OpenAI Sent Police to AI Regulation Critic’s Home
▼ Summary
– Lawyer Nathan Calvin claims OpenAI sent a sheriff’s deputy to serve him a subpoena requesting private messages with legislators, students, and former employees.
– Calvin alleges OpenAI used its lawsuit against Elon Musk as a pretext to intimidate critics and imply Musk funds his organization, Encode AI.
– Encode AI advocates for AI safety and pushed for California’s SB 53 bill, which requires large AI companies to disclose safety processes.
– OpenAI stated the subpoena aimed to understand why Encode supported Musk’s legal challenge and noted deputies commonly serve subpoenas part-time.
– An OpenAI employee expressed concern about the action, and another watchdog group reported receiving similar subpoenas about their communications.
The recent actions taken by OpenAI have ignited a significant debate about corporate power and the boundaries of legal advocacy in the technology sector. Nathan Calvin, a lawyer specializing in AI policy at Encode AI, alleges that OpenAI dispatched a sheriff’s deputy to his home to serve a personal subpoena, an event that unfolded as he and his wife were sitting down to dinner. According to Calvin, the legal demand sought access to his private communications with California legislators, university students, and former employees of OpenAI.
Calvin contends that OpenAI is leveraging its ongoing lawsuit against Elon Musk as a pretext to intimidate critics. He expressed his belief that the company aims to create the impression that Musk is orchestrating all opposition against them. Last month, reports surfaced indicating that OpenAI had subpoenaed Encode AI to investigate potential financial backing from Musk. This legal maneuver forms part of OpenAI’s countersuit, which accuses the billionaire of employing “bad-faith tactics to slow down OpenAI.” The company has also issued a subpoena to Meta regarding its role in Musk’s substantial takeover bid.
Encode AI is an organization dedicated to promoting safety within artificial intelligence. It recently organized an open letter urging OpenAI to clarify how it intends to uphold its nonprofit mission during corporate restructuring. The group also actively supported California’s landmark AI legislation, SB 53, which became law in September. This bill mandates that major AI firms disclose detailed information about their safety and security protocols.
Calvin described the situation as highly unusual, emphasizing that OpenAI utilized an unrelated legal dispute to target advocates of regulatory measures while the bill was still under legislative consideration. He confirmed that he did not provide any of the requested documents.
In response to inquiries, OpenAI referred to a statement from its chief strategy officer, Aaron Kwon. He explained that the company’s objective was to comprehend the reasons behind Encode’s decision to support Musk’s legal challenge against OpenAI’s shift to a for-profit model. Kwon also noted that it is fairly routine for law enforcement officers to work part-time as process servers.
Adding to the internal scrutiny, Joshua Achiam, OpenAI’s head of mission alignment, publicly responded to Calvin’s account on social media. Achiam wrote that, at potential risk to his career, he felt compelled to state that the situation “doesn’t seem great.” He stressed the importance of avoiding actions that cast the organization as a intimidating force rather than a virtuous one, underscoring the company’s duty to humanity and the exceptionally high standards required to fulfill that mission.
Separately, Tyler Johnston, founder of the AI oversight group The Midas Project, reported that his organization also received subpoenas from OpenAI. Johnston stated that the company requested a comprehensive list of every journalist, congressional office, partner organization, former employee, and member of the public with whom the group had discussed OpenAI’s restructuring.
This article was updated on October 10th to include OpenAI’s official response.
(Source: The Verge)
