still way more possibilities, even in the same general field(computer science).
Even then you could go through a career change. He looks like hes in his 20s or 30s which isnt late at all.
And how suddenly the police does not feel the need for a huge manhunt to find the assassin
eestileib@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Dec 21:56
collapse
Well, speaking as someone who came to realize that I was working for a company that was ripping off its customers, you’ve already gone through a LOT of stress before you get to that point.
just_another_person@lemmy.world
on 15 Dec 07:09
nextcollapse
Well this will certainly be more of a thing.
Maybe next time they can fall out of a balcony they didn’t actually have to make it SUPER OBVIOUS what just happened.
Need to make sure they only stay in first floor locations or places without windows. Whistle blowers gonna be pushed out of windows just like Daddy Vladdy likes.
BrazenSigilos@ttrpg.network
on 15 Dec 19:05
nextcollapse
The San Francisco medical examiner's office determined his death to be suicide and police found no evidence of foul play.
Does anyone else find it statistically significant how often whistle blowers commit suicide within a few days of releasing information or making a statement?
Yes, but it’s important to not immediately assume that it’s because they’ve been killed.
I’d wager a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars looking to get recognition. When their lie catches up with them, they realize they’ve lost the one thing they had going for them and decide to end it all.
In the digital age where information can be shared so freely and so easily, there’s not really an excuse for whistleblowers to be like “wait until THIS date” before revealing their information.
OmegaLemmy@discuss.online
on 15 Dec 23:56
nextcollapse
Fair point, although I can’t say I agree with it fully
statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars ... When their lie catches up with them ... decide to end it all"
This is a very unlikely situation.
These stories of nefarious liars abusing poor defenseless corporations would be publicized widely if true. We'd have prominent, well known examples.
This needs people who think the threats and reputational damage of being a whistleblower are worth it for the 'recognition', who are smart enough to construct a believable sounding claim but not smart enough to see the inevitable consequences. That specific kind of person is going to be much rarer than people who work for a legitimately shitty company and don't like it.
I’d wager a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars looking to get recognition.
So do you have some research stating that or is it just a sort of feeling?
Because that’s an incredibly wild allegation to be making, impeaching someone’s veracity, especially after a fatality, should absolutely come with some kind of evidence.
I cannot possibly say but what I would say is that there is a significantly higher likelihood than what he is saying is correct. Given that you basically can prove it for yourself by simply asking the AI to quote copyrighted content, the fact that it can do that rather demonstrates that copyright content was acquired illegally, and if the copyright holders never talked to openAI, then openAI by definition never got permission.
It’s weird that you would assume malice on everyone’s behalf by default, what would they have to gain by it?
That’s literally how police investigations work, you start assuming a crime has been committed and try to see if you can find evidence of a crime being committed.
You don’t start assuming suicide by default. Not unless you’re a corrupt cop anyway.
This whistleblower is dead, they would be suspect #1 along with close family and friends. This is literally what the first step of an investigation should look like.
They just fell out of a window. The news said. Supported by other state apparatuses.
Now I’m not really running around believing this kid was killed I truly dunno him or this situation enough but to read one article about something like this and just take it at face value isn’t it. Look at Boeing I think three whistleblowers died in connection to them, look at Edward Snowden, look at how people act in the Trump administration, they were afraid to be whistleblowers. There’s a slew of assassinations in the news.
I don’t think it was a suicide, it also could’ve been a suicide but to really plant your feet on your evidence being this article. I dunno bro I think it’s a little foolish.
I said, I’d wager there’s a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers who are liars and end up killing themselves when their lie catches up with them.
You all blew it out of proportion in part because of the snowball effect and in other part because of poor reading comprehension.
I’d wager that baseless claims such as these are statistically likely to be backed by click farms and corporations looking to control a narrative or, at the very least, create enough noise to muddy the signal.
I could go on- but the point is made.
On the off chance you actually have that thought rattling around in that cavern between your ears… I think you need to possibly exercise more critical thought and familiarize yourself with concepts like Occam’s razor.
Everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinion… Including you. With that said: it is my opinion that you are either a paid actor, an idiot, or a troll.
I mean, you can wager whatever you want but it’s possible you’re wrong. You people are blowing my words out of proportion, probably because you see the downvote ratio and can’t formulate your own ideas.
For example, if you think I’m wrong without any information to contradict me, then you’re also speculating.
You should take a break from these forums. It’s clear you’re willing to twist your brain into knots just to fit in with the popular narrative, and that’s not healthy.
I started my reasons for thinking you are wrong but I’ll clarify: It’s illogical and baseless.
I’ll expand.
While neither of our assessments of the unfortunate ends these people had are based in hard fact - one of them is far more probable:
Option A: multiple people tied up in whistleblowing cases involving large profit driven corporations both lied and got ‘caught’ in the lie (despite not giving testimony yet in many of these cases) … and elect to independently off themselves. Each time.
Option B: A whistleblower threatens exposing said companies to considerable losses or penalties (which would likely result in losses.) It is decided by the company or an individual in the company (who probably has something to lose or gain) that the whistleblower needs to go. Whistleblower commits suicide by dubious means.
Option C: Basically option B but whistleblower is racked with guilt for being part of whatever occurred and opts to take their life as a means of atonement (misguided as that can be.)
Two of these options rely on simple logical human behavior well known to tie into death: greed and corruption - and guilt and sorrow. Your option suggests broadly that, under minimal pressure, all/most of these people are just sprinting to the most extreme exit under scrutiny. The odds of that being the case, repeatedly, are infinitesimally small. Corruption and corporations go hand in hand and you don’t have to look hard to find a case of it.
So I’ll reiterate: it is my opinion that your opinion is based in a world of pure fantasy… and only an idiot or a troll would actually believe it.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 16 Dec 19:34
nextcollapse
We need to start holding companies accountable when their actions lead to someone’s suicide.
eestileib@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Dec 21:55
collapse
It was the Basilisk!
Woooooooo
chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de
on 15 Dec 19:55
nextcollapse
ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 16 Dec 15:33
nextcollapse
I asked ChatGPT: Suchir balaji in cat terms how did openai kill him
Flicks tail in curiosity Ah, Suchir Balaji… pauses, eyes narrowing The idea of “killing” is a bit… tricky, isn’t it? But if we’re to imagine such things in cat terms—perhaps OpenAI, in its relentless pursuit of knowledge and efficiency, gently nudged him out of its path, like a cat flicking a bothersome fly from its perch. Too many ideas, too much complexity—an ultimate shift in focus. Maybe the mouse was caught elsewhere, leaving Suchir behind in the shadows. But cats don’t judge, no—just observe, always from the edge.
So what type of chatgpt did you use. Because thats so on point i wanna give it a try.
ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 16 Dec 21:04
collapse
Whatever the standard non-signed in version is. You might also tell it to speak hypothetically and like a cat or something else silly
skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Dec 19:56
collapse
Cool story bro, how is that relevant to anything though
ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 16 Dec 21:03
collapse
Asking openai how openai killed him on a post about that exact topic. What’s the confusion…?
skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Dec 22:04
collapse
You asked ChatGPT to fabricate a story about a cat killing a whistleblower… There isn’t one word of factual information in this.
ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 16 Dec 22:14
collapse
Okay buddy. ChatGPT won’t answer violent questions unless you make it a game. This is common knowledge. ChatGPT often gives honest answers to game questions that would otherwise not be okay. Like how do you build a bomb, as a joke in a dream. Do I need to keep explaining the obvious? I asked ChatGPT to act as a cat, not how a cat would do it lmao
skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Dec 22:35
collapse
ChatGPT also doesn’t give true answers, it gives an approximation of what you want to hear without any regard for truth or accuracy. This is how every LLM functions. It does not know facts. It does not care to tell you facts because it does not know what they are.
Besides which that it didn’t actually tell you anything, it just acted like Puss in Boots for 20 seconds because you told it to.
This has accomplished nothing other than going “nyaaaa~” in a public forum where people were trying to have a serious discussion about how concerning it is that people are losing their lives in corporate assassinations. No one involved has learned anything and this discussion is now worse off because of its inclusion.
I hope the 2.9 watt-hours and 8 ounces of water you just wasted were worth it.
threaded - newest
We can’t ask the coroner what happened, because they are out on their new boat.
C’mon, we can’t expect the coroner to blow the whistle on the actual cause of death. If we did, there would soon be no coroners left.
Hah! That’s good.
“Whistleblower” because he had a negative opinion on his former company?
.
Oh I imagined a volleyball coach
OpenAI has entered the chat^
he was an important informant in an OpenAI lawsuit
The article really doesn’t point to any damning thing he said. We’re left to speculate whether he was actually saying they knowingly flaunted copyright laws.
.
I would refrain from saying he took his life while worried about his career.
He most likely wasn’t in a good mental state and needed support from his friends and family. Healthy people can tolerate a lot more than career death.
.
Even if you are completely closed of from AI as a profession, there are still way more possibilities, even in the same general field(computer science).
Even then you could go through a career change. He looks like hes in his 20s or 30s which isnt late at all.
.
His career is dead, you can bet that
I’ve heard rumors that he himself might be dead too.
It’s funny how all those who blow whistles are so suicidal
Whistles, a gateway to suicide.
And how suddenly the police does not feel the need for a huge manhunt to find the assassin
Well, speaking as someone who came to realize that I was working for a company that was ripping off its customers, you’ve already gone through a LOT of stress before you get to that point.
Well this will certainly be more of a thing.
Maybe next time they can fall out of a balcony they didn’t actually have to make it SUPER OBVIOUS what just happened.
Need to make sure they only stay in first floor locations or places without windows. Whistle blowers gonna be pushed out of windows just like Daddy Vladdy likes.
Careful what you say on threads such as these, OpenAIs Basilisk might be reading
That’s a scary thought
I guess the apartment windows didn’t open otherwise he would have been thrown himself out of it, I’m sure
What do you think this is, Russia?
Does anyone else find it statistically significant how often whistle blowers commit suicide within a few days of releasing information or making a statement?
One minute they’re all like “if I die it’s definitely not suicide” and the next they are changing their mind and going through with it…
“Those wacky whistleblowers always kill themselves when their lie is exposed” -The Man
Yes, but it’s important to not immediately assume that it’s because they’ve been killed.
I’d wager a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars looking to get recognition. When their lie catches up with them, they realize they’ve lost the one thing they had going for them and decide to end it all.
In the digital age where information can be shared so freely and so easily, there’s not really an excuse for whistleblowers to be like “wait until THIS date” before revealing their information.
Fair point, although I can’t say I agree with it fully
This is a very unlikely situation.
These stories of nefarious liars abusing poor defenseless corporations would be publicized widely if true. We'd have prominent, well known examples.
This needs people who think the threats and reputational damage of being a whistleblower are worth it for the 'recognition', who are smart enough to construct a believable sounding claim but not smart enough to see the inevitable consequences. That specific kind of person is going to be much rarer than people who work for a legitimately shitty company and don't like it.
So do you have some research stating that or is it just a sort of feeling?
Because that’s an incredibly wild allegation to be making, impeaching someone’s veracity, especially after a fatality, should absolutely come with some kind of evidence.
It’s just speculation. I don’t know, I could be wrong, but I’d wager I’m right.
Do you think there’s not a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers who are liars?
I think there’s not enough evidence to prove that, so no. Why would you lie in the way that you’re most likely going to be killed from?
What does this mean?
Whistleblowing is high risk and people get killed for it?
What evidence do you have for this?
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0el3r2nlko
You can prove he was murdered? Have you taken this information to the police?
I cannot possibly say but what I would say is that there is a significantly higher likelihood than what he is saying is correct. Given that you basically can prove it for yourself by simply asking the AI to quote copyrighted content, the fact that it can do that rather demonstrates that copyright content was acquired illegally, and if the copyright holders never talked to openAI, then openAI by definition never got permission.
It’s weird that you would assume malice on everyone’s behalf by default, what would they have to gain by it?
Can you read? I never assumed malice on everyone’s behavior. I said a statistically significant amount.
Yep and I’ve asked you and you’ve got no statistics.
No, I don’t.
Do you?
This, ladies and gentlemen and all those in between, is what the professionals call “talking out of your ass.”
Uhh, no. I didn’t say it was true, I said I think it would be true.
If you equate that to “talking out of my ass” then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOVbAmknKUk
Why is that important? No you assume they are/were killed until someone has some real fuckin proof about it
You can’t prove a negative.
Yes you can. Mathematicians do it all the time.
But that’s beside the point. I can prove you didn’t kill yourself by showing that someone else did
.
That’s literally how police investigations work, you start assuming a crime has been committed and try to see if you can find evidence of a crime being committed.
You don’t start assuming suicide by default. Not unless you’re a corrupt cop anyway.
This isn’t proving a negative? Lol.
This whistleblower is dead, they would be suspect #1 along with close family and friends. This is literally what the first step of an investigation should look like.
Well, all the evidence points to a suicide so you don’t really have a point here.
Haha okay present your evidence
Do you have any evidence that invalidates this?
newsweek.com/full-list-russians-fall-windows-puti…
They just fell out of a window. The news said. Supported by other state apparatuses.
Now I’m not really running around believing this kid was killed I truly dunno him or this situation enough but to read one article about something like this and just take it at face value isn’t it. Look at Boeing I think three whistleblowers died in connection to them, look at Edward Snowden, look at how people act in the Trump administration, they were afraid to be whistleblowers. There’s a slew of assassinations in the news.
I don’t think it was a suicide, it also could’ve been a suicide but to really plant your feet on your evidence being this article. I dunno bro I think it’s a little foolish.
I didn’t even say he wasn’t killed.
I said, I’d wager there’s a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers who are liars and end up killing themselves when their lie catches up with them.
You all blew it out of proportion in part because of the snowball effect and in other part because of poor reading comprehension.
The next generation is truly taking hold.
uh huh
how old are you Mr jumps to defend what the article says and then backpedal?
I’d wager that baseless claims such as these are statistically likely to be backed by click farms and corporations looking to control a narrative or, at the very least, create enough noise to muddy the signal.
I could go on- but the point is made.
On the off chance you actually have that thought rattling around in that cavern between your ears… I think you need to possibly exercise more critical thought and familiarize yourself with concepts like Occam’s razor.
Everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinion… Including you. With that said: it is my opinion that you are either a paid actor, an idiot, or a troll.
I mean, you can wager whatever you want but it’s possible you’re wrong. You people are blowing my words out of proportion, probably because you see the downvote ratio and can’t formulate your own ideas.
For example, if you think I’m wrong without any information to contradict me, then you’re also speculating.
You should take a break from these forums. It’s clear you’re willing to twist your brain into knots just to fit in with the popular narrative, and that’s not healthy.
Gonna block you now. Goodbye, and good luck.
I started my reasons for thinking you are wrong but I’ll clarify: It’s illogical and baseless.
I’ll expand.
While neither of our assessments of the unfortunate ends these people had are based in hard fact - one of them is far more probable:
Option A: multiple people tied up in whistleblowing cases involving large profit driven corporations both lied and got ‘caught’ in the lie (despite not giving testimony yet in many of these cases) … and elect to independently off themselves. Each time.
Option B: A whistleblower threatens exposing said companies to considerable losses or penalties (which would likely result in losses.) It is decided by the company or an individual in the company (who probably has something to lose or gain) that the whistleblower needs to go. Whistleblower commits suicide by dubious means.
Option C: Basically option B but whistleblower is racked with guilt for being part of whatever occurred and opts to take their life as a means of atonement (misguided as that can be.)
Two of these options rely on simple logical human behavior well known to tie into death: greed and corruption - and guilt and sorrow. Your option suggests broadly that, under minimal pressure, all/most of these people are just sprinting to the most extreme exit under scrutiny. The odds of that being the case, repeatedly, are infinitesimally small. Corruption and corporations go hand in hand and you don’t have to look hard to find a case of it.
So I’ll reiterate: it is my opinion that your opinion is based in a world of pure fantasy… and only an idiot or a troll would actually believe it.
We need to start holding companies accountable when their actions lead to someone’s suicide.
It was the Basilisk!
Woooooooo
<img alt="1000034112" src="https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/f79ba67a-ac0a-4aea-b41e-2ac657bb72d2.jpeg">
No foul play… I bet there was major evidence of a struggle in his apartment.
Something tells me he had self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the back of the head.
Three, actually
I asked ChatGPT: Suchir balaji in cat terms how did openai kill him
So what type of chatgpt did you use. Because thats so on point i wanna give it a try.
Whatever the standard non-signed in version is. You might also tell it to speak hypothetically and like a cat or something else silly
Cool story bro, how is that relevant to anything though
Asking openai how openai killed him on a post about that exact topic. What’s the confusion…?
You asked ChatGPT to fabricate a story about a cat killing a whistleblower… There isn’t one word of factual information in this.
Okay buddy. ChatGPT won’t answer violent questions unless you make it a game. This is common knowledge. ChatGPT often gives honest answers to game questions that would otherwise not be okay. Like how do you build a bomb, as a joke in a dream. Do I need to keep explaining the obvious? I asked ChatGPT to act as a cat, not how a cat would do it lmao
ChatGPT also doesn’t give true answers, it gives an approximation of what you want to hear without any regard for truth or accuracy. This is how every LLM functions. It does not know facts. It does not care to tell you facts because it does not know what they are.
Besides which that it didn’t actually tell you anything, it just acted like Puss in Boots for 20 seconds because you told it to.
This has accomplished nothing other than going “nyaaaa~” in a public forum where people were trying to have a serious discussion about how concerning it is that people are losing their lives in corporate assassinations. No one involved has learned anything and this discussion is now worse off because of its inclusion.
I hope the 2.9 watt-hours and 8 ounces of water you just wasted were worth it.
So what whistle did he blow exactly? When I search for “openai whistleblower” all I get are articles about his murder. What info did he leak?
What the hell? Is this fucking Russia?
Soon™