751–760 of 1001 posts
It seems that standard practice would dictate that you sign an NDA before even signing the employment contract.
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.
The startup world (as the artistic world, the sports world, etc) values healthy transgression of the rules But the line between healthy and unlawful transgression can be a thin line
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tbh, he wasn’t convicted as far as I know. But yes, he’s overly optimistic with timelines. He says so himself.
The first time someone is "overly optimistic with a timeline", you should forgive them. The tenth time, you should have the good sense to realize that they're full of shit and either a habitual liar or utterly incompetent.
>> Random HN commentator : utterly incompetent
I want what you’re smoking
"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.
It seems very off to me that they don't give you the NDA before you sign the employment contract, and instead give it to you at the time of termination when you can simply refuse to sign it. It seems that standard practice would dictate that you sign an NDA before even signing the employment contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
They have a lot of supporters here (workers supporting their rulers interests)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> you’ll see that he cares a lot about the truth. Didnt he call the cave diver, a pedo and the guy who attacked Pelosi's husband they were in a gay relationship.
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?
It's for the good of humanity, right? /s I wonder if Lex is going to ask Sam about it the next time they get together for a chat on YouTube?
I kinda like Lex, but he never asks any difficult questions. That’s probably why he gets all these fancy guests on his show.
There’s a very real/significant risk that AGI either literally destroys the human race, or makes life much shittier for most humans by making most of us obsolete. These risks are precisely why OpenAI was founded as a very open company with a charter that would firmly put the needs of humanity over their own pocketbooks, highly focused on the alignment problem. Instead they’ve closed up, become your standard company looking to make themselves ultra wealthy, and they seem like an extra vicious, “win at any cost” one at that. This plus their AI alignment people leaving in droves (and being muzzled on the way out) should be scary to pretty much everyone.