Except no one really disputes that training on copyrighted data and text is going on. The question is whether that is OK from a legal perspective. Which is a matter for the courts and the legislature.
Courts in the relevant jurisdictions don't work on "no one really disputes."
It would have to be _proven_ in a court, which involves evidence and testimony, and if the whistleblower was in a good position to provide credible testimony then his death would likely make it harder to do prove copyright violations have taken place.
I'm pretty sure any competent lawyer would stipulate that, in many/most cases, training is happening on copyrighted information. I'm also pretty sure that OpenAI is not arguing that all their training data is either licensed or they own the copyrights to. (Some companies, perhaps Adobe?, have been more conservative.) Perhaps I'm wrong. But I haven't heard that argument publicly and I would need to be convinced.
There is sufficiently convincing evidence for an investigation.
People were lured into locations, where they were vulnerable, where they didn't want to participate; where it was by external forces (they had a lack of agency), and then they died, all to the one-way benefit of some party.
More than three intersections, so its not coincidence.
This happens once, its a one-off but a couple of times, and you can no longer be permissive in your presumptions and reasoning, and must be much more restrictive.
3 times, in a short period of time (relatively speaking), is the magic number in statistics where given the astronomical number of possibilities, it happened the same way.
It indicates a trend which is more than deserving further investigation, and associated resources.
When the government cannot protect whistleblowers, the rule of law breaks down in a very public way. The rule by law which takes its place, letting the corrupt benefit, is just a stand in before collapse into increasing trends towards violence.
If the law is unable to hold people to account equally, with access, independent judiciary, transparency, and fulfilling its purpose of non-violent resolution, then it fails as a rule of law, and becomes a rule by law. Just like the events that happened to the Colonists in 1776, and the many abuses that led to uprising... when the courts failed and General Gage took over.
The primary purpose of the courts is equitable non-violent conflict resolution to the law. Its a pivotal pillar of civilized society, when people see it has failed, they may go for the brass verdict instead of volunteering themselves for a kafkaesque suicide court.
Feel free to investigate all you want, if you personally find there to be convincing, non-circumstantial evidence that the dude was explicitly killed by openAI.
People were lured into locations, where they were vulnerable, where they didn't want to participate; where it was by external forces (they had a lack of agency), and then they died, all to the one-way benefit of some party.
This is a contrived description that could apply to any number of events, from a policeman dying to someone dying of cancer. Fanciful narratives aren't evidence, though. Evidence is something like: Sally saw someone shoot the dude.
That is not how these things work. The general public can only call for a investigation.
For evidence to be actionable it requires a chain of custody that is preserved from an investigation, independents are often not recognized as meeting these requirements for chain of custody, or the power of subpoena.
You also don't get the former without first having the latter.
What you call a contrived description is in fact what is sometimes called a modus operandus, signature, or staging.
I find it quite the toxic situation to disparage or downplay circumstances where people have lost their lives for nothing more than upholding foundational principles of law.
These after all are country founding principles that are required for us to survive, that all American's should uphold. They didn't get their day in court because they were silenced.