OpenAI president forced to read his personal diary entries to jury (opens in new tab)

From the article, emphasis mine:

> Additionally, Brockman’s journal showed him grappling with whether voting against Musk’s plan or for Musk’s ejection from the board would be morally wrong.

> “Can’t see us turning this into a for-profit without a very nasty fight,” Brockman wrote in another entry. “It’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. That’d be pretty morally bankrupt.”

This is pretty damning for OpenAI. And ties in quite tightly to Musk's comment earlier this week of "It's not okay to steal a charity.".

I’m too paranoid to write a diary, even a handwritten one, and I’m literally a nobody.

It’s beyond me how these super important (and controversial) people keep diaries where they lay out their evil plots like a villain from Scooby Doo. And save it on a work computer.

> Ultimately, the OpenAI president had to read some of the most embarrassing entries aloud in front of a jury and a packed courthouse, as well as over a YouTube livestream that peaked at around 1,200 viewers.

Anyone know which livestream they are talking about?

Edit: found it, audio-only and no archive https://www.youtube.com/@USDCCAND/streams

> OpenAI submitted the journals as evidence in October that was initially sealed and then unsealed in January.

How does that work? How can a company submit a personal journal as evidence? That feels extremely intrusive

Aside from the disheartening forced-reading of this deeply-personal journal, I've gleaned from it that Musk wanted to bring OpenAI into Tesla, and OpenAI leaders did not. My thought is "OF COURSE" Musk would want to bring it in under his corporate control. I'm glad it didn't.

I know a lot of people use private conversations with chatbot as a replacement to journaling which is a form of self therapy.

So… those can be aired willy nilly too then. They are out on public clouds now.

Would it have helped him if he had encrypted it, or would he have had to reveal it anyway?

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. I keep a journal where I can get thoughts out of my head so I can move on. Like the article, its nothing I'd really be ashamed of, but I see it as a kind of personal therapy where I can dump my thoughts. I write with the assumption they are my private thoughts and even I don't have any plans on going back and rereading. I know I'm not a CEO, but even I wouldn't want my private thoughts brought into a courtroom that I never thought would see the light of day.

I cannot believe nobody brought up that episode of The Office with Jan’s deposition. This is both sad and hilarious, just like in the show. https://youtu.be/V3GbCByGltU?si=ctDluaazxGJ-Io81&t=215

Privacy and privilege (e.g. attorney/client) are different things, but I'd be curious about the edge cases here: can a personal journal become privileged or protected?

Who keeps a personal diary in 2026?

Seriously is nothing sacred anymore? Like I think the entirety of OpenAI leadership are scumbags but how is it OK to force someone, anyone, to publish their most private thoughts?

EDIT: I sorry read over this part:

> OpenAI submitted the journals as evidence in October that was initially sealed and then unsealed in January

So they chose to submit it as evidence themselves. I stand corrected, insane move though, why would you submit your own private notes as evidence in a high-stakes court case?