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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by treszkai »

twobitshifter wrote: post #251
modeless wrote: post #202

A lot of the brouhaha about OpenAI is silly, I think. But this is gross. Forcing employees to sign a perpetual non-disparagement agreement under threat of clawing back the large majority of their already earned compensation should not be legal. Honestly it probably isn't, but it'll take someone brave enough to sue to find out.

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?

> and I care about its value, I’m not going to say anything to tank its value

Probably people like Kokotajlo cared about the value of their equity but even more about their other principles, like speaking the truth publicly even if it meant their losing millions.

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

#992

Post by w0m »

colibri727 wrote: post #667
w0m wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carmack did his thing 40 years ago; before social media was as prevalent. I'm sure if the community was as large and talkative then as they were today; you'd find many detractors.

What about Palmer Luckey ? I don't think he received a lot of criticism before he founded Anduril Industries.

I don't have a strong opine on him; quick wikipedia skim tells me certain crowds probably hate him as a military contractor. Some people hate anyone/thing associated with that space.

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

#993

Post by DesiLurker »

olliej wrote: post #990
DesiLurker wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I couldn't have said that better. I have seen this exact thing happen multiple times in startups, where you only really have a chance to make money if you are a founder or join really early on & hope that there is a good exit. as a regular or even senior employee you not only are helpless but also have to mentally deal with sunk cost fallacy. the problem is you (non founder) never gets rewarded for the significant risks you took working there. In investing world this is labelled uncompensated risk. which employees mostly take.

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

#994

Post by kfrzcode »

hollerith wrote: post #118
kfrzcode wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a God-given right. It is innate and given to you and everyone at birth, after which it can only be suppressed but never revoked.

I know it is popular, but I distrust "natural rights" rhetoric like this.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I mean to say there are certain rights we all have, simply for existing as humans. The right to breathe is a good example. No human, state, or otherwise has the moral high-ground to take these rights from us. They are not granted, or given, they are absolute and unequivocal.

It's not rhetoric, it's basic John Locke. Also your trust is an internal locus, and doesn't change the facts.

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

#995

Post by kfrzcode »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #117
kfrzcode wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a God-given right. It is innate and given to you and everyone at birth, after which it can only be suppressed but never revoked.

Good luck serving God with a subpoena when you have to defend yourself in court. He's really good at dodging process servers.

The inalienable rights of mankind are not given to us or validated in a court of man's law. This is not new philosophy and comes from at least as far back as the Greeks.

Your quips will serve you well, I'm sure, in whatever microcosm you populate.

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

#996

Post by kfrzcode »

smabie wrote: post #121
kfrzcode wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a God-given right. It is innate and given to you and everyone at birth, after which it can only be suppressed but never revoked.

Did God tell you this? People who talk about innate rights are just making things up

You do not seem to be embracing an open-minded discussion about the philosophy. Why beg the question? Are you admitting the State is the authority under which you are granted all privilege to live, love, and work? Who is to stop someone if you are being attacked, and your children are at risk? Do you wish you had a permit to allow you to breath?

"self-evident," means it requires no formal proof, as it is obvious to all with common sense and reason.

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

#997

Post by CamperBob2 »

kfrzcode wrote: post #995
CamperBob2 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck serving God with a subpoena when you have to defend yourself in court. He's really good at dodging process servers.

The inalienable rights of mankind are not given to us or validated in a court of man's law. This is not new philosophy and comes from at least as far back as the Greeks. Your quips will serve you well, I'm sure, in whatever microcosm you populate.

(Shrug) The Greeks are dead, and so is anyone who tries to argue philosophy with someone holding a gun.

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

#998

Post by kfrzcode »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #997
kfrzcode wrote: post #995

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inalienable rights of mankind are not given to us or validated in a court of man's law. This is not new philosophy and comes from at least as far back as the Greeks. Your quips will serve you well, I'm sure, in whatever microcosm you populate.

(Shrug) The Greeks are dead, and so is anyone who tries to argue philosophy with someone holding a gun.

Self-defense is one of these God-given rights so I miss your point

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

#999

Post by marcusverus »

justinclift wrote: post #931
marcusverus wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure businesses will capture some of the value, but is there any reason to assume they'll capture all or even most of it? Over the last ~ 50 years, worker productivity is up ~250%[0], profits (within the S&P 500) are up ~100%[1] and real personal (not household) income is up 150%[2]. It should go without saying that a large part of the rise in profits is attributable to the rise of tech. It shouldn't surprise any…

> The higher your margins, the more attractive your market becomes to would-be competitors. Only in very simplistic theory. :( In practical terms, businesses with high margins seem able to afford government protection (aka "buy some politicians"). So they lock out competition, and with their market captured, price gouging (or close to it) is the order of the day. No real sure why anyone thinks the playbook would be a…

Literally every imaginable economic prediction could be countered with this argument: "That won't happen if the government legislates to prevent it!"

Weird that the field of economics just keeps on existing.

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

#1000

Post by nurple »

tdumitrescu wrote: post #869
nurple wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that this is a private company, so there is no public market to provide liquidity. The company can make itself the sole source of liquidity, at its option, by placing sell restrictions on the grants. Toe the line, or you will find you never get to participate in a liquidity event. There's more info on how SpaceX uses a scheme like this[0] to force compliance, and seeing as Musk had a hand in creating bot…

Whoa. That article says that SpaceX does tender offers twice a year?! That's so much better than 99% of private companies, it makes it almost as liquid for employees as a public company.

Which in a real way makes the threat of being left out of liquidity rounds that much more powerful a tool for keeping people looking forward to an actual windfall in their lane.
Post reply on HN