Everything I see about OpenAI makes me more and more convinced that the people running it are the last people anyone should want to be stewards of AI technology.
[dead]
OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
911–920 of 1001 posts
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#912Earlier quoted context omitted.
Change that to "bother someone with more money than you." Essentially your point. In the US, the wealthiest have most of the freedom. The rest of us, who can be sued/fired/blackballed, are, by degrees, merely serfs.
In the US, anyone can sue. You can learn how. It's not rocket science.
Yes, you can learn how to sue. You can learn how to be a doctor too. You can also learn rocket science. The third one is the easiest to me, personally.
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#913Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, anyone can sue. You can learn how. It's not rocket science.
Yes, you can learn how to sue. You can learn how to be a doctor too. You can also learn rocket science. The third one is the easiest to me, personally.
If you can learn rocket science in x years, you can learn how to sue in x days. So, do both.
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#914Everything I see about OpenAI makes me more and more convinced that the people running it are the last people anyone should want to be stewards of AI technology.
[deleted]
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#915They dont want to interrupt the good OpenAI is doing in the world, dont ya know
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#916Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will gain a lot of lawsuit if they admit they trained on youtube dataset because not everyone gave consent.
Consent isn’t legally required. An admission, however, would upset a lot of extremely online people though. Seems lose lose.
"Consent isn't legally required"?
I don't understand this point. If Google gave the data to OpenAI (which they surely haven't, right?), even then they'd not have consent from users.
As far as I understand it, it's not a given that there is no copyright infringement here. I don't think even criminal copyright infringement is off the table here, because it's clear it's for profit, it's clear it's wilful under 17 U.S.C. 506(a).
And once you consider the difficult potential position here -- that the liabilities from Sora might be worse than the liabilities from ChatGPT -- there's all sorts of potential for bad behaviour at a corporate level, from misrepresentations regarding business commitments to misrepresentations on a legal level.
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#917Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't about pettiness or thin skin. And it's not about mean words. It's about potential valid, corroborated criticism of misconduct. They can totally deal with appearing petty and thin-skinned.
Wouldnt various whistleblower protections apply if you were reporting illegal activities?
Honestly I don't know if whistleblower protections are really worth a damn -- I could be wrong.
But would they not only protect the individual formally blowing the whistle (meeting the standard in the relevant law)?
These non-disparagement clauses would have the effect of laying the groundwork for a whistleblowing effort to fall flat, because nobody else will want to corroborate, when the role of journalism in whistleblowing cases is absolutely crucial.
No sensible mature company needs a lifetime non-disparagement clause -- especially not one that claims to have an ethical focus. It's clearly Omerta.
Whoever downvoted this: seriously. I really don't care but you need to explain to people why lifetime non-disparagement clauses are not about maintaining silence. What's the ethical application for them?
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I have equity in a company and I care about its value, I’m not going to say anything to tank its value. If I sell my equity later on, and then disparage the company, what can OpenAI hope to do to me?
From what other people have commented, you don't get equity. You get a profit sharing plan. You're chained to them for life. There is no divestiture.
[deleted]
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#919> For workers at startups like OpenAI, equity is a vital form of compensation, one that can dwarf the salary they make. Threatening that potentially life-changing money is a very effective way to keep former employees quiet. Yes, but: (1) OpenAI salaries are not low like early stage startup salaries. Essentially these are highly paid jobs (high salary and high equity) that require an NDA. (2) Apple has also clawed ba…
Source on #2?
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#920Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'm no fan of Sam Altman, but between the two, Elon lies much more often. He's lied about FSD for years, lied about not selling his Tesla stock, lied about "robotaxies" for years, lied about the roadster for years, lied about "funding secured" for Tesla, lied about his twitter free speech ethos, spreads random lies about people he doesn't like, and so much more. The guy is a compulsive liar.
You could also come up with many examples where he worked hard against repeating lies from others since he often reasons from first principles.
But yes you’re right. The difference is probably whether one "beliefs" Elon is beneficial for the world or not.