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

101–110 of 1001 posts

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

#101

Post by beastman82 »

apsec112 wrote: post #27
jp57 wrote: post #21

The only way I can see this being a valid contract is if the equity grant that they get to keep is a new grant offered the time of signing the exit contract. Any vested equity given as compensation for work could not then be offered again as consideration for signing a new agreement. Maybe the agreement is "we will accelerate vesting of your unvested equity if you sign this new agreement"? If that's the case then it…

It's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release they are asked to sign includes a lifetime no-criticism clause.

ITT: a bunch of laymen thinking their 2 second proposal will outlawyer the team of lawyers who drafted these.

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

#102

Post by istjohn »

photochemsyn wrote: post #41

I refused to sign all these secrecy non-disclosure contracts years ago. You know what? It was the right decision. Even though, as a result, my current economic condition is what most would describe as 'disastrous', at least my mind is my own. All your classified BS, it's not so much. Any competent thinker could have figured it out on their own. Fucking monkeys.

> In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt.[0]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

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

#103

Post by shawn_w »

OldMatey wrote: post #17

Well that's not worrying. /s I am curious how long it will take for Sam to go from being perceived as a hero to a villain and then on to supervillain. Even if they had a massive, successful and public safety team, and got alignment right (which I am highly doubtful about being possible) it is still going to happen as massive portions of white collar workers loose their jobs. Mass protests are coming and he will be an…

When he was fired there was a short window where the prevailing reaction here was "He must have done something /really/ bad." Then opinion changed to "Sam walks on water and the board are the bad guys". Maybe that line of thinking was a mistake.

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

#104

Post by mlhpdx »

photochemsyn wrote: post #41

I refused to sign all these secrecy non-disclosure contracts years ago. You know what? It was the right decision. Even though, as a result, my current economic condition is what most would describe as 'disastrous', at least my mind is my own. All your classified BS, it's not so much. Any competent thinker could have figured it out on their own. Fucking monkeys.

It’s common not to sign them, actually. The people that don’t simply aren’t talking about it much.

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

#105

Post by tptacek »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #78
tptacek wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with Piper's point that these contracts aren't common in tech, but they're hardly unheard of. In 20 years of consulting work I've seen dozens of them. They're not uncommon . This doesn't look uniquely hostile or amoral for OpenAI, just garden-variety.

Well, an AI charity -- so founded on openness that they're called OpenAI -- took millions in donations, everyone's copyright data...only to become effectively for-profit, close down their AI, and inflict a lifetime gag on their employees. In that context, it feels rather amoral.

This to me is like the "don't be evil" thing. I didn't take it seriously to begin with, I don't think reasonable people should have taken it seriously, and so it's not persuasive or really all that interesting to argue about.

People are different! You can think otherwise.

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

#106

Post by singleshot_ »

User23 wrote: post #80

What is criticism anyhow? Feels like you could black knight this hard with clever phrasing. “The company does a fabulous job keeping its employees loyal regardless of circumstances!” “Yes they have the best and toughest employment lawyers in the business! They do a great job using all available leverage to force favorable outcomes from their human resources!” “I have no regrets working there. Their exit agreement has…

If a contract barred me from providing criticism I would not imagine that I could sidestep it by uttering positive criticism unless my counterparty was illiterate and poor at drafting contracts.

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

#107

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

lupire wrote: post #64
YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is true.

I was once fired, ghosted style, for merely being in the same meeting room as a racist corporate ass-clown muting the conference call to make Asian slights and monkey gesticulations. There was no lawsuit or payday because "how would I ever work again?" was the Hobson's choice between let it go and a moral crusade without a way to pay rent.

If instead I were upset that "not enough N are in tech," there isn't a specific incident or person to blame because it'd be a multifaceted situation.

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

#108

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

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

#109

Post by CuriouslyC »

N0b8ez wrote: post #90
refulgentis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Link? Is the ~2 year timeline a common estimate in the field?

They can't even clearly define a test of "AGI" I seriously doubt they're going to reach it in two years. Alternatively, they could define a fairly trivial test and reach it last year.

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

#110

Post by singleshot_ »

mrj wrote: post #97
Melatonic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no lawyer but this sounds like something that would not go well for OpenAI if strongly litigated

Yeah, courts have generally found that this is "under duress" and not enforceable.

Under duress in the contractual world is generally interpreted as “you are about to be killed or maimed.” Economic duress is distinct.
Post reply on HN