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.”

  • sunzu@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    Strong down vote ratio…

    Can’t tell if “AI” bros or the spooks are butthurt today.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

        • Morgoon@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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”

        • Perfide@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

          • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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.

            • Perfide@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • yamanii@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

                • Perfide@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  He accepted Russian citizenship for his own safety so he could never be extradited to the U.S

                  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?

                  yeah, I’m not shocked he didn’t do something that would come with a big risk in Russia.

                  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.

      • BezzelBob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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

    • SkyNTP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Alternate explanation, from the normies: it’s a purely speculative claim with minimal argument.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes, a speculative claim … from someone who absolutely knows what the fuck they’re talking about.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yes, it should start at not trusting them, but this move distinctly and specifically means they are EVEN LESS trustworthy.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

    • Lee Duna@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

        • swayevenly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

            • sunzu@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

          • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • gt5@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              No, it’s both. It can be an intelligence agent. It can also be equivalent to the n word

          • sunzu@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Citation to the most authoritative source on the net: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spook.

            spooks

            1. Government intelligence agents, see G-men.

            2. Anyone involved in espionage.

            3. Careful on this phone line, there could be spooks listening in.

            4. 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

    • Halosheep@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.