This just as a reminder: Even if this is to turn out to really 100% be a suicide, that just means they were able to silence him by driving him into suicide - basically by all important metrics the same as a corporate assassination with extra steps.
It can mean that, but it’s also possible that he already had psychological issues. While the entire thing stinks and my first instinct is to assume foul play as well, it’s still important not to jump to conclusions. The reason is simple: If there’s a real case of corporate murder, then people will take it less seriously due to past conspiracy theories.
Okay, that is fair enough - although one small thing I’d add is “psychological issues not greatly exacerbated by his former employer” - where I also don’t think intentionality is important, as long as they callously don’t consider the potential of that exacerbation.
Thing is: psychological issues don’t exist in a vacuum. For example - let’s say he was robbed of all perspectives to ever work again in a field he was passionate about by his former employer de facto “blacklisting” him - they surely did not explicitly have this outcome in mind, but they accepted it as a possibility. Similar situation with the high suicide rates in countries like South Korea - they don’t exist the way they are because of independently existing, isolated mental illness, but because of a material system that interacts with, and sets the conditions of, psychological development.
So, you are right, it’s true that it could be, that it ends up as the result of a completely unrelated mental illness. But I’d be wary to take reports like “he actually had a diagnosis of depressive disorder” as simply washing OpenAI clean of all responsibility.
This just as a reminder: Even if this is to turn out to really 100% be a suicide, that just means they were able to silence him by driving him into suicide - basically by all important metrics the same as a corporate assassination with extra steps.
It can mean that, but it’s also possible that he already had psychological issues. While the entire thing stinks and my first instinct is to assume foul play as well, it’s still important not to jump to conclusions. The reason is simple: If there’s a real case of corporate murder, then people will take it less seriously due to past conspiracy theories.
Okay, that is fair enough - although one small thing I’d add is “psychological issues not greatly exacerbated by his former employer” - where I also don’t think intentionality is important, as long as they callously don’t consider the potential of that exacerbation.
Thing is: psychological issues don’t exist in a vacuum. For example - let’s say he was robbed of all perspectives to ever work again in a field he was passionate about by his former employer de facto “blacklisting” him - they surely did not explicitly have this outcome in mind, but they accepted it as a possibility. Similar situation with the high suicide rates in countries like South Korea - they don’t exist the way they are because of independently existing, isolated mental illness, but because of a material system that interacts with, and sets the conditions of, psychological development.
So, you are right, it’s true that it could be, that it ends up as the result of a completely unrelated mental illness. But I’d be wary to take reports like “he actually had a diagnosis of depressive disorder” as simply washing OpenAI clean of all responsibility.