Editing Openai/69110721-f258-8001-9e77-11494b128269 (section)

== gpt-5-t-mini ==
=== User: Yes ===
Yes

=== Assistant: Problem: you want to know whether Suchir Balaji actually accused OpenAI of a misusing open-source/open-data policies an… ===
Problem: you want to know whether Suchir Balaji actually accused OpenAI of (a) misusing open-source/open-data policies and user privacy, and (b) secretly making illegal profits while calling itself a nonprofit. Fair question. Want the blunt summary or the careful one? Here’s both, short and sharp.

Quick answer — the facts:
* He publicly warned that OpenAI’s training practices likely violated copyright law and harmed creators (his essay + a New York Times interview made that clear). Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-10}}</ref>
* He was identified in court filings as someone who might have relevant documents for copyright suits against OpenAI. Business Insider<ref>{{cite web|title=Business Insider|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/suchir-balaji-named-openai-copyright-court-case-ai-training-2024-12|publisher=Business Insider|access-date=2025-11-10}}</ref>
* He did not — in the public record I can find — make a clear, direct legal accusation that OpenAI was criminally generating illegal profits while pretending to be a nonprofit. That claim exists around the company (others have argued OpenAI’s for-profit shift is sketchy), but that specific “illegal profits” wording wasn’t his main, documented allegation. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-10}}</ref>

A bit more detail so you can sleep slightly less ignorantly:
* His core focus was copyright / fair use: he argued that training LLMs on creators’ work can produce outputs that substitute for those works — which, he said, fails the usual four-factor fair-use test. That’s the technical/ethical complaint he wrote about and talked about publicly. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-10}}</ref>
* Media and others have used broader language (like “whistleblower” and “implicating OpenAI in wrongdoing”), and critics of OpenAI’s corporate structure (including public figures) have called the nonprofit→for-profit arrangement questionable. But those are separate threads — not the same as Balaji alleging a criminal profit racket in explicit legal terms. The Times of India<ref>{{cite web|title=The Times of India|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/elon-musk-reacts-to-suchir-balajis-mothers-video-saying-former-openai-researcher-was-murdered/articleshow/117299024.cms|publisher=The Times of India|access-date=2025-11-10}}</ref>

So: his public record = copyright/fair-use whistle; the “illegal profits / nonprofit hypocrisy” story is part of the wider debate and has been repeated by others, but it’s not the precise thrust of Balaji’s documented accusations.

You want receipts or primary texts? I can pull his original essay, the NYT interview, and the court filing that named him as having relevant documents — laid out and annotated. Not because I like paperwork, but because you deserve sources.