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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by fartfeatures »

devjab wrote: post #484
fartfeatures wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like standard doomer crap tbh. I'm not sure which is more dangerous at this point - climate change denialism (it isn't happening) or climate change doomerism (we can't stop it, might as well give up)

I’m not sure where you found your information to somehow form that ludicrous last strawman… Climate change is real, you can’t deny it, you can’t debate it. Simply look at the data. What you can debate is the cause… Again a sort of pointless debate if you look at the science. Not even climate change deniers as you call them are necessary saying that we shouldn’t do anything about it. Even big oil is looking into ways…

Of course climate change is real but of course we can do something about it. My point is denialism and defeatism lead to the same end point. Attack that statement directly if you want to change my mind.

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

#572

Post by KoolKat23 »

kibibu wrote: post #566
KoolKat23 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even need to go this far. The word-probabilities are transformative use, a form of fair use and aren't an issue. The specific output at each point in time is what would be judged to be fair use or copyright infringing. I'd argue the user would be responsible for ensuring they're not infringing by using the output in a copyright infringing manner i.e. for profit, as they've fed certain inputs into the model…

Is converting an audio signal into the frequency domain, pruning all inaudible frequencies, and then Huffman encoding it tranformative?

Well if the end result is something completely different such as an algorithm for determining which music is popular or determining which song is playing then yes it's transformative.

It's not merely a compressed version of a song intended to be used in the same way as the original copyright work, this would be copyright infringement.

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

#573

Post by throw101010 »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #322
Buttons840 wrote: post #214

So part of their compensation for working is equity, and when they leave thay have to sign an additional agreement in order to keep their previously earned compensation? How is this legal? Mine as well tell them they have to give all their money back too. What's the consideration for this contract?

I assume it’s agreed to at time of employment? Otherwise you’re right that it doesn't make sense

Why do you assume this if it is said here and in the article that they had to sign something at the time of the departure from the company?

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

#574

Post by jkaplowitz »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #419
Buttons840 wrote: post #214

So part of their compensation for working is equity, and when they leave thay have to sign an additional agreement in order to keep their previously earned compensation? How is this legal? Mine as well tell them they have to give all their money back too. What's the consideration for this contract?

Unfortunately this is how most startup equity agreements are structured. They include terms that let the company cancel options that haven’t been exercised for [various reasons]. Those reasons are very open ended, and maybe they could be challenged in a court, but how can a low level employee afford to do that?

I don’t know of any other such agreements that allow vested equity to be revoked, as the other person said. That doesn’t sound very vested to me. But we already knew there are a lot of weird aspects to OpenAI’s semi-nonprofit/semi-for-profit approximation of equity.

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

#575

Post by stoperaticless »

to11mtm wrote: post #171
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?

Well, for starters everyone can start memes... 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!

So they are kind of open about their strategy.. (on high level at least)

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

#576

Post by throw101010 »

willis936 wrote: post #281
Buttons840 wrote: post #214

So part of their compensation for working is equity, and when they leave thay have to sign an additional agreement in order to keep their previously earned compensation? How is this legal? Mine as well tell them they have to give all their money back too. What's the consideration for this contract?

They earned wages and paid taxes on them. Anything on top is just the price they're willing to accept in exchange for their principles.

How do you figure that they should pay an additional price (their principle/silence) for this equity when they've supposedly earned it during their employment (assuming this was not planned when they got hired, since they make them sign new terms at the time of their departure)?

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

#577

Post by spoiler »

sangnoir wrote: post #298
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…

> if nothing is perpetual, then how long can it last supposing both sides do get ongoing consideration from it? the answer is, the judge will figure it out. Isn't that the reason more competent lawyers put in the royal lives[1] clause? It specifies the contract is valid until 21 years after the death of the last currently-living royal descendant; I believe the youngest one is currently 1 year old, and they all have g…

I know little about law, but isn't this completely ludicrous? Assuming you know a bit more (or someone else here does), I have a few questions:

Would any non-corrupt judge consider this is done in bad fait?

How is this difference if we use a great ancient sea turtles—or some other long-lived organism—instead of the current royal family baby? Like, I guess my point is anything that would likely outlive the employee basically?

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

#578

Post by watwut »

jay-barronville wrote: post #173

It probably would be better to switch the link from the X post to the Vox article [0]. 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, fr…

> Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it.

This should not be legal.

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

#579

Post by dgoldstein0 »

Gravityloss wrote: post #534
kmeisthax wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the law has this concept of 'de minimus' infringement, where if you take a very small amount - like, way smaller than even a fair use - the courts don't care. If you're taking a handful of word probabilities from every book ever written, then the portion taken from each work is very, very low, so courts aren't likely to care. If you're only training on a handful of works then you're taking more from them, meaning…

I think with some AI you could reproduce artworks of obscure indie artists who are working right now. If you were a director at a game company and needed art in that style, it would be cheaper to have the AI do it instead of buying from the artist. I think this is currently an open question.

I recently read an article that I annoyingly can't find again about an art director at a company that decided to hire some prompters. They got some art, told them to completely change it, got other art, told them to make smaller changes... And then got nothing useful as the prompters couldn't tell the ai "like that but make this change". Ai art may get there in a few years or maybe a decade or two, but it's not there yet. (End of that article: they fired the prompters after a few days)

An ai-enhanced Photoshop, however, could do wonders though as the base capabilities seem to be mostly there. Haven't used any of the newer ai stuff myself but https://www.shruggingface.com/blog/how-i-used-stable-diffusi... makes it pretty clear the building blocks seem largely there. So my guess is the main disconnect is in making the machines understand natural language instructions for how to change the art.

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

#580

Post by jajko »

treme wrote: post #488
orlandrescu wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awfully familiar to the other South-African emerald mine inheritor tech mogul.

Please. Elon's track record to take tesla from concept car stage to current mass production levels and building SpaceX from scratch is hardly comparable to Altman's track record.

But he is a manager, not an engineer although he sells himself off as such. He keeps smart capable folks around, abuses most of them pretty horribly, and when he intervenes with products its hit and miss. For example latest Tesla Model 3 changes must have been pretty major fuckup and there is no way he didn't ack it all.

Plus all self-driving lies and more lies well within fraud territory at this point. Not even going into his sociopathic personality, massive childish ego and apparent 'daddy issues' which in men manifest exactly like him. He is not in day-to-day SpaceX control and it shows.

Post reply on HN