Serving a subpoena in this manner is for publicity, not process.
In this case the public defender is issuing a subpoena for records in relation to the trespassing case. This is in relation to OpenAI, not Sam Altman. They could serve any reasonably senior person in the company. It can also be done by certified mail.
> Serving a subpoena in this manner is for publicity, not process.
Agree - but considering all of the companies holding copyrights that are pissed at OpenAI right now it's easy to understand the message being sent with doing this in a public manner.
> Activist group Stop AI, known for organizing protests at OpenAI’s San Francisco office, also claimed responsibility. The group stated that Altman’s subpoena was tied to their upcoming trial, in which members will face charges for non-violent demonstrations aimed at halting what they describe as AI’s “existential threat to humanity.”
> "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.
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.
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
Yes: like Yudkowsky, the group under discussion (Stop AI) understands that AI "progress" must be stopped and must stay stopped until (probably many decades from now) someone figures out a way to control an AI that is smarter than us, a way that works on the first try rather than requiring many iterations of trial and error.
Serving a subpoena in this manner is for publicity, not process.
In this case the public defender is issuing a subpoena for records in relation to the trespassing case. This is in relation to OpenAI, not Sam Altman. They could serve any reasonably senior person in the company. It can also be done by certified mail.
> Serving a subpoena in this manner is for publicity, not process.
Agree - but considering all of the companies holding copyrights that are pissed at OpenAI right now it's easy to understand the message being sent with doing this in a public manner.
https://xcancel.com/KarluskaP/status/1986766915277140052
From a source with more info:
> Activist group Stop AI, known for organizing protests at OpenAI’s San Francisco office, also claimed responsibility. The group stated that Altman’s subpoena was tied to their upcoming trial, in which members will face charges for non-violent demonstrations aimed at halting what they describe as AI’s “existential threat to humanity.”
https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/openai-sam-altman-subpeo...
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.
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.
> Sam isn't hiding from subpoenas.
Do you know Sam and his intentions and tactics? (I don't.)
I know that some rando was able to get on stage for this stunt
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.
no one has stated it was illegitimate.
GGP called it a "stunt" by a "rando". I think there's an implication there about its legitimacy.
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
Oh lord, so these are Yudkowskites?
Yes: like Yudkowsky, the group under discussion (Stop AI) understands that AI "progress" must be stopped and must stay stopped until (probably many decades from now) someone figures out a way to control an AI that is smarter than us, a way that works on the first try rather than requiring many iterations of trial and error.
Sounds pretty silly.
Silly little consequence (totally unintended) of killing literally every single person.
Not sure what it is about, but love to see it!
Best news I've heard all day. slow clap
Very classy...
tiktok source: https://www.tiktok.com/@babboshome/video/7569846074664439053
[dead]
Jumping up onto a stage, approaching uninvited, while wearing a full backpack... this kind of political stunt is ignorant and irresponsible.
Not as intrusive and obnoxious as a shaving cream pie-in-the-face, but actions like these lead to future reactionary violence from security personnel.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/billionaire-ai-overlord-sam-al...