ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
60% Positive
Analyzed from 2482 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#openai#discovery#personal#journal#musk#don#more#diary#write#where

Discussion (83 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
> Additionally, Brockman’s journal showed him grappling with whether voting against Musk’s plan or for Musk’s ejection from the board would be morally wrong.
> “Can’t see us turning this into a for-profit without a very nasty fight,” Brockman wrote in another entry. “It’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. That’d be pretty morally bankrupt.”
This is pretty damning for OpenAI. And ties in quite tightly to Musk's comment earlier this week of "It's not okay to steal a charity.".
Still his goals was to merge with Tesla... Ain't this also steal a charity?
And in the grand scheme of things, OpenAI being charity was always bullshit too.
I'm guessing that double negative is a mistake. Do you mean to strike the "don't" to make it "have pretty non-existent morality" or just "both involved men don't have morality"?
I don't see how. Cases are decided by facts and law, not feelings -- except to the extent those feelings are probative of state of mind, which is relevant for some legal issues but not others. My understanding is that the crux of the case is on the extent to which a number of informal messages should be considered a binding contract.
Trying to go from a single admission like this to an overall legal conclusion is a lot like seeing a single line in a program and then concluding there's a bug -- without having ever seen the rest of the program. You might think "this line always crashes, " but actually it's never called (does not go to any matter at issue), or none of the terms mean what you think they mean, etc.
Anyone know which livestream they are talking about?
Edit: found it, audio-only and no archive https://www.youtube.com/@USDCCAND/streams
How does that work? How can a company submit a personal journal as evidence? That feels extremely intrusive
It's one of the huge reasons that lawsuits are often settled, because ain't nobody want all the dirty laundry aired.
Discovery asking for a peon's diary is likely to get squashed pretty easily, discovery asking for the president's personal diary is likely to be approved if there's an argument it applies (and likely you'll see what happened here, it's provided sealed, and if both sides agree it's applicable, it's unsealed).
Yes it feels intrusive, but it's literally the first thing a lawyer would ask for.
As an outside observer (from Europe), but with all my knowledge of law originating from American TV, Is it the same in other countries, or is American system special in the case of discovery?
So… those can be aired willy nilly too then. They are out on public clouds now.
What's the history around this? And don't these protections only relate to criminal proceedings?
edit: seems the parent is referring to the historical entity of the mere evidence rule which isn't the same as saying that the Framers believed a certain interpretation for the 4/5th amendments.
(4th and 5th overlap here but I generally just cite the 5th as the reason why the 4th applies is because of the 5th)
- Don't write it down.
- Delete it before you're subpoenaed.
- Mail it to your attorney.
And it is not there to protect you it is there to protect the lawyer which incidentally might protect you. It's to ensure that a vigorous defense is not compromised.
Keep your personal life to personal paper and personal devices. Don't write your life out onto something subject to discovery by someone else's legal department.
Especially if you're a C-level exec.
Policies about document and media handling are important if you're up where discovery is an active possibility. Or "have nothing to hide."
Carry two phones, carry two laptops.
It’s beyond me how these super important (and controversial) people keep diaries where they lay out their evil plots like a villain from Scooby Doo. And save it on a work computer.
Also a nobody and I feel this. See also: therapy, I'm sure I would/could benefit from it but I have zero trust that those records wouldn't be leaked/stolen/compelled in the future. Especially with the current US government, I wouldn't want a (more of a) record of "wrongthink" (whatever the window shifts to make that in the future).
This is why politicians don't write things down and can 'never recall'.
EDIT: I sorry read over this part:
> OpenAI submitted the journals as evidence in October that was initially sealed and then unsealed in January
So they chose to submit it as evidence themselves. I stand corrected, insane move though, why would you submit your own private notes as evidence in a high-stakes court case?
This is how discovery has always worked.
> submitted
Doesn't necessarily mean they volunteered it. Either submission or the unsealing could have been in response to a subpoena or court ruling.
Maybe the solution is to write at the top of your journal that you are cc'ing your lawyer on it. (Not legal advice!)
> This is how discovery has always worked.
So if I say a worry to my therapist, and years later I get sued in a civil lawsuit, my opponents can just ask the therapist for their meeting notes and those get submitted and then published on the internet? No, I assume? So then where's the line? I'm no lawyer (in fact I'm a total noob in this area) but seems very weird to me that private notes can just be subpoena'd like that.
This is also partially why I do not log in to work accounts on personal devices or personal accounts on work devices.
Medical (and especially therapy) notes, attorney/client communications, and a few other have privilege [1] and you would not /required/ to submit this. If the opposing side requested something that turned them up, and they were responsive, you'd include a response and include a reference in a "privilege log" [0]
What is privileged is subtle and often overstated. You can't just put "attorney/client privilege" and CC a lawyer — you need to be asking a genuine legal question. Google almost got in trouble for something like this [2].
Private notes, including diaries, are not privileged. I'd like to see some serious proposals for "diary privilege" but no state has such a rule.
[0] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/creating-privilege-logs-a-... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileged_communication [2] https://www.proskauer.com/blog/the-sound-of-silent-attorneys... — although they won later appeals. My point here is that its complicated.
The lawyers submitted it sealed which means they "did their best" to protect privacy, but the guy had written snidely-whiplash-esque plans and pondering, so they were unsealed. Even I can see that it is applicable to the case.
> snidely-whiplash-esque
I do hope this whole thing ends with someone saying "curses, foiled again!"
I didn't keep one for a long time because I grew up in a household where I didn't feel secure - if I had a journal my parents would have snooped for sure. As I've gotten older I (a) see the value in remembering the past (b) feel more trust in the people around me.
Highly recommend trying a journalling habit for a month. It's also very satisfying to do it in a little notebook with a pen instead of typing. It feels more tangible.
Generally speaking even the "Dear diary," style of journal is helpful, if not to gather your thoughts and reflect then at least to practice writing.
What's the big deal if people do? Why judge? Why even... care? :)
5/6/2026
Drank a cup of coffee; Made snarky remark to HN user.
Hello Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Kettle.