I'm confused by the term "whistleblower" here. Was anything actual released that wasn't publicly known?
It seems like he just disagreed with whether it was "fair use" or not, and it was notable because he was at the company. But the facts were always known, OpenAI was training on public copyrighted text data. You could call him an objector, or internal critic or something.
It seems like he just disagreed with whether it was "fair use" or not, and it was notable because he was at the company. But the facts were always known, OpenAI was training on public copyrighted text data. You could call him an objector, or internal critic or something.