171–180 of 1001 posts
Is this a legally enforceable suppression of free speech? If so, are there ways to be open about OpenAI, without triggering punitive action?
After all, at this point, OpenAI:
- Is not open with models
- Is not open with plans
- Does not let former employees be open.
It sure does give us a glimpse into the Future of how Open AI will be!
Is this a legally enforceable suppression of free speech? If so, are there ways to be open about OpenAI, without triggering punitive action?
Also, will Ilya likely have similar contractual bounds, despite the unique role he had at OpenAI? (Sorry for the self-reply. Felt more appropriate than an edit.)
High levels (especially if they were board/exec level) will often have additional obligations on top of rank and file.
From the article:
“““
It turns out there’s a very clear reason for [why no one who had once worked at OpenAI was talking]. I have seen the extremely restrictive off-boarding agreement that contains nondisclosure and non-disparagement provisions former OpenAI employees are subject to. It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it.
If a departing employee declines to sign the document, or if they violate it, they can lose all vested equity they earned during their time at the company, which is likely worth millions of dollars. One former employee, Daniel Kokotajlo, who posted that he quit OpenAI “due to losing confidence that it would behave responsibly around the time of AGI,” has confirmed publicly that he had to surrender what would have likely turned out to be a huge sum of money in order to quit without signing the document.
”””
[0]: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The superalignment team was not focused on that kind of “safety” AFAIK. According to the blog post announcing the team, https://openai.com/index/introducing-superalignment/ > Superintelligence will be the most impactful technology humanity has ever invented, and could help us solve many of the world’s most important problems. But the vast power of superintelligence could also be very dangerous, and could lead to the…
> Superintelligence will be the most impactful technology humanity has ever invented, and could help us solve many of the world’s most important problems. But the vast power of superintelligence could also be very dangerous, and could lead to the disempowerment of humanity or even human extinction. Superintelligence that can be always ensured to have the same values and ethics as current humans, is not a superintelli…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligen...
> our coherent extrapolated volition is "our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted (…) The appeal to an objective through contingent human nature (perhaps expressed, for mathematical purposes, in the form of a utility function or other decision-theoretic formalism), as providing the ultimate criterion of "Friendliness", is an answer to the meta-ethical problem of defining an objective morality; extrapolated volition is intended to be what humanity objectively would want, all things considered, but it can only be defined relative to the psychological and cognitive qualities of present-day, unextrapolated humanity.
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.
That's not enforceable, right? I'm not a lawyer, but even I know no contract can strips you out of rights given by the constitution.
I'm not making any statement about the morality, just that this is not a 1a issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
The superalignment team was not focused on that kind of “safety” AFAIK. According to the blog post announcing the team, https://openai.com/index/introducing-superalignment/ > Superintelligence will be the most impactful technology humanity has ever invented, and could help us solve many of the world’s most important problems. But the vast power of superintelligence could also be very dangerous, and could lead to the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
somebody explained to me early on that you cannot have a contract to have a contract. either initial agreement must state this condition clearly or they are signing another contract at employment termination which is bringing these new terms. IDK why would anyone sign that at termination unless they dangle additional equity. I dont think this BS they are trying to pull would be enforceable at least in California. tho…
Extra respect is due to Jan Leike, then: https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494