This is where I stand. I think corporations have assassinated whistleblowers in the past, maybe even the very recent past, but I don't see what they stand to gain here unless they were just sending a message to everyone else.
"sending a message to everyone else" - is a pretty big incentive.
Think about Boeing's whistleblowers.
Even if they do not kill them directly, they bury them under so much legal fees that they are financially ruined for life, their career broken and through clandestine PR operations destroy even their social life and public image to make an example of them.
Extra suspicious because his plan was to drive home that night to his family. The other side convinced him to stay for one more day of hearing, if I recall. And that night he stayed he mysteriously died.
I'd just point out that assassination doesn't have to be logical activity.
Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudi government were aware of the repercussions of murdering Jamal Khashoggi, if it were found out, but went ahead and did it anyway.
The huge PR headache that continues to hang over Saudi Arabia to this day.
Given their attempts to rebrand into a tourism and entertainment capital, mindshare of "that country and leader who tortured and murdered a journalist" isn't great.
Specifically because not doing it, while a thorn in their side, wouldn't have destabilized the state. They did it because they could and they thought they'd get away with it.
The default is that people don't fucking care. Especially tourists. MBS can organize music festivals every week and people would go if it's not too expensive. Qatar hosted the world cup in 2022, and guess who was picked just recently to host the cup in 2034. Yes, Saudi Arabia.
And saw relatively low amounts of tourists and views from Europe (top 2 in terms of footballing powerhouses, alongside South America which is generally poorer and less people from there can afford to travel). Just comparing the 22 World cup to the 24 Euros was night and day in terms of coverage, pubs showing the games, viewing parties, etc.
I'm painfully aware ... I lost the key to our short term rental somewhere around midnight in Tilburg during the Euro cup, one weekend before the finals and all the hotels/hostels were full in the city (and in Eindhoven and in Berga) ... of course our host's phone was on do-not-disturb, but at least it did not rain that night.
Anyway, the point of sportswashing is not direct monetary profits.
Khashoggi was killed one year after the LV shooting, to the day. The theory is that MBS was staying at the Four Seasons at the Mandalay Bay (~6 floors above Paddock’s room) at the invitation of his cousin Alwaleed bin Talal, who owned the Four Seasons at the time of the shooting. The shooting was a distraction from an assassination attempt on MBS, or potentially a way of flushing him out. The conspiracy presumably involved disgruntled Saudi royal family members and businessmen, many of whom were arrested a month later (several also died in suspicious circumstances) including Alwaleed bin Talal, who was ultimately stripped of much of his wealth (~$20 billion) and influence. Presumably Khashoggi was involved, hence the symbolic date of his execution.
Summary of Confirmable vs. Speculative
• Confirmed by reputable sources:
1. Dates of the events (Las Vegas shooting: October 1–2, 2017; Khashoggi’s murder: October 2, 2018).
2. Alwaleed bin Talal was a major investor in the Four Seasons (including the top floors at Mandalay Bay).
3. Saudi authorities arrested Alwaleed bin Talal and other elites in November 2017 in a sweeping “anti-corruption” operation.
4. Alwaleed bin Talal eventually lost significant wealth or leverage as a result of that crackdown, though precise figures remain undisclosed.
• Not confirmed / purely speculative:
1. MBS staying in the Four Seasons above the Las Vegas shooter.
2. The Las Vegas shooting as a deliberate “distraction” from an assassination attempt.
3. Khashoggi being part of such a plot, or his execution date tying symbolically to the shooting.
Re speculations unconfirmed by reputable sources: a good place to start would be rumble. There’s much more to this interpretation of events, and I’m not wed to it by any means, but it has the virtue of explaining countless strange or unexplained aspects of the shooting.
In fairness, how would you know anything is true and not delusion when you discard everything that doesn't align with your world view as misinformation? If you followed the same process with just about any piece of news today (from mainstream journalism), it would be classified as misinformation.
Prudence dictates that if there are at least three points of intersection that further investigation is needed but more likely than not there is something there, which may not necessarily be what you are looking for.
Coincidences (two points of intersection) rarely occur, but the likelihood of three in a short time horizon is fairly astronomical, now it is statistical which is why further investigation is needed (since there is a certain level of due dilligence for proof). All the same classifying this as misinformation like you did is without proper rational basis.
You may not have noticed this, but you don't resolve your indirections, which more often than not leads to fallacy and false conclusion.
Coming from someone posting with an anti-NATO sentiment, your motivations are pretty obvious. Of course, your duty mandates a lack of personal thought - all you get is the official playbook.
cluckindan, I say this with earnest and sincere positive regard...
Please get some professional help from a place based in external reality. You are clearly deluded and are hallucinating.
I didn't mention anything related to NATO, nothing even remotely close, not here, not in this post, and not anywhere else. You hallucinated this.
I pointed out a contradiction with your criteria for defining misinformation. You also weren't resolving ambiguous indirections, this is fallacy that becomes circular. I pointed it out because when you embrace delusion and the associated blindness, and abandon critical thinking skills, method, and structure, you will expectedly enter a spiral of madness of your own making, suffering along the way.
In some parts of the world today, the insane are culled rather than be a burden on the living draining limited resources. There is no cure for people whose mind unravels, you either manage to recover on your own or you lose it entirely.
I hope you manage to pull yourself together, sincerely I do.
Nice try, russobot. I have seen your post history.
And as far as mental illness goes, you might be projecting there. Sane people seldom post as much and as verbosely as you do.
But then again, you are probably some guy in an office decorated with Russian flags, wielding an AI fine-tuned to screw with English-speaking technologists.
Except no one really disputes that training on copyrighted data and text is going on. The question is whether that is OK from a legal perspective. Which is a matter for the courts and the legislature.
Courts in the relevant jurisdictions don't work on "no one really disputes."
It would have to be _proven_ in a court, which involves evidence and testimony, and if the whistleblower was in a good position to provide credible testimony then his death would likely make it harder to do prove copyright violations have taken place.
I'm pretty sure any competent lawyer would stipulate that, in many/most cases, training is happening on copyrighted information. I'm also pretty sure that OpenAI is not arguing that all their training data is either licensed or they own the copyrights to. (Some companies, perhaps Adobe?, have been more conservative.) Perhaps I'm wrong. But I haven't heard that argument publicly and I would need to be convinced.
Gather and label are two wildly different things that change the entire context. They aren't saying go find this stuff for us, they are saying if people upload it or you find it in the data then, label it as such.
There is sufficiently convincing evidence for an investigation.
People were lured into locations, where they were vulnerable, where they didn't want to participate; where it was by external forces (they had a lack of agency), and then they died, all to the one-way benefit of some party.
More than three intersections, so its not coincidence.
This happens once, its a one-off but a couple of times, and you can no longer be permissive in your presumptions and reasoning, and must be much more restrictive.
3 times, in a short period of time (relatively speaking), is the magic number in statistics where given the astronomical number of possibilities, it happened the same way.
It indicates a trend which is more than deserving further investigation, and associated resources.
When the government cannot protect whistleblowers, the rule of law breaks down in a very public way. The rule by law which takes its place, letting the corrupt benefit, is just a stand in before collapse into increasing trends towards violence.
If the law is unable to hold people to account equally, with access, independent judiciary, transparency, and fulfilling its purpose of non-violent resolution, then it fails as a rule of law, and becomes a rule by law. Just like the events that happened to the Colonists in 1776, and the many abuses that led to uprising... when the courts failed and General Gage took over.
The primary purpose of the courts is equitable non-violent conflict resolution to the law. Its a pivotal pillar of civilized society, when people see it has failed, they may go for the brass verdict instead of volunteering themselves for a kafkaesque suicide court.
Feel free to investigate all you want, if you personally find there to be convincing, non-circumstantial evidence that the dude was explicitly killed by openAI.
People were lured into locations, where they were vulnerable, where they didn't want to participate; where it was by external forces (they had a lack of agency), and then they died, all to the one-way benefit of some party.
This is a contrived description that could apply to any number of events, from a policeman dying to someone dying of cancer. Fanciful narratives aren't evidence, though. Evidence is something like: Sally saw someone shoot the dude.
That is not how these things work. The general public can only call for a investigation.
For evidence to be actionable it requires a chain of custody that is preserved from an investigation, independents are often not recognized as meeting these requirements for chain of custody, or the power of subpoena.
You also don't get the former without first having the latter.
What you call a contrived description is in fact what is sometimes called a modus operandus, signature, or staging.
I find it quite the toxic situation to disparage or downplay circumstances where people have lost their lives for nothing more than upholding foundational principles of law.
These after all are country founding principles that are required for us to survive, that all American's should uphold. They didn't get their day in court because they were silenced.
> That is not how these things work. The general public can only call for a investigation
Sure, anybody can ask anybody else to investigate anything, but also anybody can investigate anything themselves. Of course, not everybody might have full access to everything, but access is earned by presenting convincing evidence thusfar. If you discover any evidence that openAI killed this person, it can be forwarded to authorities, who can use it to justify a more extensive investigation of their own, with subpoenas, etc.
Otherwise, we can expect a normal amount of investigation, like into any other apparent suicide.
> What you call a contrived description is in fact what is sometimes called a modus operandus, signature, or staging
What you previously called evidence, and now only call a modus operandus, signature, or staging, is in fact a contrived, self-serving, narrative description (one which you might have had even before this person passed away). I find that disparaging someone's reasonable skepticism here, is toxic to discourse.
Evidence is something like: Sally saw someone shoot the dude; we found an email from saltman ordering the hit; a video caught the whole murder on tape. Have you seen any actual evidence? I haven't. Only contrived, conspiratorial, self-serving narrative descriptions. Evidence warrants investigations, narratives about hypothetical motives don't.
> they were silenced
The 1 person we're discussing, evidently seems to have taken their own life, rather than being "silenced". It's tragic, but please don't exploit their memory for your own agenda with such unfounded, conspiratorial assertions. Prefix such assertions with "I personally believe...", and if so desired, "...based on no direct evidence thusfar...".
> Sure, anybody can ask anybody else to investigate anything.
Have you dealt with government workers before? Do you know any of them that would re-open an investigation on their own from submissions from an independent person that shows they got it wrong (egg on face)?
What would convincing evidence even look like to spur the necessary action after an investigation has been closed solely based on a medical examiner's report?
If a mistake was made from lack of direct evidence, how many reports are actually amended after-the-fact?
The truth is there isn't anything in the world that would meet sufficient criteria to offset the sloth or the general resistance when the establishment makes a mistake and closes investigations early. To say the contrary amounts to a pleasant idea nothing more.
No government worker is going to create more work for themselves after someone else has closed prelims, which is why this needs to be done carefully and properly the first time not haphazardly closed.
> What you previously called evidence ....
Yes, what I called evidence for an investigation, the operating context was and remains investigation. Same word different context and now you are trying to confuse and change it after the fact.
I don't want to impugn your reading ability/comprehension but this was clear from the very beginning in the first sentence. You are confusing yourself unnecessarily.
> I find that someone disparaging someone's reasonable skepticism here is toxic to discourse.
What you are calling disparaging I and everyone else call disagreeing, and pointing out reasoning flaws.
Disagreement is not toxic, it is a mandatory requirement for intelligent rational conversation. In order to think and generally be intelligent, one must risk being offensive, and in order to learn one must risk being offended.
If neither are possible, because you associate any disagreement as disparagement, you end up in a delusion, divorced and not accounting for reality. This state is not sustainable, and brings with it questions related to Darwin's fitness for individual survival.
> contrived, self-serving, narrative description
While not contrived, of course this is self-serving, as it should be for you too if you are a citizen. If you blew the whistle, died, and someone made it look like you killed yourself before you could relate that information, wouldn't you want justice? Wouldn't you want closure for your family so they can properly grieve?
What you seem to find reasonable, I find highly dubious because it can hardly follow reason when the basis is fallacious, lacking in identity, and circular.
There is a duty of care to properly investigate when people die. When there are many suspicious deaths, even moreso.
When such preliminary investigations are closed immediately because its convenient politically, its the duty of any citizen to call it out and apply the appropriate political pressure so that a proper investigation occurs and justice gets served.
There was physical evidence of blood in areas that don't match the narrative being pushed (suicide), that in fact contradict it.
> The 1 person we're discussing...
It has been inherent in the conversation and media that there have been three whistleblowers that have died in the past year under very suspicious circumstances, that were all ruled suicide with little preliminary investigation, and it sure looks like OpenAI pulled a Boeing.
> Please don't exploit their memory for your own agenda
I have no agenda aside from wanting justice served.
You are talking yourself in a circle, where overwhelming evidence that isn't quantifiable must be present before investigation, when such evidence can only be acquired in an investigation, and ignoring physical evidence reported that contradicts, it is completely irrational. These are well founded assertions that should be properly investigated.
It is clear from your stance that you would err on the side of doing nothing, not even properly investigating when suspicious deaths occur, and the resulting injustice would go unchecked.
If left unchecked by others, those shallow beliefs would lead to great destruction as a society.
When you support doing nothing and not even properly investigating, what you actually support is vigilantism or a brass verdict, and by extension the resulting additional victims (when information is false/incomplete but sufficient to spur others to action).
You either support a working system of non-violent conflict resolution which requires proper investigation upfront, or you end up supporting the latter (through inaction) and all the broad consequences that come with it.
Inaction is also an action. It is slothful to remain inert when action is dictated, but this is commonly seen in complacent people who have succumbed to the banality of evil. Left unchecked, this becomes a radical evil.
> There is a duty of care to properly investigate when people die.
Yes, usually every death is already investigated and run by a medical examiner. This is a proper amount of investigation, unless there is evidence to support a more extensive one.
> When there are many suspicious deaths, even moreso
Is there any evidence linking this death to the others you mention, and any consensus that all of them were suspicious, other than in your personal narrative of events? I have seen neither.
> Have you dealt with government workers before? Do you know any of them that would re-open an investigation on their own from submissions from an independent person that shows they got it wrong (egg on face)?
Obviously they wouldn't (and shouldn't) do it if you didn't have any evidence showing that the previous conclusion was wrong, and I have not seen any presented here.
> What would convincing evidence even look like to spur the necessary action after an investigation has been closed solely based on a medical examiner's report?
I've answered this twice, once in each of the above posts, suggesting what direct, non-circumstantial evidence might look like. A conspiratorial, self-serving personal narrative, conflating unconnected events, unfortunately isn't that.
> You are talking yourself in a circle, where overwhelming evidence that isn't quantifiable must be present before investigation, when such evidence can only be acquired in an investigation
This is actually a circle that you are talking yourself in. Things like search warrants can't be granted on the basis of 'another person [out of billions] also took their own life a while ago while under stress, that seems sus to me', and that doesn't sound like a good justification for focusing resources, either. What, then, are you proposing a new investigation should do?
Have you seen any direct, non-circumstantial evidence? Witnesses? Videos? Communications ordering a hit? Documents discussing it? Anything like that?
I haven't. And unfortunately you did not answer this question previously, so now it must be re-asked. I'm genuinely asking here. Maybe I missed some direct, non-circumstantial evidence. You mentioned something about blood, could you please [link] us to what you're talking about there?
Do you really think any proper investigation can be completed in the time it took them to close this?
For the record, that time was 40 seconds from the time they arrived at the scene. They couldn't even have had the firearm ownership information by that point.
The parents also found blood spatter where it shouldn't have been if it were a suicide, and signs of a struggle in the bathroom.
There needs to be a proper investigation. The duty of care has not been met.
Thanks -- can you please elaborate on the specifics of the "signs of struggle" and "blood spatter", as claimed by the family?
As for the investigation, your link says it was worked on, and is still ongoing. A private autopsy was completed, and from what I can gather, it did not prove the conspiracy either. What specifically are you proposing the investigation do, then?
yes, i think shell is quite well known to have done stuff like this in the niger delta. and brazil has all sorts of shady shenanigans.
but i simply do not believe any conspiracy theory i've seen about domestic US assassination by billion+ dollar company and i think people need to be realistic about the often cluster B individuals who tend to make whistleblower claims and their likelihood of suicide.
Of course people believe this, they were raised on the hundreds of movies and netflix series where this is a common plotline. Most of our worldviews are heavily influenced by the fantasies of unchecked elite power systems above law enforcement and an unlimited pool of elite criminals for hire.
IRL companies barely release public statements without consulting lawyers for fear of minor risk and any criminal willing to do murder-for-hire is likely to be unstable, sloppy, have a history of crime and likely to get arrested in the future, and/or blackmail the company the second they fall on hard times.
well that's you. personally, having worked in many billion dollar corporations - i simply don't see who the stakeholder who would be invested + capable of carrying it out. i would also expect to see a tail of failed/botched/uncovered attempts even if the vast majority were executed perfectly.
certainly, if i'm a billionaire owner, i'm not hiring a hitman
