OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/12/13/openai-whistleblower-found-dead-in-san-francisco-apartment/

by mmorearty • 2 years ago

1041 383 2 years ago

mercurynews.com

alsetmusic• 2 years ago

https://archive.is/xBuPg

cryptozeus• 2 years ago

may he rip!

bpodgursky• 2 years ago

I'm confused by the term "whistleblower" here. Was anything actual released that wasn't publicly known?

It seems like he just disagreed with whether it was "fair use" or not, and it was notable because he was at the company. But the facts were always known, OpenAI was training on public copyrighted text data. You could call him an objector, or internal critic or something.

stonogo• 2 years ago

The article holds clues: "Information he held was expected to play a key part in lawsuits against the San Francisco-based company."

abeppu2• 2 years ago

and later:

In a Nov. 18 letter filed in federal court, attorneys for The New York Times named Balaji as someone who had “unique and relevant documents” that would support their case against OpenAI. He was among at least 12 people — many of them past or present OpenAI employees — the newspaper had named in court filings as having material helpful to their case, ahead of depositions.

Yes it's true it's been public knowledge that OpenAI has trained on copyrighted data, but details about what was included in training data (albeit dated ...), as well as internal metrics (e.g. do they know how often their models regurgitate paragraphs from a training document?) would be important.

neuroelectron4• 2 years ago

The issue is it has to be proven in court. This man was personally responsible for developing web scraping; stealing data from likely copyrighted sources. He would have had communications specifically addressing the legality of his responsibilities, which he was openly questioning his superiors about.

ALittleLight• 2 years ago

"Stealing data" seems pretty strong. Web scraping is legal. If you put text on the public Internet other people can read it or do statistical processing on it.

What do you mean he was "stealing data"? Was he hacking into somewhere?

unraveller2• 2 years ago

Web scraping is legal and benefiting from published works is entirely the point, so long as you don't merely redistribute it.

Training on X doesn't run afoul of fair-use because it doesn't redistribute nor does using it simply publish a recitation (as Suchir suggested). Summoning an LLM is closer to the act of editing in a text editor than it is to republishing. His hang up was on how often the original works were being substituted for chatGPT, but like AI sports articles, overlap is to be expected for everything now. Even without web scraping in training it would be impossible to block every user intention to remake an article out of the magic "editor" - that's with no-use of the data not even fair-use.

neilv2• 2 years ago

Condolences to the family. It sounds like he was a very thoughtful and principled person.

OutOfHere4• 2 years ago

[flagged]

tivert3• 2 years ago

[flagged]

dang• 2 years ago

Not that thoughtful. Copyright law is mostly harmful. Apparently he couldn't realize this simple conclusion.

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

sharkjacobs• 2 years ago

http://suchir.net/fair_use.html

When does generative AI qualify for fair use? by Suchir Balaji

minimaxir2• 2 years ago

It's also worth reading his initial tweet: https://x.com/suchirbalaji/status/1849192575758139733

I recently participated in a NYT story about fair use and generative AI, and why I'm skeptical "fair use" would be a plausible defense for a lot of generative AI products. I also wrote a blog post (https://suchir.net/fair_use.html) about the nitty-gritty details of fair use and why I believe this.
To give some context: I was at OpenAI for nearly 4 years and worked on ChatGPT for the last 1.5 of them. I initially didn't know much about copyright, fair use, etc. but became curious after seeing all the lawsuits filed against GenAI companies. When I tried to understand the issue better, I eventually came to the conclusion that fair use seems like a pretty implausible defense for a lot of generative AI products, for the basic reason that they can create substitutes that compete with the data they're trained on. I've written up the more detailed reasons for why I believe this in my post. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but I still feel like it's important for even non-lawyers to understand the law -- both the letter of it, and also why it's actually there in the first place.
That being said, I don't want this to read as a critique of ChatGPT or OpenAI per se, because fair use and generative AI is a much broader issue than any one product or company. I highly encourage ML researchers to learn more about copyright -- it's a really important topic, and precedent that's often cited like Google Books isn't actually as supportive as it might seem.
Feel free to get in touch if you'd like to chat about fair use, ML, or copyright -- I think it's a very interesting intersection. My email's on my personal website.

bsenftner2• 2 years ago

I'm an applied AI developer and CTO at a law firm, and we discuss the fair use argument quite a bit. It grey enough that whom ever has more financial revenues to continue their case will win. Such is the law and legal industry in the USA.

DennisP8• 2 years ago

they can create substitutes that compete with the data they're trained on.

If I'm an artist and copy the style of another artist, I'm also competing with that artist, without violating copyright. I wouldn't see this argument holding up unless it can output close copies of particular works.

Terr_4• 2 years ago

There's also the output side: Perhaps outputs of generative AI should be ineligible for copyright.

dr_dshiv• 2 years ago

That is the current position, weirdly enough.

visarga• 2 years ago

training on copyrighted data without a similar licensing agreement is also a type of market harm, because it deprives the copyright holder of a source of revenue

I would respond to this by

1. authors don't actually get revenue from royalties, instead it's all about add revenue which leads to enshittification. If they were to live on royalties they would die of hunger, artists, copywriters and musicians.

2. copyright is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few companies and don't really benefit the authors or the readers

3. actually the competition to new creative works is not AI, but old creative works that have been accumulating for 25 years on the web

I don't think restrictive copyright is what we need. Instead we have seen people migrate from passive consumption to interactivity, we now prefer games, social networks and search engines to TV, press and radio. Can't turn this trend back, it was created by the internet. We have now wikipedia, github, linux, open source, public domain, open scientific publications and non-restrictive environments for sharing and commenting.

If we were to take the idea of protecting copyrights to the extreme, it would mean we need to protect abstract ideas not just expression, because generative AI can easily route around that. But if we protected abstractions from reuse, it would be a disaster for creativity. I just think copyright is a dead man walking at this point.

jarsin2• 2 years ago

I just realized I stumbled on some of this guys writings when I was researching AI and copyright cases. I submitted this one to HN awhile back.

He seemed very insightful for someone that isn't a lawyer.

RIP.

abeppu2• 2 years ago

So, not at all the point of the article, but ... who does Mercury News think is benefited by the embedded map at the bottom of the article with a point just labeled "San Francisco, CA", centered at Market & Van Ness? It's not where the guy lived. If you're a non-local reader confused about where SF is, the map is far too zoomed in to show you.

tmiku• 2 years ago

The embedded map has a link to a "story map" that drops a pin for each recent story, mostly around the bay area. Probably a default to embed a zoom-in on each story's map entry at the bottom of the story text.

They mention "Lower Haight" and "Buchanan St" for the apartment location. In lieu of an exact address of his apartment, I feel like the marked location is reasonably close to situate the story within the area - within a half mile or so?

lolinder9• 2 years ago

Normally the word "whistleblower" means someone who revealed previously-unknown facts about an organization. In this case he's a former employee who had an interview where he criticized OpenAI, but the facts that he was in possession of were not only widely known at the time but were the subject of an ongoing lawsuit that had launched months prior.

As much as I want to give this a charitable reading, the only explanation I can think of for using the word whistleblower here is to imply that there's something shady about the death.

lyu072822• 2 years ago

You assume he revealed everything he knew, he was most likely under NDA, the ongoing lawsuit cited him as a source. Which presumably he didn't yet testify for and now he never will be able to. His (most likely ruled suicide inb4) death should also give pause to the other 11 on that list:

He was among at least 12 people — many of them past or present OpenAI employees — the newspaper had named in court filings as having material helpful to their case, ahead of depositions.

lolinder9• 2 years ago

Being one of 12+ witnesses in a lawsuit where the facts are hardly in dispute is not the same as being a whistleblower. The key questions in this lawsuit are not and never were going to come down to insider information—OpenAI does not dispute that they trained on copyrighted material, they dispute that it was illegal for them to do so.

anon3738392• 2 years ago

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.

lolinder9• 2 years 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?).

Terr_4• 2 years 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.

ninetyninenine8• 2 years ago

No. Anytime someone potentially possesses information that is damning to a company and that person is killed… the low probability of such an even being a random coincidence is quite low. It is so low such that it is extremely reasonable to consider the potential for an actual assassination while not precluding that a coincidence is a possibility.

lolinder9• 2 years ago

Anytime someone potentially possesses information that is damning to a company and that person is killed… the low probability of such an even being a random coincidence is quite low.

You're running into the birthday paradox here. The probability of a specific witness dying before they can testify in a lawsuit is low. The probability of any one of dozens of people involved in a lawsuit dying before it's resolved is actually rather high.

FireBeyond• 2 years ago

I've listened to many comments here on some of these, saying it must be assassination "because the person insisted, "If I'm ever found dead, it's not suicide!"." This is sometimes despite extensive mental health history.

Entirely possible.

But in my career as a paramedic, I've (sadly) lost count of the number of mental health patients who have said, "Yeah, that was just a glitch, I'm not suicidal, not now/nor then." ... and gone on to commit or attempt suicide in extremely short order.

SideQuark4• 2 years ago

Computer the probability, don’t make claims without making a solid estimate.

No, it’s not low. No need to put conspiracies before evidence, and certainly not by making claims you’ve not done no diligence on.

And the article provides statements by professionals who routinely investigate homicides and suicides that they have no reason to believe anything other than suicide.

calf• 2 years ago

Normally the word "whistleblower" means someone who revealed previously-unknown facts about an organization.

A whistleblower could also be someone in the process of doing so, i.e. they have a claim about the organization, as well as a promise to give detailed facts and evidence later in a courtroom.

I think that's the more commonsense understanding of what whistleblowers are and what they do. Your remark hinges on a narrow definition.

jll29• 2 years ago

Technically, the term "insider witness of the prosecution" could fit his role.

ADeerAppeared• 2 years ago

but the facts that he was in possession of were not only widely known at the time but were the subject of an ongoing lawsuit that had launched months prior.

That is an exceedingly charitable read of these lawsuits.

Everyone knows LLMs are copyright infringement machines. Their architecture has no distinction between facts and expressions. For an LLM to be capable of learning and repeating facts, it must also be able to learn and repeat expressions. That is copyright infringement in action. And because these systems are used to directly replace the market for human-authored works they were trained on, it is also copyright infringement in spirit. There is no defending against the claim of copyright infringement on technical details. (C.f. Google Books, which was ruled fair use because of it's strict delineation of facts about books and the expressions of their contents, and provides the former but not a substitute for the latter.)

The legal defense AI companies put up is entirely predicated on "Well you can't prove that we did a copyright infringement on these specific works of yours!".

Which is nonsense, getting LLMs to regurgitate training data is easy. As easy at it is for them to output facts. Or rather, it was. AI companies maintain this claim of "you can't prove it" by aggressively filtering out any instances of problematic content whenever a claim surfaces. If you didn't collect extensive data before going public, the AI company quickly adds your works to it's copyright filter and proclaims in court that their LLMs do not "copy".

A copyright filter that scans all output for verbatim reproductions of training data sounds like a reasonable compromise solution, but it isn't. LLMs are paraphrasing machines, any such copyright filter will simply not work because the token sequence 2nd-most-probable to a copyrighted expression is a simple paraphrase of that copyrighted expression. Now, consider: LLMs treat facts and expressions as the same. Filtering impedes the LLM's ability to use and process facts. Strict and extensive filtering will lobotomize the system.

This leaves AI companies in a sensitive legal position. They are not playing fair in the courts. They are outright lying in the media. The wrong employees being called to testify will be ruineous. "We built an extensive system to obstruct discovery, here's the exact list of copyright infringement we hid". Even just knowing which coworkers worked on what systems (and should be called to testify) is dangerous information.

Sure. The information was public. But OpenAI denies it and gaslights extensively. They act like it's still private information, and to the courts, it currently still is.

And to clarify: No I'm not saying murder or any other foul play was involved here. Murder isn't the way companies silence their dangerous whistleblowers anyway. You don't need to hire a hitman when you can simply run someone out of town and harass them to the point of suicide with none of the legal culpability. Did that happen here? Who knows, phone & chat logs will show. Friends and family will almost certainly have known and would speak up if that is the case.

hnfong3• 2 years ago

If we take the logic of your final paragraph to its ultimate conclusion, it seems companies can avoid having friends and family speak up about the harassment if they just hire a hitman.

DevX1013• 2 years ago

Anyone who's a whistleblower should compile key docs and put it in a "dead man's switch" service that releases your testimony/docs to multiple news agencies in the event of your untimely demise. The company you're whistle blowing against and their major shareholders should know this exists. Also, regularly post public video attesting to you current mental state.

eastbound• 2 years ago

But then what do you have to whistleblow?

cced• 2 years ago

Weren’t theres couple of dead Boeing whistleblowers in recent times relating to poor AA/design?

dtquad2• 2 years ago

They were whistleblowers related to Boeing manufacturing and quality control.

Boeing manufacturing is also the source of the persistent Boeing problems and issues that goes back to before the MCAS catastrophic incidents and has continued after MCAS was fixed.

Airbus has deeply integrated R&D and manufacturing hubs where the R&D engineers and scientists can just walk a few minutes and they will be inside the factory halls manufacturing the parts they designs.

Meanwhile Boeing has separated and placed their manufacturing plants in the US states where they can get most federal and state tax benefits for job creation.

srigi• 2 years ago

If evil company knows that you have this kind of watch-dog, you’re risking a torture instead of quick death.

exceptione3• 2 years ago

multiple news agencies

In the case of the US, you cannot make your selection wide enough. For optimal security, get it to both local news organizations and serious European press agencies.

The US news media do not have independent editorial boards. Several titles are actually from the same house. Corporate ownership, and professionals going to the dark side via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_capture are just some other risks.

Even if it gets published, your story can be suppressed by the way the media house deals with it. Also, there are many ways to silence news that is inconvenient or doesn't fit belief schemes, good example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42387549

bubaumba2• 2 years ago

European press agencies

It's very naive to believe in 'European press'. To get the idea check Ukrainian war coverage. What you'll see first is how single sided it is. This cannot be a coincidence. It can be only a result of total control. I respected 'The Guardians' before, but after eyes opening it appears to be the most brainwashing and manipulative there. Very professionally done, must admit. The problem isn't just that war, it's likely everything and I have no easy way to check for example what really happened in Afghan war. Did US really won like Biden said?

pyuser5832• 2 years ago

American press is much more independent than European press.

When WSJ broke the Elizabeth Holmes story, much ink was spilled showing how no European paper would take on a corporation strong government support.

Looking at Europe, governments first instinct is to protect national favorites.

European whistleblowers are likely to face defamation suits, something thankfully difficult in America.

hulitu2• 2 years ago

serious European press agencies.

There are almost none left.

The US news media do not have independent editorial boards.

The EU also don't. They are all penetrated by NGOs

BrandoElFollito3• 2 years ago

This is what was done with WikiLeaks - a few major European journals worked on the information together

aniviacat• 2 years ago

What would that accomplish?

Are you saying they won't kill you because then the documents would be released? So you would never release the documents if they never kill you?

Or are you saying you'll do this so the documents are guaranteed to be released, even if you're killed? In that case, why not just publish them right now?

DevX1013• 2 years ago

The scenario I described is to ensure the whistleblower being alive or dead has minimal change in impact to the company. If there's a pending case that could wipe billions off a company's market cap and 1 person is a key witness in the outcome...well lots of powerful people now have an incentive if that witness were no longer around.

Why not just publish immediately? Publishing immediately likely violates NDA and could be prosecuted if you're not compelled to testify under oath. This is what Edward Snowden did and he's persona non grata from the US for the rest of his life.

kstenerud2• 2 years ago

It's more along the lines of: You're going to do things they don't like, but if they kill you (or even if you die by accident), you'll release even MORE damaging material that could harm them to a far greater degree. It doesn't even have to be court-admissible to be damaging.

This is about leverage, and perhaps even bluff. It's never a binary situation, nor are there any guarantees.

TMWNN• 2 years ago

Didn't Luigi Mangione do this, arrange for a YouTube video to auto-publish after his arrest?

astura• 2 years ago

No, but someone did impersonate him on YouTube.

neilv2• 2 years ago

I don't think it's that simple. Imagine that you have nonpublic information that would be harmful to party A.

* Enemies and competitors of A now have an incentive to kill you.

* If the info about A would move the market, someone who would like to profit from knowing the direction and timing now has an incentive to kill you.

* Risks about trustworthiness of this "service". What if the information is released accidentally. What if it's a honeypot for a hedge fund, spy agency, or a "fixer" service.

* You've potentially just flagged yourself as a more imminent threat to A.

* Attacks against loved ones seems to have been a thing. And doesn't trigger your deadman's switch.

ata_aman• 2 years ago

Is there a DMS as a service anywhere? I know it’s very easy to setup but wondering if anyone is offering this.

stavros4• 2 years ago

https://www.deadmansswitch.net is one.

ajdude• 2 years ago

I use deadmansswitch.net - it sends you an email to verify that you are still alive, but you can also use a Telegram bot. In this case I have it set to send a passphrase to an encrypted file with all of my information to trusted individuals.

throwup238• 2 years ago

You also want to record a dying declaration and include it with the DMS if you’re afraid for your life. They can carry weight in court even if you’re mot available for cross examination.

Terr_4• 2 years ago

That assumes you have something to withhold which is:

1. Dangerous to someone else

2. Separable from the main reveal

3. Something you're willing to held conceal indefinitely

getpost• 2 years ago

regularly post public video attesting to you current mental state

Yes, indeed, that would attest to your mental state!

Imnimo• 2 years ago

Or they could just write a blog post and give interviews explaining their objections. Which this guy did. Why do you think there is some extra secret information he was withholding?

contingencies• 2 years ago

Intelligence agencies certainly run such things.

It would likely be safer to write a service and have interdependent relationships between redundant hosting systems in different jurisdictions without direct connections because that way you can protect against single points of failure (eg. compromised hosts, payment systems, regulators, network providers).

I would be surprised if this isn't a thing yet on Ethereum or some other well known distributed processing crypto platform.

dheera• 2 years ago

The company you're whistle blowing against and their major shareholders should know this exists.

They'll just get out the $5 wrench then

scotty793• 2 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but all he was whiltleblowing is that OpenAI trained on copyrighted content, which is completely normal and expected although its legality is yet to be determined.

infp_arborist• 2 years ago

Less techy, but how about personal relationships you can trust?

formerlurker• 2 years ago

This is one of the most actionable and sound comments on this post. If interested, I always recommend the book “The Gulag Archpielago” because of all the repression examples and how to protect oneself. I wish you would speak with the other commenter who studied whistleblowers for 20 years.

dgfitz3• 2 years ago

I wonder who called to ask about his well-being.

The Boeing guy killed himself, this guy apparently killed himself. The pattern of David vs Goliath, where David kills himself, is almost becoming a pattern.

derektank• 2 years ago

If there was a gun involved, I would imagine a neighbor would have called. He was found in his apartment.

pkkkzip• 2 years ago

Boeing guy and OpenAI whistleblower were both seen as "not depressed" and have even gone far as to say that if anything happened to him that it wouldn't have been an accident.

I'm not sure why there are so many comments trying to downplay and argue around whether OpenAI was a whistleblower or not he fits pretty much all the definition.

OpenAI was suspected of using copyright data but that wasn't the only thing OpenAI whistleblower was keeping under wraps given NDA. The timing of OpenAI partnering with US military is odd.

kube-system2• 2 years ago

Boeing guy [...] were both seen as "not depressed" and have even gone far as to say that if anything happened to him that it wouldn't have been an accident.

Yes, but also, his own brother said:

“He was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of being subjected to the hostile work environment at Boeing, which we believe led to his death,”

Internet echo chambers love a good murder mystery, but dragging a quiet and honest employee who works in the trenches through a protracted, public, and stressful legal situation can be very tough.

CyberDildonics• 2 years ago

David vs goliath where david swears he will never kill himself and that if anything happens to him it is someone coming after them, then david kills himself right before going to court to testify.

nialv7• 2 years ago

this guy apparently killed himself.

where did you get that? this article doesn't say a cause of death.

dgfitz3• 2 years ago

The medical examiner’s office has not released his cause of death, but police officials this week said there is “currently, no evidence of foul play.”

princevegeta89• 2 years ago

There is confirmed news now that he killed himself

kube-system2• 2 years ago

When David is just a nobody, and Goliath has all of the legal and PR resources in the world, Goliath doesn't even have to swing a punch. Goliath can just drive them crazy with social and legal pressure. Also, David might have been a bit of a decision-making outlier to begin with, being the kind of person who decides going up against Goliath is a good idea.

kamaal• 2 years ago

I work with a relative who is in the real estate space here in India and often deals with land shark mafia. The biggest thing I learned from him, to win in these situations is don't fear or not be afraid of consequences.

You need to have ice water flowing in your veins if you are about to mess with something big. At worst you need to have benign neglect for the consequences.

Often fear is the only instrument they have against you. And if you are not afraid, they will likely not contest further. Threat of jail, violence or courts is often what they use to stop you. In reality most people are afraid to go to war this way. Its messy and often creates more problems for them.

idiot-savant• 2 years ago

They’ve been pulling out the Reverse Luigi for decades.

zusammen• 2 years ago

[flagged]

bbqfog• 2 years ago

That's really interesting. Do you have any books or information about Michael O. Church for further reading? Wasn't he a HN user?

SideQuark4• 2 years ago

Yeah, the pattern is real. The patterns of high male suicide rates and Goliaths having a lot of employees combine into a pattern of the innumerate invoking boogeymen wherever it suits their world view, evidence and reason be dammed.

dtquad2• 2 years ago

Interesting that the NYT article about him states that OpenAI started developing GPT-4 before the ChatGPT release. They sure were convinced by the early GPT-2/3 results.

In early 2022, Mr. Balaji began gathering digital data for a new project called GPT-4

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/technology/openai-copyrig...

minimaxir2• 2 years ago

ChatGPT was a research project that went megaviral, it wasn't intended to be as big as it was.

Training a massive LLM on the scale of GPT-4 required a lot of lead time (less so nowadays due to various optimizations), so the timeframe makes sense.

nextworddev• 2 years ago

I think OpenAI officially said GPT4 finished training late 2022 alredy

BillFranklin• 2 years ago

There are some pretty callous comments on this thread.

This is really sad. Suchir was just 26, and graduated from Berkeley 3 years ago.

Here’s his personal site: https://suchir.net/.

I think he was pretty brave for standing up against what is generally perceived as an injustice being done by one of the biggest companies in the world, just a few years out of college. I’m not sure how many people in his position would do the same.

I’m sorry for his family. He was clearly a talented engineer. On his LinkedIn he has some competitive programming prizes which are impressive too. He probably had a HN account.

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.

DevX1013• 2 years ago

If I'm a whistleblower in an active case and I end up dead before testifying, I absolutely DO want the general public to speculate about my cause of death.

typeofhuman• 2 years ago

I would also most certainly have a dead man's switch releasing everything I know. I would have given it to an attorney along with a sworn deposition.

jkeat• 2 years ago

Agreed. This is a good time to revisit an Intercept investigation from last year that explored another suspicious suicide by a tech titan whistleblower:

https://theintercept.com/2023/03/23/peter-thiel-jeff-thomas/

XorNot5• 2 years ago

To what, encourage whistleblowers to not come forward because "everyone knows they'll get killed"?

The only benefit of turning it into gossip is to dissuade other whistleblowers, without the inconvenience of actually having to kill anyone.

casefields• 2 years ago

I feel the same way but I’m not sure if I should.

The internet wildly speculating would probably get back to my mom and sister which would really upset them. Once I’m gone my beliefs/causes wouldn’t be more important than my family’s happiness.

jongjong2• 2 years ago

TBH, I'm kind of paranoid about CIA and FBI. Last time I travelled to the US on holiday, I was worried somebody would attempt to neutralize me because of my involvement in crypto.

I don't think I have delusions of grandeur, I worry that the cost of exterminating people algorithmically could become so low that they could decide to start taking out small fries in batches.

A lot of narratives which would have sounded insane 5 years ago actually seem plausible nowadays... Yet the stigma still exists. It's still taboo to speculate on the evils that modern tech could facilitate and the plausible deniability it could provide.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 2 years ago

This conspiracy shit is tiring. Is this Truth Social or HN?

lolinder9• 2 years ago

I considered writing something more focused on him, but the rampant speculation was only going to get worse if no one pointed out the very intentional misleading implications baked into the headline. I stand by what I wrote, but thank you for adding to it by drawing attention away from the entirely-speculative villains and to the very real person who has died.

johnnyanmac• 2 years ago

if in his position, you would that want that to be written about you or a friend.

If that was my public persona, I don't see why not. He could have kept quiet and chosen not to testify if he was afraid of this defining him in a way.

I will say it's a real shame that it did become his public legacy, because I'm sure he was a brilliant man who would have truly help change the world for the better with a few more decades on his belt.

All that said, assassination theories are just that (though "theory" is much too strong a word here in a formal sense. it's basically hearsay). There's no real link to tug on here so there's not much productivity taking that route.

csomar• 2 years 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• 2 years ago

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

that_guy_iain5• 2 years 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?

ggjkvcxddd• 2 years ago

Thanks for posting this. Suchir was a good dude. Nice, smart guy.

benreesman• 2 years ago

It seems most are expressing sadness and condolences to the family and friends around what is clearly a great loss of both an outstanding talent and a uniquely principled and courageous person.

There will always be a few tacky remarks in any Internet forum but those have all found their way to the bottom.

RIP.

_cs2017_• 2 years ago

As a reader, I prefer not to be misled by articles linked from the HN front page. So I do want to know whether someone is or is not a whistleblower. This has nothing to do with respect for the dead.

1vuio0pswjnm72• 2 years ago

For those who will not visit the website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20241211184437/https://suchir.ne...

tl;dr he concludes ChatGPT-4 was not fair use of the copyrighted materials he gathered while working for OpenAI

For those who cannot read x.com:

https://nitter.poast.org/suchirbalaji/status/184919257575813...

guerrilla• 2 years 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.

You damn well better be trying to figure out what happened if I end up a dead whistleblower.

verisimi• 2 years 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.

People are free to comment on media events. You too are free to assume the moral high ground by commenting on the same event, telling people what they should or should not do.

potsandpans• 2 years ago

People love to tone police for free points in the internet

bdcravens• 2 years ago

If I die in the midst of whistleblowing, I hereby give permission for everyone to not ignore that fact.

griomnib• 2 years ago

Sure seems like this is happening more frequently, eg with the Boeing guy. So it’s reasonable to ask why.

If you look at Aaron Schwartz for example you see they don’t have to assassinate you, they just have so many lawyers, making so many threats, with so much money/power behind them, people feel scared and powerless.

I don’t think OpenAI called in a hit job, but I think they spent millions of dollars to drive him into financial and emotional desperation - which in our system, is legal.

spacemadness• 2 years ago

Nah, I’d rather continue to let random HN commenters shame me for thinking critically and not taking things at face value.

atleastoptimal• 2 years ago

Everyone will naturally speculate about anything current or former OpenAI employees do, whether it’s if they resign, the statements they make, or in this case their own suicide. It’s only fair not to speculate too far given that since there are thousands of current and former OpenAI employees, they are subject to the same conditions as the general population.

hilux3• 2 years ago

Dude graduated from Cal with a 3.98 in Computer Science! Certainly kicks my sorry ass. Being brilliant can be a burden, I guess.

aws_ls• 2 years ago

Also reached Master level at Codeforces,well before joining his engineering course: https://codeforces.com/profile/suchir

mellosouls• 2 years ago

Non-paywalled alternative (also the source in the other Reddit HN post):

https://www.siliconvalley.com/2024/12/13/openai-whistleblowe...

1vuio0pswjnm72• 2 years ago

No "paywall" unless Javascript is enabled.

xvector• 2 years ago

Metapost - Reading the (civilized!) comments on HN vs those on Reddit is such a contrast.

I'm a bit worried that while regulators are focusing on X/Facebook/Instagram/etc. from a moderation perspective, not one regulator seems to be looking at the increasingly extreme and unmoderated rhetoric on Reddit. People are straight up braying for murder in the comments there. I'm worried that one of the most visited sites in the US is actively radicalizing a good chunk of the population.

bryan0• 2 years ago

Interesting you say that about HN, because reading this (and other) threads I have the opposite view: HN is devolving into Reddit-like nonsense.

talldayo• 2 years ago

I'm worried that one of the most visited sites in the US is actively radicalizing a good chunk of the population.

Thank goodness they're an American site, where the precedent for persecuting websites for active radicalization is practically nonexistent.

xbar• 2 years ago

What a terrible and sad loss.

alexpc201• 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

nox1012• 2 years ago

Being this is ostensibly related to an AI company trying to make AGI reminds me of "Eagle Eye"

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059786/

nox1012• 2 years ago

Curious why the downvote? Because someone actually died? It doesn't change the fact that "Eagle Eye" is about (spoiler) an AGI killing people both directly and indirectly (by manipulating others, AI "Swats" you, ...) and here is a company trying to make AGI.

If the AGI actual existed it could certainly indirectly get people killed that were threatening it's existence. It could "swat" people. Plant fake evidence (mail order explosives to the victim's house, call the FBI). It could manipulate others. Find the most jealous unstable person. Make up fake texts/images that person is having an affair with their partner. Send fake messages from partner provoking them into action, etc... Convince some local criminal the victim is invading their turf". We've already seen several examples of LLMs say "kill your parents/partner".

jarsin2• 2 years ago

It's highly possible that in the next tragedy carried out by a kid that has messages from any of these chatbots that can be construed as manipulation will result in criminal prosecutions against the executives. Not just lawsuits.

kachapopopow2• 2 years ago

Okay, first boeing now openai... Yep, my view of this world being more civilized than portrayed in the movies is disappearing every day. Looks like we're going to start having to take conspiracy movie-like theories seriously now.

slavik81• 2 years ago

There's surveillance camera footage of the vehicle John Barnett was sitting in at the time of his death. The conspiracy theories are not credible.

kachapopopow2• 2 years ago

"heart attack" gun exists, it's not that improbable that similar tactics can be used. Of course you can just play this into him being crushed by the mistake he did (for his own success in the future).

neuroelectron4• 2 years ago

"No evidence of foul play." What about the evidence that he's only 26 and has a successful career in the booming Ai industry? He doesn't seem a likely candidate for suicide.

Fair use hasn't been tested in court. He has documents that show OpenAI's intention and communications about the legal framework for it. He was directly involved in web scraping and openly discussing the legal perspectives with his superiors. That is damning evidence.

XorNot5• 2 years ago

I mean in the last week a guy with a similar profile shot and killed the United Healthcare CEO.

But frankly this is a "oh that person seemed so happy, how could they have been depressed!?" line of thinking. The 2021 suicide death rate in the US population for the 26 to 44 age bracket is 18.8 per 100,000[1]. It is literally the highest rate (second is 18-25), and it is wildly skewed in favor men (22.8 / 100,000 vs 5.7 per 100,000).

[1] https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/a-look-at-the-...

neuroelectron4• 2 years ago

I get what you're saying but statistics aren't evidence of an individual's behavior.

smeeger3• 2 years ago

people dont kill themselves because they dont have a good job. thats a weird and naive belief that upper class people have. people kill themselves because they are mentally unwell, fundamentally. except situations like terminal illness.

snozolli• 2 years ago

people dont kill themselves because they dont have a good job.

Countless people have killed themselves upon losing a job. Jobs are fundamental to our identity in society and the ramifications of job loss are enormous.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9530609/

dehrmann• 2 years ago

He doesn't seem a likely candidate for suicide.

He might have been under pressure from attention he got from the press for whistle blowing. He might have worried about career damage. 26 and working on a web scraper for a high-profile company is great, but it's nothing special. I'm not sure of his immigration status, but he could also be dealing with visa issues.

cbracketdash3• 2 years ago

Police now say it's been ruled a suicide:

https://sfstandard.com/2024/12/13/key-openai-whistleblower-d...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2024/12/13/openai-...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/openai-whistleblower-dead_n_6...

catlikesshrimp2• 2 years ago

It should be taught in school that being a whistleblower requires safety preparation. Make it a woke thing or whatever, because it is something many don't give an afterthought about.

cbracketdash3• 2 years ago

Well I imagine this is a relatively new phenomena in the USA. Usually I hear about these "coincidences" in foreign countries... but here....? Maybe the older HN generation can shed some insight...

sillyfluke• 2 years ago

The problem is, from a game theory perspective, things like a dead man's switch may possibly protect you from your enemy but won't protect you from your enemy's enemies who would gain two-fold from your death: your death would be blamed on your enemy, and all the dirty laundry would be aired to the public.

_dp9d• 2 years ago

The US is turning into Russia where anyone about to testify magically falls out a window

snovv_crash2• 2 years ago

Given the outcomes of the Facebook mood experiments and how I've seen people put together very targeted ads, I'm wondering whether it's possible to induce someone (who's already under a lot of pressure) to commit suicide simply via a targeted information campaign. I'm speculating less on what happened here, and more on the general "yes that would be possible" situation.

How would one protect themselves from something like this? Avoid all 'algorithmically' generated data sources, AdBlock, VPN, don't log in anywhere?

AliAbdoli2• 2 years ago

I'm going to have to go with Tyler The Creator's advice here: "Just Walk Away From The Screen"

amelius• 2 years ago

Try it now. I'm sure you'll be back within 24h.

exe34• 2 years ago

there was a video of a guy who pranked his housemate - http://mysocialsherpa.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-...

I don't know how much this is embellished, but I'd say it's not too hard.

for defence, as others have said, walk away from the phone. spend time with friends.

I personally swear out loud followed by the name of the company whenever I see a YouTube advert, I hope it helps me avoid making the choices they want me to.

mrtksn3• 2 years ago

On Reddit there’s this thing about suicide prevention. Essentially, if someone thinks that you are suicidal, they can make reddit send you a very official looking “don’t do it” message.

I found that people are using it to abuse those they hate. I’ve received the message a few times when I had an argument with someone. Apparently it's a thing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/comments/1bp1k9h/why_do_i...

There’s something profound about someone looking serious(official looking reddit account) giving you the idea of suicide. The first time I remember feeling very bad, because it’s written in a very official and caring way, it was like someone telling me that “I hate you so much that I spent lots of energy to meticulously tell you dat I want you to kill yourself” but also made me question myself.

euvin• 2 years ago

Wow, that's the first time I'm hearing about that tactic. And it's dawning on me how egregious that is because it could be inoculating you against the very messages meant to dissuade you. Though I'm unsure how effective those messages were to begin with.

gsibble3• 2 years ago

Oh, I got a lot of those for hate. The good news is it was easy to report them and I got most people who sent them banned. It's highly against reddit's TOS and something they enforce.

hanspeter• 2 years ago

In theory, but not without including a larger target group as your audience. Back in the day an audience on Facebook needed a size of at least 20, but I'm unsure what the limit is now.

Your ads would still need to be reviewed and would likely not pass the filters if they straight up encourage self harm.

tsoukase• 2 years ago

Half an hour of talk with his relatives, friends, girlfriend etc and I can suggest if he or someone else murdered him. I doubt the police will go such hassle

strogonoff• 2 years ago

Suchir’s suicide (if it was a suicide) is a tragedy. I happen to share some of his views, and I am negative on the impact of current ML tech on society—not because of what it can do, but precisely because of the way it is trained.

The ends do not justify the means—and it is easy to see the means having wide-ranging systemic effects besides the ends, even if we pretended those ends were well-defined and planned (which, aside from the making profit, they are clearly not: just think of the nebulous ideas and contention around AGI).

gsibble3• 2 years ago

I enjoy using Generative AI but have significant moral qualms with how they train their data. They flagrantly ignore copyright law for a significant amount of their data. The fact they do enter into licensing agreements with some publishers basically shows they know they are breaking the law.

mbix77• 2 years ago

Think about the current geopolitical climate and the possibility this person was actually targeted by malicious actors as a way to sow chaos and distrust in the establishment in the West. What better way to make people grow weary of the digital platforms that are making up a majority part of their lives in their bubbles.

MichaelMoser123• 2 years ago

RIP. Suchir was a man of principles, he probably had to give up his OpenAI options as a result of his stance - OpenAI is reported to have a very restrictive offboarding agreements [1]

" It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it.

If a departing employee declines to sign the document, or if they violate it, they can lose all vested equity they earned during their time at the company, which is likely worth millions of dollars."

[1] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai...

rkagerer• 2 years ago

It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it.

Can someone with legal expertise weigh in on how likely this would be to hold up in court?

Bluestein2• 2 years ago

I was wondering myself. Also, the whole thing about losing vested equity - would that hold up in court?

n144q• 2 years ago

My guess is that a lawsuit from OpenAI itself is enough to ruin your life. They don't even need to win the case.

zelphirkalt2• 2 years ago

Ha, that gives a pretty good picture how "open" Openai is. They want to own their employees, enslave them in a way. One might even think the cause of that whistleblower's death is contagious upon publishing.

Really ridiculous how afraid Openai is of criticism. Acting like a child that throws a tantrum, when something doesn't go its way, just that one needs to remind oneself, that somehow there are, with regard to age at least, adults behind this stuff.

rollcat• 2 years ago

Ha, that gives a pretty good picture how "open" Openai is.

"Any country with 'democratic' in its name, isn't".

The fight to claim a word's meaning can sometimes be fascinating to observe. We've started with "Free Software", but it was easily confused with "freeware", and in the meantime the meaning of "open source" was being put to test by "source available" / "look but do not touch" - so we ended up with atrocities like "FLOSS", which are too cringe for a serious-looking company to try to take over. I think "open" is becoming meaningless (unless you're explicitly referring to open(2)). With the advent of smart locks, even the definition of an open door is getting muddy.

Same for "AI". There's nothing intelligent about LLMs, not while humans continue to supervise the process. I like to include creativity and self-reflection in my working definition of intelligence, traits which LLMs are incapable of.

BrandoElFollito3• 2 years ago

I am amazed that such things are possible. Here on France this is so illegal that it is laughable.

I am saying "laughable" because there are small things companies try to enforce, and say sorry afterwards. But telling you that you are stuck with this for life is comedy grade.

tikkun• 2 years ago

Not anymore. In May 2024 OpenAI confirmed that it will not enforce those provisions:

* The company will not cancel any vested equity, regardless of whether employees sign separation agreements or non-disparagement agreements

* Former employees have been released from their non-disparagement obligations

* OpenAI sent messages to both former and current employees confirming that it "has not canceled, and will not cancel, any vested units"

https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/24/openai_contract_staff...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-24/openai-re...

dudeinjapan• 2 years ago

When I die, as a last wish, I hope people will go wild with speculative assassination theories. Especially if the police find "no evidence" of foul-play or the coroner says it was due to "old age"--it can only mean the cops and docs are also in on it.

rafram• 2 years ago

Wow. Suchir was my project partner in a CS class at Berkeley (Operating Systems!). Incredibly smart, humble, nice person. It was obvious that he was going to do amazing things. This is really awful.

bdndndndbve• 2 years ago

This is extremely sad and I'm sorry for Suchir's family and friends.

As someone who has struggled with suicidal ideation while working in the tech industry for over a decade, I do wonder if the insane culture of Bay Area tech has a part to play.

Besides the extreme hustle culture mindset, there's also a kind of naive techno-optimism that can make you feel insane. You're surrounded by people who think breaking the law is OK and that they're changing the world by selling smart kitchen appliances, even while they're exploiting workers in developing countries for cheap tech support and stepping over OD victims outside their condo.

This mindset is so pervasive you really start to wonder if you're crazy for having empathy or any sense of justice.

I have no special insight except to guess that going from being an obviously brilliant student at Berkeley to a cut-throat startup like OpenAI would be a jarring experience. You've achieved everything you worked your whole life for, and you find you're doing work that is completely out of whack with your morals and values.

gsibble3• 2 years ago

Well put. Almost all of the SF startups I worked for were run by sociopaths willing to break any rule I eventually learned. One is now being charged by the FTC for massive violations. I hated the immoral mindset of winning at the cost of everything from employee comfort to flagrantly illegal activities with customers.

imglorp• 2 years ago

Further piling on potential stress for any whistleblower in a highly specialized field, once you're publicly critical of that field, you're basically unemployable there. And that's without any active retribution from the offending employer. Any retribution, such as blacklisting among peer HR departments would bring an even dimmer outlook.

steeeeeve• 2 years ago

Mental health challenges in the bay area tech industry are real for a wide variety of reasons. There's a bigger push in silicon valley for work life balance and mental health care than anywhere else I've been, but more people with serious issues there than anywhere else I've been as well.

Imposter syndrome is high among engineers of all levels of experience and ability. Engineering has it's own set of pressures. Then you add in all the other reasons people can feel stressed or pressured and all of the bay area specific reasons those things are amplified. It adds up.

You would be surprised how many brilliant and highly capable people have broken down. For anyone out there feeling like they are all alone - don't. Even if all the people around you seem happy and confident, I guarantee that a larger portion of them than you realize are struggling.

tempeler• 2 years ago

People neglect the priorities of working life. First safety, it is best to avoid any unnecessary risks and to act so that you stay safe. second security.

sheepscreek• 2 years ago

Deeply saddening, especially given what was at stake. It takes someone truly exceptional to challenge the establishment. RIP Suchir. May the light of your candle, while it burned, have sparked many others.

npvrite2• 2 years ago

Unfortunately, many whistleblowers don't take proper precautions to release information that will make them a target.

QubesOS, disposable laptop, faraday cage, and never work from home. https://www.qubes-os.org/

cutemonster• 2 years ago

Why do you need the Faraday cage?

npvrite2• 2 years ago

The whistleblower's cell phone will be pinging their location to apps and cell towers periodically.

It's an extra layer of protection against more powerful threat actors.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/19/opinion/locat...

lawrenceyan• 2 years ago

This is incredibly sad, Suchir went to my high school and we both went to Berkeley together. He was clearly very intelligent, and I was always sure he'd go on to be very successful / do interesting things.

If you're struggling reading this, I want to say that you're not alone. Even if it doesn't feel like it right now, the world truly wants you to be happy.

The path is open to you:

Old Path White Clouds [0]

Opening the Heart of Compassion [1]

Seeing That Frees [2]

[0] https://z-library.sk/book/1313569/e77753/old-path-white-clou... [1] https://z-library.sk/book/26536611/711f2c/opening-the-heart-... [2] https://z-library.sk/book/3313275/acb03c/seeing-that-frees-m...

sobkas• 2 years ago

If death is a suicide it doesn't automatically means that third parties weren't involved. It's possible to push (temporally) vulnerable people over the edge, even if when helped/left alone they wouldn't.

Especially if one party have incentive to discredit/destroy such person, so court/jury won't take their testimony seriously(or there will be no testimony at all). After all it's almost impossible to connect such actions with subsequent suicide.

While suicide is by definition action of individual, what leads to it isn't always the same.

neycoda• 2 years ago

Even if he was a whistleblower and had documents against them, there's 12 other witnesses that prosecutors have in the lawsuits against OpenAI, and they're not dead

cbracketdash3• 2 years ago

His parents are skeptical it's a suicide and are ordering a second, independent autopsy: https://sfist.com/2024/12/26/parents-of-openai-whistleblower...

OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

Related Stories