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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by fragmede »

whimsicalism wrote: post #857
fragmede wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't know, I'm not a billionaire. But when you hear about Amazon warehouse workers peeing into bottles because they they don't have long enough bathroom breaks, or Walmart workers not having healthcare because they're intentionally scheduled for 39.5 hours, it's hard to see that anyone could get to a billion without screwing someone over. But like I said, I'm not a billionaire.

Who did JK Rowling screw? (putting aside her recent social issues after she already became a billionaire) Having these discussions in this current cultural moment is difficult. I'm no lover of billionaires, but to say that every billionaire screwed people over relies on esoteric interpretations of value and who produces it. These interpretations (like the labor-theory of value) are alien to the vast majority of peopl…

aside from the way she's terrible, she's not terrible?

the wonderful thing any capitalism is that you can absolve yourself of guilt by having someone else do your dirty work for you. are you so sure every single seamstress that made clothes and stuffed animals, and the workers at the toy factories, and every single person involved with the making of the movies for the Harry Potter deals she licensed her work to were well compensated and treated well? that's not directly on her, but at least some of her money comes from there

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

#942

Post by brandall10 »

flashgordon wrote: post #922
brandall10 wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With an ever expanding AI everything should be quickly commoditized, including reduction in energy to run AI and energy itself (ie. viable commercial fusion or otherwise).

That's the thing I am struggling with. I agree things will exponentially improve with AI. What i am not seeing is who will actually capture the value. Or rather how will those other than rich and powerful get to partake in this value capture. Take viable commercial fusion for example. Best case it ends up looking like another PG&E. Worst case it is owned by yet another Musk like gatekeeper. How do you see this being…

The most rosy outcome would be benevolent state actors control it, and the value capture is simply for everyone as the costs for everything go to zero (food, energy, housing, etc). It would be post-capitalist, post-consumer.

Of course the problem is whether or not it could be controlled, and in that case, the best hope is simply 'it' being benevolent and naturally incentivized to create such a utopia.

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

#943

Post by eru »

kmeisthax wrote: post #449
verve_rat wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the employee would be able to refuse the consideration, and thus the contract, and the state of affairs wouldn't change. They would be free to say whatever they wanted.

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…

Btw, do you have any idea whey they even bother with the second contract? Couldn't they just write the same stuff into the first contract in the first place?

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

#944

Post by eru »

p1esk wrote: post #906
hmottestad wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If say that you were working at Reddit for quite a number of years and all your original options had vested and you had exercised them, then since Reddit went public you would now easily be able to sell your stocks, or keep them if you want. So then you wouldn’t need to sign the second contract. Unless of course you had gotten new options that hadn’t vested yet.

My understanding is as soon as you exercise your options you own them, and the company can’t take them from you. Can anyone confirm this?

With private stocks, they can put further restrictions on what you can do with your stocks.

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

#945

Post by eru »

pas wrote: post #618
kmeisthax wrote: post #449

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…

is it even a valid contract clause to tie the value of something to a future completely unknown agreement? (or yes, it's valid, and it means that savvy folks should treat it as zero.) (though most likely the NDA and everything is there from day 1 and there's no second contract, no?)

> is it even a valid contract clause to tie the value of something to a future completely unknown agreement?

I don't know about this specific case, but many contracts have these kinds of provisions. Eg it's standard in an employment contract to say that you'll follow the directions of your bosses, even though you don't know those directions, yet.

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

#946

Post by fragmede »

golergka wrote: post #883
fragmede wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even lowest level fast food workers can choose a different employer. Only thanks to a recent ruling by the FTC that non-competes are valid. in the most egregious uses, bartenders and servers were prohibited from finding another job in the same industry for two years.

You're talking about what happens after a person signs a non compete, whereas my point is about what happens before he does (or doesn't) do it.

you say that like everyone had the luxury of making the choice not to sign those deals

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

#947

Post by p1esk »

eru wrote: post #944
p1esk wrote: post #906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is as soon as you exercise your options you own them, and the company can’t take them from you. Can anyone confirm this?

With private stocks, they can put further restrictions on what you can do with your stocks.

Sure, but in the event of liquidity, can they refuse to pay me the value of my shares? For any reason?

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

#948

Post by rglover »

airstrike wrote: post #929
lupire wrote: post #927

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utterly spineless. Do something slimy and act surprised when you get got. Rinse and repeat.

I don't think that's an accurate read. He did say >if any former employee who signed one of those old agreements is worried about it, they can contact me and we'll fix that too

Yes, now that it's public knowledge. Had this not been leaked, that wouldn't have been an option.

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

#949

Post by LtWorf »

reducesuffering wrote: post #871
LtWorf wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the kind of problems we do in italy aren't just "solve this", they are more "understand this text, then figure out what you have to solve, then solve it"

That sounds like the word problems that are on American AP Calc tests. You can be the judge of them here: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap24-frq-calcul...

But I'm talking about stuff that can be solved with very easy mathematics. Using nothing more than +-*/

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

#950

Post by golergka »

fragmede wrote: post #946
golergka wrote: post #883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about what happens after a person signs a non compete, whereas my point is about what happens before he does (or doesn't) do it.

you say that like everyone had the luxury of making the choice not to sign those deals

Exactly, and I explain why. If you want to argue they don't, I would be thankful if you exposed the error in my reasoning.
Post reply on HN