Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#61

Post by TaylorAlexander »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #29
antiframe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is not the government. Yet.

What do I do with this information?

I think we need to face the fact that these companies aren’t trustworthy in upholding their own stated morals. We need to consider whether streaming video from our phone to a complex AI system that can interpret everything it sees might have longer term privacy implications. When you think about it, a cloud AI system is an incredible surveillance machine. You want to talk to it about important questions in your life, and it would also be capable of dragnet surveillance based on complex concepts like “show me all the people organizing protests” etc.

Consider for example that when Amazon bought the Ring security camera system, it had a “god mode” that allowed executives and a team in Ukraine unlimited access to all camera data. It wasn’t just a consumer product for home users, it was a mass surveillance product for the business owners:

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/amazon-ring-security-cam...

The EFF has more information on other privacy issues with that system:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-s...

These big companies and their executives want power. Withholding huge financial gain from ex employees to maintain their silence is one way of retaining that power.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#62

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

wongarsu wrote: post #46
exe34 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i worked at McDonald's in the mid-late 00s, I'm pretty sure there was a clause about never saying anything negative about them. i think they were a great employer!

Sorry, someone at corporate has interpreted this statement as criticism. Please give back all equity, or an amount equivalent to its current value.

Also, whatever fries left in the bottom of the bag. That’s corporate property buddy.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#63

Post by refulgentis »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #53
thorum wrote: post #37

Extra respect is due to Jan Leike, then: https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494

I think superalignment is absurd, and model "safety" is the modern AI company's "think of the children" pearl clutching pretext to justify digging moats. All this after sucking up everyone's copyright material as fair use, then not releasing the result, and profiting off it. All due respect to Jan here, though. He's being (perhaps dangerously) honest, genuinely believes in AI safety, and is an actual research expert,…

Adding a disclaimer for people unaware of context (I feel same as you):

OpenAI made a large commitment to super-alignment in the not-so-distant past. I beleive mid-2023. Famously, it has always taken AI Safety™ very seriously.

Regardless of anyone's feelings on the need for a dedicated team for it, you can chalk to one up as another instance of OpenAI cough leadership cough speaking out of both sides of it's mouth as is convenient. The only true north star is fame, glory, and user count, dressed up as humble "research"

To really stress this: OpenAI's still-present cofounder shared yesterday on a podcast that they expect AGI in ~2 years and ASI (superpassing human intelligence) by end of the decade.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#64

Post by lupire »

YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #45
a_wild_dandan wrote: post #16

Is this a legally enforceable suppression of free speech? If so, are there ways to be open about OpenAI, without triggering punitive action?

I believe a better solution to this would be to spread the following sentiment: "Since it's already illegal to tell disparaging lies, the mere existence of such a clause implies some disparaging truths to which the party is aware." Always assuming the worst around hidden information provides a strong incentive to be transparent.

Humans respond better to concrete details than abstractions.

It's a lot of mental work to rally the emotion of revulsion over the evil they might be doing that is kept secret.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#65

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

worik wrote: post #54
toomuchtodo wrote: post #24

I would strongly encourage anyone faced with this ask by OpenAI to file a complaint with the NLRB as well as speak with an employment attorney familiar with California statute.

[flagged]

Talking to a lawyer is **never** bad advice.

Especially in CA where companies will make you THINK they have power which they don’t.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#66

Post by toomuchtodo »

worik wrote: post #54
toomuchtodo wrote: post #24

I would strongly encourage anyone faced with this ask by OpenAI to file a complaint with the NLRB as well as speak with an employment attorney familiar with California statute.

[flagged]

> Over the last 10 years or so, I have filed a number of high-profile unfair labor practice charges against coercive statements, with many of those statements being made on Twitter. I file those charges even though I am merely a bystander, not an employee or an aggrieved party.

> Every time I do this, some individuals ask how I am able to file charges when I don’t have “standing” because I am not the one who is being injured by the coercive statements.

> The short answer is that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has no standing requirement.

> Employees reasonably fear retaliation from their boss if they file charges. So we want to make it possible for people who cannot be retaliated against to do it instead. [1]

I believe the Vox piece shared in this thread [2] is enough for anyone to hit submit on an NLRB web form and get the ball rolling. Snapshot in the Wayback Machine (all the in scope tweets archived in archive.today|is|ph), just in case.

[1] https://mattbruenig.com/2024/01/26/why-there-is-no-standing-...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40394955

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#67

Post by lupire »

impossiblefork wrote: post #55
antiframe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is not the government. Yet.

Free speech is a much more general notion than anything having to do with governments. The first amendment is a US free speech protection, but it's not prototypical. You can also find this in some other free speech protections, for example that in the UDHR >Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart inf…

UDHR is not law so it's irrelevant to a question of law.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#68

Post by johnnyanmac »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #13

Why have other companies not done the same? This seems legally tenuous to only now be attempted. Will we see burger flippers prevented from discussing the rat infestation at their previous workplace? (Don’t have X) - is there a timeline? Can I curse out the company on my deathbed, or would their lawyers have the legal right to try and clawback the equity from the estate?

For the burger metaphor, you need to have leverage over the employee to make them not speak. No one at Burger King is getting severance when they are kicked out, let alone equity.

As for other companies that can pay: I can only assume that the cost to bribe skilled workers isn't worth the perceived risk and cost of lawsuits from the downfall (which they may or may not be able to settle). Generative AI is still very young and under a lot of scrutiny on all fronts, so the risk of a whistle blower at this stage may shape the entire future of the industry at large.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#70

Post by kfrzcode »

worik wrote: post #54
toomuchtodo wrote: post #24

I would strongly encourage anyone faced with this ask by OpenAI to file a complaint with the NLRB as well as speak with an employment attorney familiar with California statute.

[flagged]

alternative take: get Elon's attention on X and spin it as employer-enforced censorship and get his legal team to take on the battle
Post reply on HN