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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by loceng »

OkGoDoIt wrote: post #972
loceng wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The climate models aren't based on accurate data, nor enough data, so they lack integrity and should be taken with a grain of salt. Likewise, the cloud seeding they seem to be doing nearly worldwide now - the cloud formations from whatever they're spraying - are artificially changing weather patterns, and so a lot of the weather "anomalies" or unexpected-unusual weather-temperatures could very easily be because of th…

I heard of cloud seeding theoretically, but is that actually widespread globally now?

I don't know if every nation is doing it, however it appears to look to be at least be a G20 operation.

How much airspace of geographic area do you need access to in order to cloud seeds in other parts of the world though?

I haven't looked but perhaps GeoengineeringWatch.org has resources and has kept track of that?

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

#982

Post by conartist6 »

nsoonhui wrote: post #467
cdchn wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's something I just don't understand. I have a profit sharing plan *for life*, and yet I want to publicly thrash it so that the benefits I can derive from it is reduced, all in the name of some form of ... what, social service?

Your assumption is that covering up unethical behavior is good for you in the long run. Really it's only good for you in the long run if you manage to be canny enough to sell just before the ****storm hits.

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

#983

Post by Shocka1 »

modeless wrote: post #255
twobitshifter wrote: post #251

Earlier 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?

They can sue you into bankruptcy, obviously. Also, what if you can't sell? Selling is at their discretion. They can prevent you from selling some of your so-called "equity" to keep you on their leash as long as they want.

> They can sue you into bankruptcy, obviously.

Apologies in advance, my comment does not add to progressing the thread at all.

I was just in the middle of eating a delicious raspberry danish - I read your comment and just about lol'd it all over my keyboard and wall.

The last thing I would do if I had a bunch of equity is screw with a company with some of the most sought after technology in the world. There is a team of lawyers waiting and foaming at the mouth to take everything from you and not bat an eye about it. This seems very obvious.

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

#984

Post by space_oddity »

Tao3300 wrote: post #838
watwut wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it. This should not be legal.

It doesn't even make logical sense. If someone asks you about the NDA what are you supposed to say? "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of said NDA" is pretty much confirmation of the NDA!

Yeah... Come up with "I’m committed to maintaining confidentiality in all my professional dealings." But still it sounds suspicious

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

#986

Post by fragmede »

golergka wrote: post #950
fragmede wrote: post #946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

my argument is that some people don't, not without going homeless and living out of their car and eating off of EBT (in the US). if the choice was to sign a shitty non-compete, or get evicted, I find it hard to fault someone for signing such a contract. it's not a logic problem with your reasoning but that the reasoning starts from an (imo) unsound place.

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

#987

Post by [deleted] »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #744
romwell wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#988

Post by romwell »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #744
romwell wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, but most people have heard of Perelman due to the rejection controversy (particularly, most people in Russia, who don't care about achievements of that sort, sadly).

Granted, we're not on a forum where most people go, so I shouldn't have said "you" in that case.

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

#989

Post by gwern »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #396
jay-barronville wrote: post #173

It probably would be better to switch the link from the X post to the Vox article [0]. From the article: “““ It turns out there’s a very clear reason for [why no one who had once worked at OpenAI was talking]. I have seen the extremely restrictive off-boarding agreement that contains nondisclosure and non-disparagement provisions former OpenAI employees are subject to. It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, fr…

When YCR HARC folded, Sam had everyone sign a non-disclosure anti disparagement NDA to keep their computer. I thought is was odd, and the only reason I can even say this is that I bought the iMac I was using before the option became available. Still, I had nothing bad to disclose, so it would have saved me some money.

That's interesting. So this would have been 2017, 2018? How long did the NDA + paired gag order about the NDA, and the non-disparagement order last? The OA one is apparently a lifetime one, including the 'non-disparagement' one. Was the YC HARC NDA also lifetime?

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

#990

Post by olliej »

DesiLurker wrote: post #457
DesiLurker wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always say in that the biggest swindle in the world is that in the great 'labor vs capital' fight, capital has convinced labor that its interests are secondary to capital's. this so much truer in the modern fiat-fractional reserve banking world where any development is rate-limited by either energy or people.

why downvote me instead of actually refuting my point?

HN is filled with startup bros (who want to screw the actual employees), VC adjacent brow (who want to screw the startup bros), and people who signed up for massively discounted compensation in the form of “equity” that cannot be converted into cash and can be stolen and/or devalued by the people running the business, and so acknowledging this means acknowledging the folly.

Working for a startup is inherently risky, but it’s not gambling because in gambling you can estimate the odds, and unlike gambling the odds cannot be changed after you win. Any employment contract that does not allow equity cash out at the price from the last funding round, or allows take backs, is worse than gambling, and founders that believe contracts that don’t provide those guarantees are reasonable are likely malicious and intending on doing that in future.

I do not understand a mentality that says “as a founder I should be able to get money out of the business but the people who work for me, who are also taking significant risk and below market compensation should not be permitted to do that”

Post reply on HN