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

51–60 of 1001 posts

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

#51

Post by tptacek »

ethbr1 wrote: post #25
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.

"Legal" seems like a fuzzy line to OpenAI's leadership. Pushing unenforceable scare-copy to get employees to self-censor sounds on-brand.

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.

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

#52

Post by w10-1 »

ryandrake wrote: post #33

Non-disparagement clauses seem so petty and pathetic. Really? Your corporation is so fragile and thin-skinned that it can't even withstand someone saying mean words ? What's next? Forbidding ex-employees from sticking their tongue at you and saying "nyaa nyaa nyaa?"

Modern AI companies depend entirely on goodwill and being trusted by their customers.

So yes, they're that fragile.

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

#53

Post by a_wild_dandan »

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, unlike me.

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

#55

Post by impossiblefork »

antiframe wrote: post #23
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?

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 information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

doesn't refer to states at all.

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

#57

Post by gremlions »

throwup238 wrote: post #28
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…

> 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. He's already perceived by some as a bit of a scoundrel, if not yet a villain, because of World Coin. I bet he'll hit supervillain status right around the time that ChatGPT BattleBots storm Europe.

Plus what he (allegedly) did to his sister when she was a child: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37785072

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

#58

Post by mkl »

apsec112 wrote: post #39
dakial1 wrote: post #38

What if I sell my equity? Can I criticize them then?

()

That's not what that article says, if I'm understanding correctly: "PPUs all have the same value associated with them and, during a tender offer, investors purchase PPUs directly from employees. OpenAI makes offers and values their PPUs based on the most recent price investors have paid to purchase employee PPUs."

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

#59

Post by Melatonic »

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.

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

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

#60

Post by lupire »

tptacek wrote: post #51
ethbr1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Legal" seems like a fuzzy line to OpenAI's leadership. Pushing unenforceable scare-copy to get employees to self-censor sounds on-brand.

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.

as an exit contract? Not part of a severance agreement?

Boomberg famously used this as an employment contract, and it was a campaign scandal for Mike.

Post reply on HN