Nathan Calvin, the 29-year-old common counsel of Encode—a small AI coverage nonprofit with simply three full-time workers—revealed a viral thread on X Friday accusing OpenAI of utilizing intimidation ways to undermine California’s SB 53, the California Transparency in Frontier Synthetic Intelligence Act, whereas it was nonetheless being debated. He additionally alleged that OpenAI used its ongoing authorized battle with Elon Musk as a pretext to focus on and intimidate critics, together with Encode, which it implied was secretly funded by Musk.
Calvin’s thread rapidly drew widespread consideration, together with from inside OpenAI itself. Justin Achaim, the corporate’s head of mission alignment, weighed in on X along with his personal thread, written in a private capability, beginning by saying “at what is possibly a risk to my whole career I will say: this doesn’t seem great.”
Former OpenAI workers and outstanding AI security researchers additionally joined the dialog, many expressing concern over the corporate’s alleged ways. Helen Toner, the previous OpenAI board member who resigned after a failed 2023 effort to oust CEO Sam Altman, wrote that some issues the corporate does are nice, however “the dishonesty & intimidation tactics in their policy work are really not.”
“Had they just asked if I’m funded by Musk, I would have been happy to give them a simple ‘man I wish’ and call it a day,” he wrote. “Instead, they asked for what was, practically speaking, a list of every journalist, congressional office, partner organization, former employee, and member of the public we’d spoken to about their restructuring.”
OpenAI referred Fortune to a put up by chief technique officer Jason Kwon on Friday wherein Kwon stated Encode’s determination to help Musk within the lawsuit, and the group’s not “fully disclosed” funding, “raises legitimate questions about what is going on.”
“We wanted to know, and still are curious to know, whether Encode is working in collaboration with third parties who have a commercial competitive interest adverse to OpenAI,” Kwon wrote, noting that subpoenas are an ordinary methodology of gathering data in any litigation. “The stated narrative makes it sound like something it wasn’t.” Kwon included an excerpt of the subpoena which he stated confirmed all of the requests for paperwork OpenAI made.
As reported by the San Francisco Commonplace in September, Calvin was served with a subpoena from OpenAI in August, delivered by a sheriff’s deputy as he and his spouse had been sitting right down to dinner. Encode, the group he works for, was additionally served. The article reported that OpenAI appeared involved that a few of its most vocal critics had been being funded by Elon Musk and different billionaire opponents — and was focusing on these nonprofit teams regardless of providing little proof to help the declare.
Calvin wrote Friday that Encode—which he emphasised will not be funded by Musk—had criticized OpenAI’s restructuring and labored on AI rules, together with SB 53. Within the subpoena, OpenAI requested for all of Calvin’s non-public communications on SB 53.
“I believe OpenAI used the pretext of their lawsuit against Elon Musk to intimidate their critics and imply that Elon is behind all of them,” he stated, referring to the continuing authorized battle between OpenAI and Musk over the corporate’s authentic nonprofit mission and governance. Encode had filed an amicus transient within the case supporting a few of Musk’s arguments.
“I didn’t want to go into a ton of detail about it while SB 53 negotiations were still ongoing and we were trying to get it through,” he stated. “I didn’t want it to become a story about Encode and OpenAI fighting, rather than about the merits of the bill, which I think are really important. So I wanted to wait until the bill was signed.”
He added that one more reason he determined to talk out now was a current LinkedIn put up from Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s head of world affairs, describing the corporate as having “worked to improve” SB 53 — a characterization Calvin stated felt deeply at odds along with his expertise over the previous few months.
Encode was based by Sneha Revanur, who launched the group in 2020 when she was 15 years previous. “She is not a full time employee yet because she’s still in college,” stated Sunny Gandhi, Encode’s vp of political affairs. “It’s terrifying to have a half a trillion dollar company come after you,” Gandhi stated.
Encode formally responded to OpenAI’s subpoena, Calvin stated, stating that it could not be turning over any paperwork as a result of the group will not be funded by Elon Musk. “They have not said anything since,” he added.
Writing on X, OpenAI’s Achaim publicly urged his firm to have interaction extra constructively with its critics. “Elon is certainly out to get us, and the man has got an extensive reach,” he wrote. “But there is so much that is public that we can fight him on. And for something like SB 53, there are so many ways to engage productively.” He added, “We can’t be doing things that make us into a frightening power instead of a virtuous one. We have a duty and a mission to all of humanity, and the bar to pursue that duty is remarkably high.”
Calvin described the episode because the “most stressful period of my professional life.” He added that he makes use of and will get worth from OpenAI merchandise and that the corporate conducts and publishes AI security analysis that’s “worthy of genuine praise.” Many OpenAI workers, he stated care rather a lot about OpenAI being a power for good on this planet.
“I want to see that side of OAI, but instead I see them trying to intimidate critics into silence,” he wrote. “Does anyone believe these actions are consistent with OpenAI’s nonprofit mission to ensure that AGI benefits humanity?”
Fortune International Discussion board returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and international leaders will collect for a dynamic, invitation-only occasion shaping the way forward for enterprise. Apply for an invite.
