Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

vox.com

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591

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…

>>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.

Perfect! So it's so incredibly overreaching that any judge in California would deem the entire NDA unenforceable..

Either that or, in your effort to overstate a point, you exaggerated in a way that undermines the point you were trying to make.

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

#592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they refuse the contract then they lose out on their options vesting. Basically, OpenAI's contracts work like this: Employment Contract the First: We are paying you (WAGE) for your labor. In addition you also will be paid (OPTIONS) that, after a vesting period, will pay you a lot of money. If you terminate this employment your options are null and void unless you sign Employment Contract the Second. Employment Con…

> There is an escape valve in contract law for "nobody would sign this" kinds of clauses Who would sign a contract to willfully give away their options?

The same sort of person who would sign a contract agreeing that in order to take advantage of their options, they need to sign a contract with unclear terms at some point in the future if they leave the company.

Bear in mind there are actually three options, one is signing the second contract, one is not signing, and the other is remaining an employee.

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

#593
post #582
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at Sam Altman's career and tweets. He's a clown at best, and at worst he's a manipulative crook who only cares about his own enrichment and uses pro-social ideas to give himself a veneer of trustworthiness.

I'm surprised at such a mean comment and lots of follow-ups with agreement. I don't know Sam personally, I've only heard him here and there online from before OpenAI days and all I got was a good impression. He seems smart and pretty humble. Apart from all openai drama which I don't know enough to have an opinion, past-openai he also seems to be talking with sense. Since so many people took time to put him down there…

People who have worked with him have publicly called him a manipulative liar:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1804u5y/former_open...

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

#594
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It takes a man of real principle to stand up against that and tell them to keep their money if they can't speak ill of a potentially toxic work environment. Incidentally, that's what Grigory Perelman, the mathematician that rejected the Fields Medal and the $1M prize that came with it, did. It wasn't a matter of an NDA either; it was a move to make his message heard (TL;DR: "publish or perish" rat race that the acad…

I think, when making a gesture, you need to consider its practical impact, which includes whether and how it will be understood (or not). In the OpenAI case, the gesture of "forgoing millions of dollars" directly makes you able to do something you couldn't - speak about OpenAI publicly. In the Grigory Perelman case, obviously the message was far less clear to most people (I personally have heard of him turning down t…

Consider this:

1. If he didn't turn down the money, you wouldn't have heard of him at all;

2. You're not the intended audience of Grigory's message, nor are you in position to influence, change, or address the problems he was highlighting. The people who are heard the message loud and clear.

3. On a very basic level, it's very easy to understand that there's gotta be something wrong with the award if a deserving recipient turns it down. What exactly is wrong is left as an exercise to the reader — as you'd expect of a mathematician like Perelman.

Quote (from [1]):

From the few public statements made by Perelman and close colleagues, it seems he had become disillusioned with the entire field of mathematics. He was the purest of the purists, consumed with his love for mathematics, and completely uninterested in academic politics, with its relentless jockeying for position and squabbling over credit. He denounced most of his colleagues as conformists. When he opted to quit professional mathematics altogether, he offered this confusing rationale: “As long as I was not conspicuous, I had a choice. Either to make some ugly thing or, if I didn’t do this kind of thing, to be treated as a pet. Now when I become a very conspicuous person, I cannot stay a pet and say nothing. That is why I had to quit.”*

This explanation is confusing only to someone who has never tried to get a tenured position in academia.

Perelman was one of the few people to not only give the finger to the soul-crushing, dehumanizing system, but to also call it out in a way that stung.

He wasn't the only one; but the only other person I can think of is Alexander Grothendiek [2], who went as far as declaring that publishing any of his work would be against his will.

Incidentally, both are of Russian-Jewish origin/roots, and almost certainly autistic.

I find their views very understandable and relatable, but then again, I'm also an autistic Jew from Odessa with a math PhD who left academia (the list of similarities ends there, sadly).

[1] https://nautil.us/purest-of-the-purists-the-puzzling-case-of...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck

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

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it’s either a violation of the NLRB rule against severance agreements conditioned on non-disparagement or it’s a violation of the common law rule requiring consideration for amendments to service contracts.

> NLRB rule against severance agreements conditioned on non-disparagement Wait that's a thing? Can you give more detail about this/what to look into to learn more?

https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-th...

It’s a recent ruling.

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

#596

If the original agreement offered equity that vests, then suddenly another future agreement can potentially revoke that vested equity? It makes no sense unless somehow additional conditions were attached to the vested equity in the original agreement.

And almost all equity agreements do exactly that - give the company right of repurchase. If you've ever signed one, go re-read it. You'll likely see that clause right there in black and white.

They give the company the right to repurchase unvested (but exercised) shares, not vested options. At least the ones I’ve signed.

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

#597
post #582
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at Sam Altman's career and tweets. He's a clown at best, and at worst he's a manipulative crook who only cares about his own enrichment and uses pro-social ideas to give himself a veneer of trustworthiness.

I'm surprised at such a mean comment and lots of follow-ups with agreement. I don't know Sam personally, I've only heard him here and there online from before OpenAI days and all I got was a good impression. He seems smart and pretty humble. Apart from all openai drama which I don't know enough to have an opinion, past-openai he also seems to be talking with sense. Since so many people took time to put him down there…

[flagged]

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

#598
post #37

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

> Stepping away from this job has been one of the hardest things I have ever done, because we urgently need to figure out how to steer and control AI systems much smarter than us. Large language models are not "smart". They do not have thought. They don't have intelligence despite the "AI" moniker, etc. They vomit words based off very fancy statistics. There is no path from that to "thought" and "intelligence."

Not that I disagree, but what's intelligence? How does our intelligence work? If we don't know that, how can we be so sure what does and what doesn't lead to intelligence? A little more humility is on order before whipping out the tired "LLMs are just stochastic parrots" argument.

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

#599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but peppercorn or not, what’s the consideration?

Getting a certain amount (according to their vesting schedule) of stock options, which are worth a substantial amount of money and thus clearly is "good and valuable consideration".

The original stock and vesting agreement that was part of their original compensation probably says that you have to be currently employed by OpenAI for the vesting schedule to apply. So in that case the consideration of this new agreement is that they get to keep their vesting schedule running even though they are no longer employees.

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

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An answer in the form of a question: why don't OpenAI executives want to talk about whether Sora was trained on Youtube content? (I should reiterate that I actually wrote "serious, possibly criminal")

Because of course it was trained on Yt data, but they gain nothing from admitting that openly.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN