> Activist group Stop AI, known for organizing protests at OpenAI’s San Francisco office, also claimed responsibility. The group stated that Altman’s subpoena was tied to their upcoming trial, in which members will face charges for non-violent demonstrations aimed at halting what they describe as AI’s “existential threat to humanity.”
https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/openai-sam-altman-subpeo...
Sam isn't hiding from subpoenas. How to serve him isn't really an issue. His lawyers would be very easy to find.
Do you know Sam and his intentions and tactics? (I don't.)
Quote from the article:
> "Valerie Ibarra, a spokesperson for the public law office, provided SFGATE with a statement on Tuesday: “An investigator from the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office lawfully served a subpoena on Mr. Altman because he is a potential witness in a pending criminal case. Our investigators first made several prior attempts to serve the subpoena at Altman’s company headquarters and via its online portal.”"
The investigator made several prior attempts without success. So while I can't characterize his actions as 'hiding', I cant say that "His lawyers would be very easy to find". Additionally, depending on the type of subpoena, it may have to be served to the named individual, not to his lawyers.
Second, I don't understand how we can say that it makes sense to make headlines when the investigator is a part of the Public Defenders office, not a member of the Stop AI group. The investigator should have no desire to make headlines, unless he has some personal motive.
In this case the public defender is issuing a subpoena for records in relation to the trespassing case. This is in relation to OpenAI, not Sam Altman. They could serve any reasonably senior person in the company. It can also be done by certified mail.
jprd•1h ago