Seriously is nothing sacred anymore? Like I think the entirety of OpenAI leadership are scumbags but how is it OK to force someone, anyone, to publish their most private thoughts?

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?

▲

jeffwask 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because he had them on an OpenAI device and when OpenAI lawyers saw them, they knew they would be penalized more if they hid them. This happens a lot, I believe it was a Sony lawsuit where personal emails on work devices exposed a number of affairs unrelated to the case because it was all part of discovery.

▲

arduanika 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> anymore?

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!)

▲

skrebbel 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> > anymore?

> 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.

	▲	jwolfe 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Your work laptop documents are not private personal notes. This is also partially why I do not log in to work accounts on personal devices or personal accounts on work devices.
	▲	eadler 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		NAL but generally familiar with law. 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.
	▲	chuckadams 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Lawyers, priests, doctors, and clinical therapists are specifically protected to varying degrees under the law. As for your own private journals, that's up to the judge to decide whether it's relevant enough to be subpoenaed. Your journal recorded on company property when that company is in litigation probably doesn't stand much chance of protection.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

bombcar 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

cc: lawyer don't do a thing, and wouldn't in this case.

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.

	▲	arduanika 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Correct. I was making a joke, and hoped it would be clear. > snidely-whiplash-esque I do hope this whole thing ends with someone saying "curses, foiled again!"