Edward Snowden wrote on social media to his nearly 6 million followers, "Do not ever trust @OpenAI ... You have been warned," following the appointment of retired U.S. Army General Paul Nakasone to the board of the artificial intelligence technology company.
Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) subcontractor, was charged with espionage by the Justice Department in 2013 after leaking thousands of top-secret records, exposing the agency's surveillance of private citizens' information.
In a Friday morning post on X, formerly Twitter, Snowden reshared a post providing information on OpenAI's newest board member. Nakasone is a former NSA director, and the longest-serving leader of the U.S. Cyber Command and chief of the Central Security Service. He retired from the NSA, a position he held since 2018, in February.
Snowden wrote in an X post, "They've gone full mask-off: do not ever trust @OpenAI or its products (ChatGPT etc.) There is only one reason for appointing an @NSAGov Director to your board. This is a willful, calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on Earth." He concluded the post, writing, "You have been warned."
Strong down vote ratio...
Can't tell if "AI" bros or the spooks are butthurt today.
There are a significant number of people who also really hate Snowden for various reasons (he's a traitor, he ran to Russia, etc.) and don't care whether or not he's making a good point.
He didn’t really choose Russia, it was the only country that would protect him from rendition.
Not even that. He was headed to Cuba, the US government forced him to be in Russia.
"NSA leaker Edward Snowden got stuck at a Moscow airport after Cuba, feeling pressure from Washington, warned that it would not allow an Aeroflot flight from Russia to land in Havana if he were aboard"
And sadly Cuba is all too aware of how petty the USA can be.
I'm not justifying their reasons, I'm just explaining that's what some of them say.
Oh I know that Mr Squid. I was just adding some context. :)
Maybe at first it was a lack of options, but he's absolutely become a Russian asset since then. Doesn't mean he's wrong about OpenAI, but still.
Would love some sources for that claim, if it isn’t just conjecture.
Edit: Nice to be downvoted for not taking everything at face value and questioning people’s claims.
He's a Russian PR win, but I haven't seen him be especially pro-Putin or anything.
He's not overtly pro-putin, but he did accept Russian citizenship and was denying the possibility of Ukraine being invaded until like literally the day before the invasion started, which was long after it was obvious Russia was planning to invade.
It's as if the dude is protecting his life or something, maybe if the US didn't want to basically kill him for exposing PRISM to the world.
He accepted Russian citizenship for his own safety so he could never be extradited to the U.S. and yeah, I'm not shocked he didn't do something that would come with a big risk in Russia.
So neither of those really work as accusations.
He got Russian citizenship less than 2 years ago. Why was extradition suddenly a concern when it wasn't for the previous near decade he had lived there without citizenship?
That's the thing, he didn't need to do anything. He could've just not said anything at all, but instead he was outright claiming the idea of Russia invading Ukraine was nothing but US propaganda up until like literally a day(iirc) before the invasion actually started.
You could argue he's only acting as a Russian asset for his own safety, but he's still acting as a Russian asset.
I always find it hilarious for the reasons people hate snowden, like I'm sure it's pretty well known by know that he didn't choose Russia, the US forced him to become stuck there when they voided his passport, also idk how they consider revealing illegal crimes against the people as being a trader
AI bros. Most of their investment is wrapped up in OpenAI being glorified
Alternate explanation, from the normies: it's a purely speculative claim with minimal argument.
Yes, a speculative claim ... from someone who absolutely knows what the fuck they're talking about.
That’s not good enough. There are countless cases throughout history of professors, scientists, and other public authority figures who have made well-reasoned, well-supported and argued claims and also made completely unsubstantiated rubbish claims.
This is an unsubstantiated appeal to authority. Snowden is saying “trust me” but refusing to elaborate. Well, sorry, but no.
OpenAI hiring a former NSA director raises a lot of questions and we in the public have the right to demand answers. If OpenAI refuses to answer or is otherwise evasive about their motives then we have genuine reason to be suspicious.
I think overall we should treat ALL cloud service providers with the same degree of suspicion, regardless of who they hire. They are handling our personal data which is a serious responsibility that should not be betrayed.
However, I think there is a legitimate reason for OpenAI making this hire: they want to market their language models as a tool for automated signals intelligence analysis. Hiring a former NSA director puts them on a fast track to getting the opportunities and intelligence community contacts they seek.
It is ABSOLUTELY good enough when the question is about TRUST.
He's not making positive claims that specific things will happen. He's saying don't trust putting a wolf in charge of the hen house.
The fact you do not understand this basic tenant of life is frankly pathetic.
And I’m saying you shouldn’t be trusting any of these cloud providers implicitly, regardless of who they hire. A company needs to demonstrate trustworthiness first. Starting off from a position of trust is foolish.
Yes, it should start at not trusting them, but this move distinctly and specifically means they are EVEN LESS trustworthy.
There is deff speculative element to it. We dont have view of the inner workings and unlikely to see it besides bread crumbs that get leaked over years and astroturfed by the fake news.
People still relying on propaganda networks do have weird idea that they knows what's up.. I guess it is easier to be simping for dudes in power after all. Makes you sleep better at night.
I guess someone here said that Snowden is behind the times and his comments are not relevant? And try to downplaying something bigger that Snowden might suggest.
Yeah I don't get it either
How do you see that?
I think because they're on Kbin?
The ratio?
24/150.
When I commented that it was more like 15/40
Are you from the UK?
Am I utilizing a britishism?
Was looking up if that word meant something else and the first result was a British show called Spooks. My mom used to watch it but I didn't recognize it because it was called MI-5 in North America since spook is a racial slur. Atleast it is in the US.
I have never heard anyone say that as a racial slur and I grew up with a bunch of racists. Historically it was, at least in some parts of the u.s.
I love William Gibson's 'Spook Country' from 2007. I don't remember any controversy about the title then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spook_Country
spook as in undesirable government creep?
because that title alone can be interpenetrated so many different ways without context
PS i checked the wiki but now that i know the other meaning, i likely explains some of the weird takes i got in the past.
I always knew of spook as a racial slur, but never heard it used that way. Spook was always used as a government intelligence officer, like CIA , FBI , NSA , MI6.
I've only heard it once, in Back to the Future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Hb-PhNLT0
Spook is a term for intelligence agents. It is not a racial slur. Whoever you know that used it as a slur made it a slur by themselves.
An easy way to see it's not a racial slur in America is it's use in culture, such as the X-Files.
No, it’s both. It can be an intelligence agent. It can also be equivalent to the n word
I gave multiple references in this thread.
Citation to the most authoritative source on the net: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spook.
spooks
Government intelligence agents, see G-men.
Anyone involved in espionage.
Careful on this phone line, there could be spooks listening in.
I heard this place was crawling with spooks, some kind of weapon of mass destruction is being sold or something. by Alan May 9, 2004
Not sure if you're willfully ignoring the first several search results from google but here is some help.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/spook
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/spook_n?tl=true
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/spook
Also, I just happened to rewatch Back to the Future yesterday so here's another one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Hb-PhNLT0
i pulled the top definition from the slang dictionary. i was not aware of other uses of the term nor that's how i used it.
is there something specific you want from me?
My initial question. Just wondering if you're from the UK but I can guess you aren't.
I see. Nahh. Not from UK learned that term in the US tho. Only heard it used n context of the security apparatus being creeps.
Yeah I had no idea there was another use for that word.
There is a surprisingly large amount of bot humpers on this site.
I would downvote simply because this type of community, "fuck whatever" exists solely as an echo chamber of internet hate train and is unlikely to ever produce anything of value.
I would claim that it's better to downvote to prevent other people from finding extremely biased posts from a one sided community such as this. There is no arguing in good faith here, only tribalism.