Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

vox.com

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options aren't equity, they're only the option to buy equity at a specified price. Vesting just means you can actually buy the shares at the set strike pice. For example, you may join a company and be given options to buy 10,000 shares at $5 each with a 2 year vesting schedule. They may begin vesting immediately, meaning you can buy 1/24th of the total options each month (or 614 shares). Its also common for a delay u…

Options can vest as do stock grants as well.

[deleted]

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

#743

"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." I find it hard to understand that in a country that tends to take freedom of expression so seriously (and I say this unironically, American democracy may have flaws but that is definitely a strength) it can be legal to silence someone for the rest of their life.

As others have mentioned, its likely many parts of this NDA are non-enforceable Its quite common for companies to put tons of extremely restrictive terms in an NDA they can't actually legally enforce to scare off potential future ex-employees from creating a problem.

I wouldn't say that is "quite common". If you throw a bunch of unenforceable clauses into an NDA/non-compete/whatever, that increases the likelihood of the whole thing being thrown out, which is not a can of worms most corporations want to open. So it is actually toeing a delicate balance most of the time, not a "let's throw everything we can into this legal agreement and see what sticks".

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

#744
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reci…

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

Perelman provided a proof of the Poincare Conjecture, which had stumped mathematicians for a century.

It was also one of the seven Millenium problems https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/, and as of 2024, the only one to be solved.

Andrew Wiles became pretty well known after proving Fermat's last theorem, despite there not being an financial reward.

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

#745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As far as I know it’s part of the stock plan for most startups. There’s usually a standard clause that covers this, usually with phrasing that sounds reasonable (like triggering if company policy is violated or is found to have been violated in the past). But it gives the company a lot of power in deciding if that’s the case.

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

#746

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?

[deleted]

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

#747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the case in many common/similar agreements, but the OpenAI agreement is different because it's specifically clawing back already vested equity. In this case, I think the consideration would be the company allowing transfer of the shares / allowing participation in buyback events. Otherwise until the company goes public there's no way for the employees to cash out without consent of the company.

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

#749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you saying that Altman has family that did business in South African emerald mines? I can't find info about this

They are referring to Elon Musk.

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

#750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. There’s no ethical way to gain ownership of a billion dollars (there’s likely some dollar threshold way less than 1B where p(ethical_gains) can be approximated to 0) A lot of people got screwed along the way

i think a lot of people have been able to become billionaires simply by building something that was initially significantly undervalued and then became very highly valued, no 'screwing'. there is such thing as a win-win and frankly these win-wins account for most albeit not all value creation in the world. you do not have to screw other people to get rich. whether people should be able to hold on to that billion is a…

They aren’t win-wins

It’s a ruse - it’s a con - it’s an accounting trick. It’s the foundation of capitalism

If I start a bowling pin production company and own 100% of it, then whatever pins I sell all of the results go to me

Now let say I want to expand my thing (that’s its own moral dilemma we won’t get into), so I promise a person with more money than they need to support their own life, to give me money in exchange for some of the future revenue produced, let’s say 10%

So now you have two people requiring payment - a producer and an “investor” so you’re already in the hole and now it’s 90% and 10%

You use that money to hire people to work in your potemkin dictatorship, with demands on proceeds now on some timeline (note conversion date, next board meeting etc)

So now you hire 10 people, how much of the company do they own? Well that’s totally up to whatever the two owners want including 0%

But let’s say it’s a typical venture deal, so 10% option pool for employees (and don’t forget the 4 year vest, cause we can’t have them mobile can we) which you fill up.

At the end of the four years you now have:

1 80% owner 1 10% owner 10 1% owners

Did the 2 people create 90% of the value of the company?

Only in capitalist math does that hold and in fact the only math capitalists do is the following:

“Well they were free to sign or not sign the contract”

Ignoring the reality of the world based on a worldview of greed that dominated the world to such an extent that it was considered “normal”

Luckily we’re starting to see the tide change

Post reply on HN