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

71–80 of 1001 posts

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

#71

Post by johnnyanmac »

worik wrote: post #54
toomuchtodo wrote: post #24

I would strongly encourage anyone faced with this ask by OpenAI to file a complaint with the NLRB as well as speak with an employment attorney familiar with California statute.

[flagged]

I imagine the kinds of engineers under such gag orders do in fact either have "big money" or aren't worried about making big money in thr future.And this isn't their fight, it'll be the government. At the worst you may stand as a witness some months/years later to testify.

I'd only be worried about reporting if you fear for your life for refusing, a sadly poignant consideration given Boeing as of late.

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

#72

Post by worik »

photochemsyn wrote: post #41

I refused to sign all these secrecy non-disclosure contracts years ago. You know what? It was the right decision. Even though, as a result, my current economic condition is what most would describe as 'disastrous', at least my mind is my own. All your classified BS, it's not so much. Any competent thinker could have figured it out on their own. Fucking monkeys.

> You know what? It was the right decision. Even though, as a result, my current economic condition is what most would describe as 'disastrous', at least my mind is my own.

Individualistic

No body depends on you, I hope

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

#73

Post by kfrzcode »

impossiblefork wrote: post #55
antiframe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inf…

Free speech is a God-given right. It is innate and given to you and everyone at birth, after which it can only be suppressed but never revoked.

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

#75

Post by User23 »

w10-1 wrote: post #48
apsec112 wrote: post #27

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.

But a general release is not a non-criticism clause. They're not required to sign anything other than a general release of liability when they leave to preserve their rights. They don't have to sign a non-disparagement clause. But they'd need a very good lawyer to be confident at that time.

And they won’t have that equity available to borrow against to pay for that lawyer either.

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

#77

Post by janalsncm »

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.

A lot of people forget that although 1A means the government can’t put you in prison for things, there are a lot of pretty unpleasant consequences from private entities. As far as I know, it wouldn’t be illegal for a dentist to deny care to someone who criticized them, for example.

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

#78

Post by a_wild_dandan »

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.

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.

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

#79

Post by johnnyanmac »

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?"

Legally yes. Those mean words can cost them millions in lawsuits and billions if the judge rulings restrict how they can implement and monetize AI. Why do you think Boieing's "coincidental" deaths of whistle blowers has happened more than once these past few months?

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

#80

Post by User23 »

What is criticism anyhow? Feels like you could black knight this hard with clever phrasing. “The company does a fabulous job keeping its employees loyal regardless of circumstances!” “Yes they have the best and toughest employment lawyers in the business! They do a great job using all available leverage to force favorable outcomes from their human resources!” “I have no regrets working there. Their exit agreement has really improved my work life balance!” “Management never lets externalities get in the way of maximizing shareholder value!”
Post reply on HN