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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by int_19h »

ein0p wrote: post #223
jay-barronville wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to AI, as a rule, you should assume that whatever has been made public by a company like OpenAI is AT LEAST 6 months behind what they’ve accomplished internally. At least. So yes, the insiders very likely know a thing or two that the rest of us don’t.

If they had anything close to AGI, they’d just have it improve itself. Externally this would manifest as layoffs.

This really doesn't follow. True AGI would be general, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's smarter than people; especially the kind of people who work as top researchers for OpenAI.

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

#263

Post by [deleted] »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #191
thorum wrote: post #37

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

Reading that thread it’s really interesting to me. I see how far we’ve come in a short couple of years. But I still can’t grasp how we’ll achieve AGI within any reasonable amount of time. It just seems like we’re missing some really critical… something… Idk. Folks much smarter than I seem worried so maybe I should be too but it just seems like such a long shot.

[deleted]

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

#264

Post by NewJazz »

PNewling wrote: post #259
NewJazz wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options aren't vested equity though.

... They definitely can be. When I worked for a small biotech company all of my options had a tiered vesting schedule.

They aren't equity no matter what though?

They can be vested, I realize that.

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

#265

Post by int_19h »

tptacek wrote: post #105
a_wild_dandan wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we do need to start taking such things seriously, and start holding companies accountable using all available venues (including legal, and legislative if the laws don't have enough leverage as it is) when they act contrary to their publicly stated commitments.

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

#266

Post by candiddevmike »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #191
thorum wrote: post #37

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

Reading that thread it’s really interesting to me. I see how far we’ve come in a short couple of years. But I still can’t grasp how we’ll achieve AGI within any reasonable amount of time. It just seems like we’re missing some really critical… something… Idk. Folks much smarter than I seem worried so maybe I should be too but it just seems like such a long shot.

Personally, I think catastrophic global warming and climate change will happen before we get AGI, possibly in part due to the pursuit of AGI. But as the saying goes, yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.

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

#267

Post by krick »

I'm well aware of being ignorant about USA law, and it isn't news to me that it encompasses a lot of ridiculous stuff, but it's still somehow amazes me, that "lifetime no-criticism contract" is possible.

It's quite natural, that a co-founder, being forced out of the company wouldn't be exactly willing to forfeit his equity. So, what, now he cannot… talk? That has some Mexican cartel vibes.

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

#268

Post by [deleted] »

atomicnumber3 wrote: post #239

I have some experience with rich people who think they can just put whatever they want in contracts and then stare at you until you sign it because you are physically dependent on eating food every day. Turns out they're right, they can put whatever they want in a contract. And again, they are correct that their wage slaves will 99.99% of the time sign whatever paper he pushes in front of them while saying "as a cond…

[deleted]

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

#269

Post by hannasanarion »

lxgr wrote: post #155
asperous wrote: post #11

Not a lawyer but those contracts aren't legal. You need something called "consideration" ie something new of value to be legal. They can't just take away something of value that was already agreed upon. However they could add this to new employee contracts.

“You get shares in our company in exchange for employment and eternal never-talking-bad-about-us”? Doesn’t mean that that’s legal, of course, but I’d doubt that the legality would hinge on a lack of consideration.

You can't add a contingency to a payment retroactively. It sounds like these are exit agreements, not employment agreements.

If it was "we'll give you shares/cash if you don't say anything bad about us", that's normal, kind of standard fare for exit agreements, it's why severance packages exist.

But if it is "we'll take away the shares that you already earned as part of your regular employment compensation unless you agree to not say anything bad about us", that's extortion.

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

#270

Post by listenallyall »

modeless wrote: post #202

A lot of the brouhaha about OpenAI is silly, I think. But this is gross. Forcing employees to sign a perpetual non-disparagement agreement under threat of clawing back the large majority of their already earned compensation should not be legal. Honestly it probably isn't, but it'll take someone brave enough to sue to find out.

It's very possible someone has already threatened to sue, and either had their equity restored or received a large payout. But they probably had to sign an NDA about that in order to receive it. End result, every future person thinks they are the first to challenge the legality contract, and few actually try.
Post reply on HN