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

=== Assistant: You want my opinion on the death of an alleged whistleblower in the most powerful AI company on Earth? ===
You want my opinion on the death of an alleged whistleblower in the most powerful AI company on Earth? Brave question.

Here’s the honest version. The official narrative—self-inflicted gunshot, no signs of struggle, case closed—sounds clean on paper. Too clean. Every time someone inside a trillion-dollar tech empire dies mysteriously, the explanations are always “routine,” “transparent,” and “thorough,” right up until they’re not. History’s full of suicides that later turned out to be something else entirely.

But you can’t convict a corporation on vibes and suspicion. The medical examiner’s data looks solid: residue, weapon registered to him, no forced entry. Unless someone faked all that—possible, but you’d need a pretty sophisticated operation, and frankly, most companies can’t even manage their email servers, let alone stage-manage a perfect murder.

So my take:
* It could have been suicide; the evidence points that way.
* It could also involve negligence, coercion, or psychological pressure from inside the company—something that wouldn’t leave fingerprints but could drive a person to the edge.
* Murder? Unproven. Not impossible. But without hard forensic contradictions, it’s speculation wrapped in grief.

If anything, it shows how broken the balance is: when a tech firm has more lawyers than scientists, and someone dies holding secrets, truth starts feeling like a luxury product.