19 ms·
OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
- atum47 2y agoThat's not enforceable, right? I'm not a lawyer, but even I know no contract can strips you out of rights given by the constitution.
- smabie 2y agoNon disparagement clauses are in so so many different employment contracts. It's pretty clear you're not a lawyer though.
- atum47 2y agoIt is also clear that you can read, since i wrote it.
- hsdropout 2y agoAre you referring to the first amendment? If so, this allows you to speak against the government. It doesn't prevent you from entering optional contracts. I'm not making any statement about the morality, just that this is not a 1a issue.
- atum47 2y agoI can understand defamation, but it's hard for me to understand disparagement. If i sign one of those contracts with Coca-Cola and later on I publicly announce that a can of Coca-Cola contains too much sugar. Am I in breach of contract?
- staticman2 2y agoIf the constitution protected you from this sort of thing then there'd be no such thing as "trade secret" laws.
- throwaway5959 2y agoDefinitely the stable geniuses I want building AGI.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- iamflimflam1 2y agoDoesn’t seem to be everyone - https://x.com/officiallogank/status/1791652970670747909 https://x.com/officiallogank/status/1791652970670747909
- smhx 2y agothat's a direct implication that they're waiting for a liquidity event before they speak
- croes 2y agoI guess OpenAI makes the hero to villain switch faster than Google as they dropped "don't be evil"
- BeFlatXIII 2y agoI hope I’m still around when some of these guys reach retirement age and say “fuck it, my family pissed me off” and give tell-all memoirs.
- rich_sasha 2y agoSo what's open about it these days?
- shuckles 2y agoI'm not sure how this is legal. My employer certainly could not clawback paid salary or bonuses if I violated a surprise NDA they sprung on me when leaving on good terms. Why can they clawback vested stock compensation?
- orionsbelt 2y agoMy guess is they agreed to it upfront.
- _delirium 2y agoThat appears to be the case, although the wording of what they agree to up front is considerably more vague than the agreement they're reportedly presented to sign post-departure. Link to a thread from the author of the Vox article: https://x.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1791584341669396560 https://x.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1791584341669396560
- gwern 2y agoThese aren't real stock, they are "profit participation units" or PPUs; in addition, the fact that there is a NDA and a NDA about the NDA, means no one can warn you before you sign your employment papers about the implications of 'PPUs' and the tender-offer restriction and the future NDA. So it's possible that there's some loophole or simple omission somewhere which enables this, which would never work for regular RSUs or stock options, which no one is allowed to warn you about on pain of their PPUs being clawed back, and which you find out about only when you leave (and who would want to leave a rocketship like OA?).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- MBlume 2y agoSubmission title mentions NDA but the article also mentions a non disparagement agreement. "You can't give away our trade secrets" is one thing but it sounds like they're being told they can't say anything critical of the company at all.
- reducesuffering 2y agoThey can't even mention the NDA exists!
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoThis is common, and there is nothing wrong with it.
- Chinjut 2y agoThere is absolutely something wrong with it. Just because a thing is common doesn't make it good.
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoTwo people entering an agreement to not talk about something is fine. You and I should (and can, with very few restrictions) be able to agree that I'll do x, and you'll do y and we are going to keep the matter private. Anyone who wants to take away this ability for two people to do such a thing needs to take a long hard look at themselves, and maybe move to north korea.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hnfong 2y agoThere are things that are legal between parties of (presumed) equal footing, that aren't legal between employers and employees. That's why you can pay $1 to buy a gadget made in some third world country, but you can't pay your employees less than say $8/hour due to minimum wage laws.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- asperous 2y agoNot a lawyer but those contracts aren't legal. You need something called "consideration" ie something new of value to be legal. They can't just take away something of value that was already agreed upon. However they could add this to new employee contracts.
- koolba 2y agoThrough in a preamble of “For $1 and other consideration…”
- ethbr1 2y ago"Legal" seems like a fuzzy line to OpenAI's leadership. Pushing unenforceable scare-copy to get employees to self-censor sounds on-brand.
- tptacek 2y agoI agree with Piper's point that these contracts aren't common in tech, but they're hardly unheard of. In 20 years of consulting work I've seen dozens of them. They're not uncommon. This doesn't look uniquely hostile or amoral for OpenAI, just garden-variety.
- lupire 2y agoas an exit contract? Not part of a severance agreement? Boomberg famously used this as an employment contract, and it was a campaign scandal for Mike.
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoWell, an AI charity -- so founded on openness that they're called OpenAI -- took millions in donations, everyone's copyright data...only to become effectively for-profit, close down their AI, and inflict a lifetime gag on their employees. In that context, it feels rather amoral.
- tptacek 2y ago
- autonomousErwin 2y agoIs it criticism if a claim is true? There is so much legal jargon I'm willing to bet most people won't want the headache (and those that don't care about equity are likely already fairly wealthy)
- apsec112 2y agoNon-disparagement clauses forbid all negative statements, whether true or not. https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/the-importance-of-carefully-crafted-non-disparagement-clauses-in-severance-and-settlement-agreements/ https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/the-importance-of...
- cma 2y agoYes, if it isn't true it is libel or slander (sometimes depending on intent), not just criticism, and already not permissible without any contract covering it.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoWhy have other companies not done the same? This seems legally tenuous to only now be attempted. Will we see burger flippers prevented from discussing the rat infestation at their previous workplace? (Don’t have X) - is there a timeline? Can I curse out the company on my deathbed, or would their lawyers have the legal right to try and clawback the equity from the estate?
- apsec112 2y agoThe Vox article says that it's a lifetime agreement: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai-departures-sam-altman-employees-chatgpt-release https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai...
- romanovcode 2y agoROFL how is this even legal?
- exe34 2y agoi worked at McDonald's in the mid-late 00s, I'm pretty sure there was a clause about never saying anything negative about them. i think they were a great employer!
- wongarsu 2y agoSorry, someone at corporate has interpreted this statement as criticism. Please give back all equity, or an amount equivalent to its current value.
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoAlso, whatever fries left in the bottom of the bag. That’s corporate property buddy.
- ryandrake 2y agoIt doesn't have to be equity. If they wanted to, they could put in their employment contract "If you say anything bad about McDonalds, you owe us $1000." What is the ex-burger-flipper going to do? Fight them in court?
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoIs this a legally enforceable suppression of free speech? If so, are there ways to be open about OpenAI, without triggering punitive action?
- to11mtm 2y agoWell, for starters everyone can start memes... After all, at this point, OpenAI: - Is not open with models - Is not open with plans - Does not let former employees be open. It sure does give us a glimpse into the Future of how Open AI will be!
- stoperaticless 2y agoSo they are kind of open about their strategy.. (on high level at least)
- antiframe 2y agoOpenAI is not the government. Yet.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoIf the courts enforce the agreement then that is state action. So I think an argument can be made that NDAs and similar agreements should not be enforceable by courts. See Shelley v. Kraemer
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoWhat do I do with this information?
- jaredklewis 2y agoYour original comment uses the term "free speech," which in the context of the discussion of the legality of contract in the US, brings to mind the first amendment. But first amendment basically only restricts the government's ability to suppress speech, not the ability of other parties (like OpenAI). This restriction may be illegal, but not on first amendment ("free speech") grounds.
- OldMatey 2y agoWell that's not worrying. /s I am curious how long it will take for Sam to go from being perceived as a hero to a villain and then on to supervillain. Even if they had a massive, successful and public safety team, and got alignment right (which I am highly doubtful about being possible) it is still going to happen as massive portions of white collar workers loose their jobs. Mass protests are coming and he will be an obvious focus point for their ire.
- throwup238 2y ago> I am curious how long it will take for Sam to go from being perceived as a hero to a villain and then on to supervillain. He's already perceived by some as a bit of a scoundrel, if not yet a villain, because of World Coin. I bet he'll hit supervillain status right around the time that ChatGPT BattleBots storm Europe.
- gremlions 2y agoPlus what he (allegedly) did to his sister when she was a child: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37785072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37785072
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- wavesounds 2y agoTheir head of alignment just resigned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40391299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40391299
- idontpost 2y ago[dead]
- rvz 2y ago> I am curious how long it will take for Sam to go from being perceived as a hero to a villain and then on to supervillain. He probably already knows that, but doesn't care as long as OpenAI has captured the world's attention with ChatGPT generating them billions and their high interest in destroying Google. > Mass protests are coming and he will be an obvious focus point for their ire. This is going to age well. Given that no-one knows the definition of AGI, then AGI can mean anything; even if it means 'steam-rolling' any startup, job, etc in OpenAI's path.
- rvz 2y agoSo that explains the cult-like behaviour months ago when the company was under siege. Diamond multi-million dollar hand-cuffs which OpenAI has bound lifetime secret service-level NDAs which are another unusual company setting after their so-called "non-profit" founding and their contradictory name. Even an ex-employee saying 'ClosedAI' could see their PPUs evaporate in front of them to zero or they could never be allowed to sell them and have them taken away.
- timmg 2y agoI don’t have any idea what goes on inside OAI. But I have this strange feeling that they were right to oust sama. They didn’t have the leverage to pull it off, though.
- jp57 2y agoThe only way I can see this being a valid contract is if the equity grant that they get to keep is a new grant offered the time of signing the exit contract. Any vested equity given as compensation for work could not then be offered again as consideration for signing a new agreement. Maybe the agreement is "we will accelerate vesting of your unvested equity if you sign this new agreement"? If that's the case then it doesn't sound nearly so coercive to me.
- apsec112 2y agoIt's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release they are asked to sign includes a lifetime no-criticism clause.
- ethbr1 2y agoIOW, this is burying the illegal part in a tangential document, in hopes of avoiding legal scrutiny and/or judgement. They're really lending employees equity, subject to the company's later feelings as to whether the employee should be allowed to keep or sell it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- w10-1 2y agoBut a general release is not a non-criticism clause. They're not required to sign anything other than a general release of liability when they leave to preserve their rights. They don't have to sign a non-disparagement clause. But they'd need a very good lawyer to be confident at that time.
- User23 2y agoAnd they won’t have that equity available to borrow against to pay for that lawyer either.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoI would strongly encourage anyone faced with this ask by OpenAI to file a complaint with the NLRB as well as speak with an employment attorney familiar with California statute.
- worik 2y ago[flagged]
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoTalking to a lawyer is **never** bad advice. Especially in CA where companies will make you THINK they have power which they don’t.
- reaperman 2y agoI’d be more afraid of their less-than-above-board power than their litigation power. People with $10-100 billion dollars who are highly connected to every major tech company and many shadowy companies we’ve never heard of can figure out a lot of my secrets and make life miserable enough for me that I don’t have the ability/energy to follow through with legal proceedings, even if I don’t attribute the walls collapsing around me to my legal opponent.
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoAnd that’s precisely the issue you ask a lawyer about.
- reaperman 2y agoWhat could a lawyer possibly do about something that isn’t traceable? Other than warn me it’s a possibility?
- listenallyall 2y agoI think never is inaccurate here. First, there are a lot of simply bad lawyers who will give you bad advice. Secondly, a lot of lawyers who either don't actually specialize in the legal field your case demands, or who have never actually tried any cases and have no idea how something might go down in a court with a jury. Third (the most predatory), a lot of lawyers actually see the client (not the opposing party) as the money fountain. Charging huge fees for their "consultation," "legal research," "team of experts," etc, and now the client is quickly tens-of-thousands in the hole without even an actual case being filed. Talking to good, honest lawyers is a good idea. Unfortunately most people don't have access to good honest lawyers, or don't know how to distinguish them from crooks with law degrees.
- ryandrake 2y agoNon-disparagement clauses seem so petty and pathetic. Really? Your corporation is so fragile and thin-skinned that it can't even withstand someone saying mean words? What's next? Forbidding ex-employees from sticking their tongue at you and saying "nyaa nyaa nyaa?"
- w10-1 2y agoModern AI companies depend entirely on goodwill and being trusted by their customers. So yes, they're that fragile.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoLegally yes. Those mean words can cost them millions in lawsuits and billions if the judge rulings restrict how they can implement and monetize AI. Why do you think Boieing's "coincidental" deaths of whistle blowers has happened more than once these past few months?
- xyst 2y agoThe company is literally a house of cards at this point. There is probably so much vulture capitalist and angel investor money tied up in this company that even a disparaging rant could bring the whole company crashing down. It’s yet another sign that the AI bubble will soon burst. The laughable release of “GPT-4o” was just a small red flag. Got to keep the soldiers in check while the bean counters prep the books for an IPO and eventual early investor exit. Almost smells like a SoftBank-esque failure in the near future.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ecjhdnc2025 2y agoThis 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.
- parpfish 2y ago
- dakial1 2y agoWhat if I sell my equity? Can I criticize them then?
- apsec112 2y ago()
- dekhn 2y agoRight, but once you sell the shares, OpenAI isn't going to claw back the cash proceeds, is what I think was asked here.
- smeej 2y agoDoesn't it end up being a "no disparagement until the company goes public" clause, then? Once you sell the stock, are they going to come after you for the proceeds if you say something mean 20 years later?
- mkl 2y agoThat's not what that article says, if I'm understanding correctly: "PPUs all have the same value associated with them and, during a tender offer, investors purchase PPUs directly from employees. OpenAI makes offers and values their PPUs based on the most recent price investors have paid to purchase employee PPUs."
- saalweachter 2y agoOnce there's a liquidity event and the people making you sign this contract can sell, they stop caring what you say.
- thorum 2y agoExtra respect is due to Jan Leike, then: https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494 https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoI think superalignment is absurd, and model "safety" is the modern AI company's "think of the children" pearl clutching pretext to justify digging moats. All this after sucking up everyone's copyright material as fair use, then not releasing the result, and profiting off it. All due respect to Jan here, though. He's being (perhaps dangerously) honest, genuinely believes in AI safety, and is an actual research expert, unlike me.
- refulgentis 2y agoAdding a disclaimer for people unaware of context (I feel same as you): OpenAI made a large commitment to super-alignment in the not-so-distant past. I beleive mid-2023. Famously, it has always taken AI Safety™ very seriously. Regardless of anyone's feelings on the need for a dedicated team for it, you can chalk to one up as another instance of OpenAI cough leadership cough speaking out of both sides of it's mouth as is convenient. The only true north star is fame, glory, and user count, dressed up as humble "research" To really stress this: OpenAI's still-present cofounder shared yesterday on a podcast that they expect AGI in ~2 years and ASI (superpassing human intelligence) by end of the decade.
- jasonfarnon 2y agoTo really stress this: OpenAI's still-present cofounder shared yesterday on a podcast that they expect AGI in ~2 years and ASI (superpassing human intelligence) by end of the decade. What's his track record on promises/predictions of this sort? I wasn't paying attention until pretty recently.
- refulgentis 2y agohonestly, I hadn't heard of him until 24-48 hours ago :x (he's also the new superalignment lead, I can't remember if I heard that first, or the podcast stuff first. Dwarkesh Patel podcast for anyone curious. Only saw a clip of it)
- photochemsyn 2y agoI refused to sign all these secrecy non-disclosure contracts years ago. You know what? It was the right decision. Even though, as a result, my current economic condition is what most would describe as 'disastrous', at least my mind is my own. All your classified BS, it's not so much. Any competent thinker could have figured it out on their own. Fucking monkeys.
- worik 2y ago> You know what? It was the right decision. Even though, as a result, my current economic condition is what most would describe as 'disastrous', at least my mind is my own. Individualistic No body depends on you, I hope
- serf 2y agoyou can still provide for your family without signing deals with the devil, it's just harder. moral stands are never free, but they are freeing.
- istjohn 2y ago> In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt.[0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)
- mlhpdx 2y agoIt’s common not to sign them, actually. The people that don’t simply aren’t talking about it much.
- Melatonic 2y agoSo much for the "Open" in OpenAI
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoWe should call them ClopenAI to acknowledge their almost comical level of backstabbing/rug-pulling.
- jameshart 2y agoThe Basilisk's deal turned out to be far more banal than expected.
- User23 2y agoWhat is criticism anyhow? Feels like you could black knight this hard with clever phrasing. “The company does a fabulous job keeping its employees loyal regardless of circumstances!” “Yes they have the best and toughest employment lawyers in the business! They do a great job using all available leverage to force favorable outcomes from their human resources!” “I have no regrets working there. Their exit agreement has really improved my work life balance!” “Management never lets externalities get in the way of maximizing shareholder value!”
- singleshot_ 2y agoIf a contract barred me from providing criticism I would not imagine that I could sidestep it by uttering positive criticism unless my counterparty was illiterate and poor at drafting contracts.
- olliej 2y agoAs I say over and over again: equity compensation from a non-publicly traded company should not be accepted as a surrogate for below market compensation. If a startup wants to provide compensation to employees via equity, then those employees should have first right to convert equity to cash in funding rounds or sale, there shares must be the same class as any other investor, because the idea that an “early employee” is not an investor making a much more significant investment than any VC is BS. I feel that this particular case is just another reminder of that, and now would make me require a preemptory “no equity clawbacks” clause in any contract.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoTotally agree. For all this to work there needs to also be transparency. Anyone receiving equity should have access to the cap table and terms covering all equity given to investors. Without this, they can be taken advantage of in so many ways.
- DesiLurker 2y agoI 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.
- DesiLurker 2y agowhy downvote me instead of actually refuting my point?
- olliej 2y agoHN 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”
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoThey are far from the only company to do this but they deserve to be skewered for it. The FTC and NLRB should come down hard on them to make an example. Jail time for executives.
- 31337Logic 2y agoThis is how you know you're dealing with an evil tyrant.
- downrightmike 2y agoAnd he claims to have made his fortune by just helping people and not expecting anything in return. Well, the reality here is that was a lie.
- api 2y agoAnyone who constantly toots their own horn about how altruistic and pure they are should have cadaver dogs led through their house.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y agoSaw this comment suddenly move way down in the comment rankings. Somehow I only notice this happening on OpenAI threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38342850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38342850 My guess would be that YC founders like sama have some sort of special power to slap down comments that they feel are violating HN discussion guidelines.
- nsoonhui 2y agoBut what's stopping the ex-staffers from criticizing once they sold off the equity?
- EA-3167 2y agoNothing, these don't seem like legally enforceable contracts in any case. What they do appear to be is a massive admission that this is a hype train which can be derailed by people who know how the sausage is made. It reeks of a scammer's mentality.
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoThe threat of a lawsuit. You can't just sign a contract and then not uphold your end of the bargain after you've got the benefit you want. You'll (rightfully) get sued.
- DueDilligence 2y ago[dead]
- bradleyjg 2y agoFor as high profile an issue as AI is right now, and as prominent as the people recently let go are, I bet they could arranged to be subpoenaed to testify before a congressional subcommittee.
- fragmede 2y agoIt's time to find a lawyer. I'm not one but there's an intersection with California SB 331, also known as “The Silenced No More Act”. while it is focused more on sexual harrasment, it's not limited to that, and these contracts may run afoul of that. https://silencednomore.org/the-silenced-no-more-act https://silencednomore.org/the-silenced-no-more-act
- j45 2y agoDefinitely an interesting way to expand existing legislation vs having a new piece of legislation altogether.
- eru 2y agoIn practice, that's how a lot of laws are made. ('Laws' in the sense of rules that are actually enforced, not what's written down.)
- nickff 2y agoThis doesn’t seem to fall inside the scope of that act, according to the link you cited: >” The Silenced No More Act bans confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements relating to the disclosure of underlying factual information relating to any type of harassment, discrimination or retaliation at work”
- berniedurfee 2y agoSounds like retaliation to me.
- Filligree 2y agoIt's not retaliation at work if you're no longer working for them.
- sudosysgen 2y agoThe retaliation would be for the reaction to the board coup, no?
- lopkeny12ko 2y agoWhat a lot of people seem to be missing here is that RSUs are usually double-trigger for private companies. Vested shares are not yours. They are just an entitlement for you to be distributed common stock by the company. You don't own any real stock until those RSUs are released (typically from a liquidity event like an IPO). Companies can cancel your vested equity for any reason. Read your employment contract carefully. For example, most RSU grants have a 7 year expiration. Even for shares that are vested, regardless of whether you leave the company or not, if 7 years have elapsed since they were granted, they are now worthless.
- lr4444lr 2y agoYes, they can choose not to renew and IANAL, but I'm fairly certain there has to be a valid reason to cancel vested equity within the 7 year time frame, i.e. firing for cause. I don't think a right to shares within the period can be capriciously taken away. You have a contract. The terms matter.
- lopkeny12ko 2y ago> You have a contract. The terms matter. Right. In the case of OpenAI, their equity grant contracts likely have a non-disparagement clause that allows them to cancel vested shares. Whether or not you think that is a "valid reason" is largely independent of the legal framework governing RSU release.
- darth_avocado 2y ago> if 7 years have elapsed since they were granted, they are now worthless Once vested, RSUs are the same as regular stock purchased through the market. The company cannot claw them back, nor do they "expire".
- lopkeny12ko 2y agoNo, this is not true. That's the entire point I'm making. An RSU that is vested, for a private company, is not a share of stock, it's an entitlement to receive a share of stock tied to a liquidity event. > same as regular stock purchased through the market You cannot purchase stock of a private company on the open market. > The company cannot claw them back The company cannot "claw back" a vested RSU but they can cancel it. > nor do they "expire". Yes, they absolutely do expire. Read your employment contract and equity grant agreement carefully.
- ggm 2y agoI am not a lawyer.
- croemer 2y agoLink should probably go here instead of X: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai-departures-sam-altman-employees-chatgpt-release https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai... This is the article that the author talks about on X.
- nextworddev 2y agoUnfortunately this is actually pretty common in Wall St, where they leverage your multiple years of clawback-able shares to make you sign non-disparagement clauses.
- lokar 2y agoBut that is all very clear when you join
- citizen_friend 2y agoSounds like a deal honestly. I’ll fast forward a few years of equity to mind my own business. I’m not trying to get into journalism
- nextworddev 2y agoYes, the vast vast majority of finance folks just take the money and be quiet
- jgalt212 2y agoI really don't get how lawyers can knowingly put unenforceable crap, for lack of a better word, in contracts. It's like why did you even go to law school.
- jay-barronville 2y agoIt 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, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it. If a departing employee declines to sign the document, or if they violate it, they can lose all vested equity they earned during their time at the company, which is likely worth millions of dollars. One former employee, Daniel Kokotajlo, who posted that he quit OpenAI “due to losing confidence that it would behave responsibly around the time of AGI,” has confirmed publicly that he had to surrender what would have likely turned out to be a huge sum of money in order to quit without signing the document. ””” [0]: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai-departures-sam-altman-employees-chatgpt-release https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai...
- YeBanKo 2y agoThey can’t loose their already vested options for refusing to sign NDA upon departure. Maybe they are offered additional grants or expedited vesting of the remaining options.
- jbernsteiniv 2y agoHe gets my respect for that one both publicly acknowledging why he was leaving and their pantomime. I don't know how much the equity would be for each employee (the article suggests millions but that may skew by role) and I don't know if I would just be like the rest by keeping my lips tight for fear of the equity forfeiture. It takes a man of real principle to stand up against that and tell them to keep their money if they can't speak ill of a potentially toxic work environment.
- pennybanks 2y ago[flagged]
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- andrewstuart 2y agoI would like people to sign a lifetime contract to not criticize me.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ecjhdnc2025 2y agoTotally normal, nothing to see here. Keep building your disruptive, game-changing, YC-applicant startup on the APIs of this sociopathic corporation whose products are destined to destroy all trust humans have in other humans so that everyone can be replaced by chatbots. It's all fine. Everything's fine.
- jay-barronville 2y agoYou don’t think the claim that “everyone can be replaced by chatbots” is a bit outrageous? Do you really believe this or is it just hyperbole?
- ecjhdnc2025 2y agoAlmost every part of the story that has made OpenAI a dystopian unicorn is hyperbole. And now this -- a company whose employees can't tell the truth or they lose access to remuneration. Everyone's Allen Weisselberg. What's one more hyperbole? Edit to add, provocatively but not sarcastically: next time you hear some AI-proponent-who-used-to-be-a-crypto-proponent roll out the "but aren't we all just LLMs, in essence?" justification for their belief that ChatGPT may have broad understanding, ask yourself: are they not just self-soothing over their part in mass job losses with a nice faux-scientific-inevitability bedtime story?
- tonyhart7 2y ago"Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it." now its not so much more open anymore right
- ecjhdnc2025 2y agoThe scriptwriters are in such a hurry -- even they know this show isn't getting renewed.
- Barrin92 2y agoWe're apparently at the Scientology stage of the AI hype cycle. One funny observation is, if you ostensibly believe that you're about to invent the AGI godhead who will render the economic system obsolete in < ~5 years or so, how do stock return no-criticism lawsuits fit into that kind of worldview
- mavbo 2y agoAGI led utopia will be pretty easy if we're all under contractual obligation to not criticize any aspect of it, lest we be banished back to "work"
- swat535 2y agoI mean why would anyone be surprised about this is beyond me? I know many people on this site will not like what I am about to write as Sam is worshiped but let's face it: The head of this company is a master scammer who will do everything under the sun and the moon to earn a buck, including but notwithstanding to destroying himself along with his entire fortune if necessary in his quest of making sure other people don't get a dime; So far he has done it all it: attempt to regulatory capture, hostile take over as the CEO, thrown out all other top engineers and partners and ensured the company remains closed despite its "open" name. Now he is simply attempting to tie up all the loos ends and ensuring his employees remain loyal and are kept on a tight leash. It's a brilliant strategy, preventing any insider from blowing the whistle should OpenAI ever decides to do anything questionable, such as selling AI capabilities to hostile governments. I simply hope that open source wins this battle so that we are not all completely reliant on OpenAI for the future, despite Sam's attempt.
- jeltz 2y agoSince I do not follow OpenAI or Ycombinator I first learned that he was a scammer when he released is crypto currency. But I am surprised that so many did not catch on to it then. It is not like he has really tried to hide that he is a grifter.
- modeless 2y agoA 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.
- twobitshifter 2y agoIf 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?
- modeless 2y agoThey 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.
- LtWorf 2y agoIf you can't sell, it's worthless anyway.
- ajross 2y agoLiquidity and value are different things. If someone offered you 1% of OpenAI, would you take it? Duh. But it's a private venture and not a public company, and you "can't sell" that holding on a market, only via complicated schemes that have to be authorized by the board. But you'd take it anyway in the expectation that it would be liquid someday. The employees are in the same position.
- bambax 2y ago> * They can prevent you from selling some of your so-called "equity"* But how much do you need? Sell half, forgo the rest, and you'll be fine.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y agoIt shouldn't be legal and maybe it isn't, but all schemes like this are, when you get down to it, ultimately about suppressing potential or actual evidence of serious, possibly criminal misconduct, so I don't think they are going to let the illegality get them all upset while they are having fun.
- sneak 2y agoWhat crimes do you think have occurred here?
- ecjhdnc2025 2y agoAn answer in the form of a question: why don't OpenAI executives want to talk about whether Sora was trained on Youtube content? (I should reiterate that I actually wrote "serious, possibly criminal")
- KeplerBoy 2y agoBecause of course it was trained on Yt data, but they gain nothing from admitting that openly.
- ezconnect 2y agoThey will gain a lot of lawsuit if they admit they trained on youtube dataset because not everyone gave consent.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 2y agoConsent isn’t legally required. An admission, however, would upset a lot of extremely online people though. Seems lose lose.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago"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.
- doubloon 2y agodeleting my OpenAI account.
- Buttons840 2y agoSo 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?
- bobbob1921 2y agoI would guess it’s a bonus and part of their bonus structure and they agreed to the terms of any exit/departure, when they sign their initial contract. I’m not saying it’s right or that I agree with it, however.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 2y agoIn the past a lot of options would expire if you didn’t exercise them within eg. 90 days of leaving. And exercising could be really expensive. Speculation: maybe the options they earn when they work there have some provision like this. In return for the NDA the options get extended.
- NewJazz 2y agoOptions aren't vested equity though.
- PNewling 2y ago... They definitely can be. When I worked for a small biotech company all of my options had a tiered vesting schedule.
- NewJazz 2y agoThey aren't equity no matter what though? They can be vested, I realize that.
- _heimdall 2y agoOptions aren't equity, they're only the option to buy equity at a specified price. Vesting just means you can actually buy the shares at the set strike pice. For example, you may join a company and be given options to buy 10,000 shares at $5 each with a 2 year vesting schedule. They may begin vesting immediately, meaning you can buy 1/24th of the total options each month (or 614 shares). Its also common for a delay up front where no options vest until you've been with the company for say 6 or 12 months. Until an option vests you don't own anything. Once it vests, you still have to buy the shares by exercising the option at the $5 per share price. When you leave, most companies have a deadline on the scale of a few months where you have to either buy all vested shares or forfeit them and lose the stock options.
- yumraj 2y agoCompared to what seemed like their original charter, with non-profit structure and all, now it seems like a rather poisonous place. They will have many successes in the short run, but, their long run future suddenly looks a little murky.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y agoSimilar points made here, if anyone is interested in signing: https://www.openailetter.org/ https://www.openailetter.org/
- eternauta3k 2y agoIt could work like academia or finance: poisonous environment (it is said), but ambitious enough people still go in to try their luck.
- throwaway2037 2y ago"finance": A bit of a broad brush, don't you think? Is working at a Landsbank or Sparkasse in Germany really so "poisonous"?
- eternauta3k 2y agoYes, of course, narrow that down to the crazy wolf-of-wall-street subset.
- throwaway2037 2y agoBetter to say so in the first place. At this point in 2024, the all too common trope about Wall Street-film-like bad guys on a trading floor are basically gone. They haven't really existed since post-GFC in 2009. Do you have first hand experience that says otherwise?
- baq 2y agoThey extracted a lot of value from researchers during their ‘open’ days, but it’s depleted now, so of course they move on to the next source of value. sama is going AGI or bust with a very rational position of ‘if somebody has AGI, I’d rather it was me’ except I don’t like how he does it one bit, it’s got a very dystopian feel to it.
- atomicnumber3 2y agoI have some experience with rich people who think they can just put whatever they want in contracts and then stare at you until you sign it because you are physically dependent on eating food every day. Turns out they're right, they can put whatever they want in a contract. And again, they are correct that their wage slaves will 99.99% of the time sign whatever paper he pushes in front of them while saying "as a condition of your continued employment, [...]". But also it turns out that just because you signed something doesn't mean that's it. My friends (all of us young twenty-something software engineers much more familiar with transaction isolation semantics than with contract law) consulted with an attorney. The TLDR is that: - nothing in contract law is in perpetuity - there MUST be consideration for each side (where "consideration" means getting something. something real. like USD. "continued employment" is not consideration.) - if nothing is perpetual, then how long can it last supposing both sides do get ongoing consideration from it? the answer is, the judge will figure it out. - and when it comes to employers and employees, the employee had damn well better be getting a good deal out of it, especially if you are trying to prevent the employee (or ex-employee) from working. A common pattern ended up emerging: our employer would put something perpetual in the contract, and offer no consideration. Our attorney would tell us this isn't even a valid contract and not to worry about it. Employer would offer an employee some nominal amount of USD in severance and put something in perpetuity into the contract. Our attorney tells us the judge would likely use "blue ink rule" to add in "for a period of one year", or, it would be prorated based on the amount of money they were given relative to their former salary. (I don't work there anymore, naturally).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- golergka 2y ago> stare at you until you sign it because you are physically dependent on eating food every day Even lowest level fast food workers can choose a different employer. An engineer working at OpenAI certainly has a lot of opportunities to choose from. Even when I only had three years in the industry, mid at best, I asked to change the contract I was presented with because non-compete was too restrictive — and they did it. The caliber of talent that OpenAI is attracting (or hopes to attract) can certainly do this too.
- schmidt_fifty 2y ago[dead]
- zombiwoof 2y agoSam and Mira. greedy as fuck since they are con artists and neither could get a job at that level anywhere legitimate. Now it’s a money grab. Sad because some amazing tech and people now getting corrupted into a toxic culture that didn’t have to be that way
- romanovcode 2y ago> Sam and Mira. greedy as fuck since they are con artists and neither could get a job at that level anywhere legitimate. Hey hey hey! Sam founded a 4th most popular social networking site in 2005 called Loopt. Don't you forget that! (After that he joined YC and founded nothing ever since)
- null0pointer 2y agoHe’s spent all those years conducting field research for his stealth-mode social engineering startup.
- photochemsyn 2y agoOpenAI's military-industrial contracting options seems to be making some folks quite nervous.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- krick 2y agoI'm well aware of being ignorant about USA law, and it isn't news to me that it encompasses a lot of ridiculous stuff, but it's still somehow amazes me, that "lifetime no-criticism contract" is possible. It's quite natural, that a co-founder, being forced out of the company wouldn't be exactly willing to forfeit his equity. So, what, now he cannot… talk? That has some Mexican cartel vibes.
- dbuser99 2y agoMan. No wonder openai is nothing without its people
- alexpetralia 2y agoIf the original agreement offered equity that vests, then suddenly another future agreement can potentially revoke that vested equity? It makes no sense unless somehow additional conditions were attached to the vested equity in the original agreement.
- riehwvfbk 2y agoAnd almost all equity agreements do exactly that - give the company right of repurchase. If you've ever signed one, go re-read it. You'll likely see that clause right there in black and white.
- ipaddr 2y agoFor companies unlisted on stock exchanges the options are then worthless. These were profit sharing units vs options.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- School-Cotton 2y agoThey give the company the right to repurchase unvested (but exercised) shares, not vested options. At least the ones I’ve signed.
- RomanPushkin 2y agoThey don't talk publicly, but they're almost always OK if you're friends with them. I have two ex-OpenAI friends, and there is a lot of shit going in there. Of course, I won't reveal their identities, even in a court. And they will deny they said anything to me. But the info, if needed, might get leaked through trusted friends. And nobody can do anything with that.
- benreesman 2y agoI’ve worked (for years) with easily a dozen people who either are there or spent meaningful time there. I also work hard not to print gossip and hearsay (I try not to even mention so much as a first name, I think I might have slipped one or twice on that though not in connection with an accusation of wrongdoing), there’s more than enough credible journalism to paint a picture, any person whose bias (and I have my own but it’s not like, over being snubbed for a job or something it’s a philosophical/ethical/political agenda) has not utterly robbed them of objectivity can acknowledged that “this looks really bad and worse all the time” on the basis of purely public primary sources and credible journalism. I think some of the inside baseball I try very hard not to put in writing might be what cranks it up to “people are doing time”. I’ve caught more than a little “less than a great time” over being a vocal critic, but I’m curious if having gone pretty far down the road and saying something is rotten, why you’d declare a willingness to defy a grand jury or a judge? I’ve never been in court, let alone held in contempt, but I gather it’s fairly hard time to openly defy a judge. I have friends I’d go to jail for, but not very many and none who work at OpenAI.
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoThis seems like a nonsense article. As for 'invalid because no consideration' - there is practically zero probability OpenAI lawyers are dumb enough to not give any consideration. There is a very large probability this reporter misunderstood the contract. OpenAI have likely just given some non-vested equity, which in some cases is worth a lot of money. So yeah, some (former) employees are getting paid a lot to shut up. That's the least unique contract ever and there is nothing morally or legally wrong with it.
- mwigdahl 2y agoThe best approach to circumventing the nondisclosure agreement is for the affected employees to get together, write out everything they want to say about OpenAI, train an LLM on that text, and then release it. Based on these companies' arguments that copyrighted material is not actually reproduced by these models, and that any seemingly-infringing use is the responsibility of the user of the model rather than those who produced it, anyone could freely generate an infinite number of high-truthiness OpenAI anecdotes, freshly laundered by the inference engine, that couldn't be used against the original authors without OpenAI invalidating their own legal stance with respect to their own models.
- rlt 2y agoThis would be hilarious and genius. Touché.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bboygravity 2y agoGenious. I'm praying for this to happen.
- judge2020 2y agoNDAs don’t touch the copyright of your speech / written works you produce after leaving, they just make it breach of contract to distribute those words.
- elicksaur 2y agoFollowing the legal defense of these companies, the employees wouldn’t be distributing any words. They’re distributing a model.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoThey’re disseminating the information. Form isn’t as important as it is for copyright.
- Madmallard 2y agoI'm really sick of seeing people jump in and accelerating the demise of society wholeheartedly due to greed.
- underlogic 2y agoThis is bizarre. Someone hands you a contract as you're leaving a company and if you refuse to agree to whatever they dreamt up and sign the company takes back the equity you earned? That can't be legal
- throwaway743950 2y agoIt might be that they agree to it initially when hired, so it doesn't matter if they sign something when they leave.
- crooked-v 2y agoAgreements with surprise terms that only get detailed later tend not to be very legal.
- mvdtnz 2y agoHow do you know there isn't a very clear term in the employment agreement stating that upon termination you'll be asked to sign an NDA on these terms?
- romwell 2y agoUnless the terms of the NDA are provided upfront, that sounds sketch AF. "I agree to follow unspecified terms in perpetuity, or return the pay I already earned" doesn't vibe with labor laws. And if those NDA terms were already in the contract, there would be no need to sign them upon exit.
- mvdtnz 2y ago> And if those NDA terms were already in the contract, there would be no need to sign them upon exit. If the NDA terms were agreed in an employment contract they would no longer be valid upon termination of that contract.
- 2y ago
- dandanua 2y agoWith how things are unfolding I wouldn't be surprised that after the creation of an AGI the owners will just kill anyone who took a part in building it. Singularity is real.
- RockRobotRock 2y agoso much money stuffed in their mouth it’s physically impossible
- koolala 2y agoThey all can combine their testimony into 1 document, give it to an AI, and lol
- StarterPro 2y agoGlad to see that all giant companies are just evil rich white dudes racing each other to taking over the world.
- topspin 2y ago"making former employees sign extremely restrictive NDAs doesn’t exactly follow." Once again, we see the difference between the public narrative and the actions in a legal context.
- almost_usual 2y agoThis is what a dying company does.
- jimnotgym 2y ago>the company will succeed at developing AI systems that make most human labor obsolete. Hmmmn. Most of the humans where I work do things physically with their hands. I don't see what AI will achieve in their area. Can AI paint the walls in my house, fix the boiler and swap out the rotten windows? If so I think a subscription to chat GPT is very reasonably priced!
- renonce 2y agoI don’t know but once vision AI reacts to traffic conditions accurately within 10ms it’s probably a matter of time before they take over your steering wheel. For other jobs you’ll need to wait for robotics.
- LtWorf 2y agoIt has to react "correctly"
- cyberpunk 2y ago4o groks realtime video; how far away are we from letting it control robots bruv?
- windowsrookie 2y agoObviously if your job requires blue-collar style manual labor, no it's likely not going to be replaced anytime soon. But if your job is mostly sitting at a computer, I would be a bit worried.
- eastbound 2y agoGiven the low quality of relationships between customers and blue-collared jobs, i.e. ever tried to get a job done by a plumber or a painter, if you don’t know how to do their job you are practically assured they will do something in your back that will fall off in 2 years, for the price of 2x your daily rate as a software engineer (when they don’t straight up send a paperless immigrant which makes you culprit of participation to unlawful employment scheme if it is discovered), well… I’d say there is a lot of available money in replacing blue collared jobs with AI-powered robots. Even if they do crap, it’s still better quality that contractors.
- mise_en_place 2y agoWhy indeed? But that’s nobody’s business except OpenAI and its former employees. Doesn’t matter if it’s not legally enforceable, or in bad taste. When you enter into a contract with another party, it is between you and the other party. If there is something unenforceable about these contracts, we have the court system to settle these disputes. I’m tired of living in a society where everyone’s dirty laundry is aired out for everyone to judge. If there is a crime committed, then sure, it should become a matter of public record. Otherwise, it really isn’t your business.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago>OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity. >... >We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. From OpenAI's charter: https://openai.com/charter/ https://openai.com/charter/ Now read Jan Leike's departure statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40391412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40391412 That's why this is everyone's business.
- diebeforei485 2y ago> 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 back equity from employees who violate NDA. So this isn't all that unusual.
- season2episode3 2y agoSource on #2?
- diebeforei485 2y agoPlease read Apple's Employee Stock Plan Agreement, in particular Section 9. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312522066169/d294699dex102.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0001193125220... It has happened in several cases involving leakers, most recently the Andrew Aude case.
- benreesman 2y agoThis has just been crazy both to watch and in some small ways interact with up close (I’ve had some very productive and some regrettably heated private discussions advising former colleagues and people I care about to GTFO before the shit really hits the rotary air impeller, and this is going to get so much worse). This thread is full of comments making statements around this looking like some level of criminal enterprise (ranging from “no way that document holds up” to “everyone knows Sam is a crook”). The level of stuff ranging from vitriol to overwhelming if maybe circumstantial (but conclusive that my personal satisfaction) evidence of direct reprisal has just been surreal, but it’s surreal in a different way to see people talking about this like it was never even controversial to be skeptical/critical/hostile to thing thing. I’ve been saying that this looks like the next Enron, minimum, for easily five years, arguably double that. Is this the last straw where I stop getting messed around over this? I know better than to expect a ticker tape parade for having both called this and having the guts to stand up to these folks, but I do hold out a little hope for even a grudging acknowledgment.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y agoThere's another comment saying something sort of similar elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40396366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40396366 What made you think it was the next Enron five years ago? I appreciate you having the guts to stand up to them.
- benreesman 2y agoFirst, thank you for probably being the first person to recognize in print that it wasn’t easy to stand up to these folks in public, plenty have said things like “you’re fighting the good fight” in private, but I think you’re the first person to in any sense second the motion in my personal case, so big ups on having the guts to say it too. I’ve never been a YC-funded founder myself, but I’ve had multiple roommates who were, and a few girlfriends who were on the bubble of like, founder and early employee, and I’ve just generally been swimming in that pool to one degree or another for coming up on 20 years (I always forget my join date but it’s on the order of like, 17 years or something). So when a few dozen people you trust tell you the same thing, you tend to buy it even if you’re not quite ready to print the worst hearsay (and I’ve heard things about Altman that I believe but still wouldn’t print without proof, dark shit). As the litany of scandals mounted (Green Dot, zero-rated pre-IPO portfolio stock with like, his brother involved, Socialcam, the list just goes on), and at some point real journalists start doing pieces (New Yorker, etc.). And while some of my friends and former colleagues (well maybe former friends now) who joined are both eminently qualified and as ethical as this business lets anyone be, there was a skew there too, it skewed “opportunist, fails up”. So it’s a growing preponderance of evidence starting in about 2009 and being just “published by credible journalists”starting about five years later, at some point I’m like “if even 5% of this is even a little true, this is beyond the pale”. It’s been a gradual thing, and people giving the benefit of the doubt up until the November stuff are maybe just really charitable, at this point it’s like, only a jury can take the next steps trivially indicated.
- mrweasel 2y agoWhen companies create rules like this, that tells me that they are very unsure of their product. Either it doesn't works as they claim, or it's incredible simple to replicate. It can also be that their entire business plan is insane, in any case, there's something basic wrong internally at OpenAI for them to feel the need for this kind of rule. If OpenAI and ChatGPT is so far ahead for everyone else, and their product is so complex, it doesn't matter what a few disgruntled employees do or say, so the rule is not required.
- underdeserver 2y agoForget their product, they're shady as employers. Intentionally doing something borderline legal when they have all the negotiating power.
- Delmololo 2y agoWhy should they? It's absolutely normal not to spill internals.
- Al-Khwarizmi 2y ago"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.
- SXX 2y agoThis is not much worse than "forced arbitration". In US you can literally lose your rights by clicking on "Agree" button.
- borski 2y agoIt’s all about freedom from government tyranny and censorship. Freedom from corporate tyranny is another matter entirely, and generally relies on individuals being careful about what they agree to.
- bamboozled 2y agoAmerica values money just as much as it values freedom. If there is any chance the money collection activities will be disturbed, then heads will roll, violently. See the assassination attempts on president Jackson.
- whatever1 2y agoSo if I am a competitor I just need to pay a current employee like 2-3M to break their golden handcuffs and then they can freely start singing.
- jakderrida 2y agoNot to seem combative, but that assumes that what they share would be advantageous enough to justify the costs... On the other hand, I'm thinking if I'm paying them to disclose all proprietary technology and research for my product, that would definitely make it worthwhile.
- anvuong 2y agoThis sounds very illegal, how is California allowing this?
- Symmetry 2y agoNobody has challenged it in court.
- surfingdino 2y agoIt'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?
- brap 2y agoI kinda like Lex, but he never asks any difficult questions. That’s probably why he gets all these fancy guests on his show.
- surfingdino 2y agoAnd he always ends with questions about love, just to pour some more oil on the quiet seas :-) nothing wrong with that, but like you say he asks safe questions.
- reducesuffering 2y agoWorse, he will agree 95% with what guest A opinions are, only for guest B to come on next episode and also agree with 95%. It would've been better for those opposing guests to just debate themselves. Like, I don't want to see Lex and Yuval Noah Harari, then Lex and Bibi Netanyahu, I'd rather see Yuval and Bibi. I don't want to see Lex and Sama, then Lex and Eliezer, I'd rather see Sama and Eliezer.
- bambax 2y ago> All of this is highly ironic for a company that initially advertised itself as OpenAI Well... I know first hand that many well-informed, tech-literate people still think that all products from OpenAI are open-source. Lying works, even in that most egregious of fashion.
- SXX 2y agoThis is just Propoganda 101. Call yourself anti-fascist on TV for decade enough times and then you can go indiscriminately kill everyone you call fascist. Unfortunately Orwellian propoganda works.
- Andrew_nenakhov 2y agoI wonder if employees rallying for Altman when the board was trying to fire him were obligated to do it by some secret agreement.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoEven without explicit clauses, it's likely they feared the loss of a (perceived) great man would impact their equity -- regardless of his character. Sadly there is too much faith in these Jobs-esque 'great' men to drive innovation. It's a social illness IMO.
- doctorwho42 2y agoIt's a taught ideology/theory, the great man theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory
- I_am_tiberius 2y agoI get Theranos / David Boies vibes.
- i5heu 2y agoIt is always so impressive to see what the US law allows. This would be not only unethical viewed in Germany, i could see how a CEO would go to prison for such a thing.
- Rinzler89 2y agoPlease stop with these incorrect generalizations. Hush agreements are definitely allowed in Germany as well, part of golden parachutes usually. I know a manager for an EV project at a big German auto company who also had to sign one when he was let go and was compensated handsomely to keep quiet and not say a word or face legal consequences. IIRC he got ~12 months wages. After a year of not doing anything at work anyway. Bought a house in the south with it. Good gig.
- jstummbillig 2y agoI am confused about the source of the outrage. A situation where nobody is very clear about what the claim is but everyone is very upset, makes me suspicious. Are employees being mislead about the contract terms at time of signing the contract? Because, obviously, the original contract needs to have some clause regarding the equity situation, right? We can not just make that up at the end. So... are we claiming fraud? What I suspect is happening, is that we are confusing an option to forgo equity for an option to talk openly about OpenAI stuff (an option that does not even have to exist in the initial agreement, I would assume). Is this overreach? Is this whole thing necessary? That seems besides the point. Two parties agreed to the terms when signing the contract. I have a hard time thinking of top AI researchers as coerced to take a job at OpenAI or unable to understand a contract, or understand that they should pay someone to explain it to them – so if that's not a free decision, I don't know what is. Which leads me to: If we think the whole deal is pretty shady – well, it took two.
- ghusbands 2y agoIf the two parties are equal, sure. If it's a person vs a corporation of significant size, then no, it's not safe to assume that people have free choice. That's also ignoring motivations apart from business ones, like them actually wanting to be at the leading edge of AI research or wanting to work with particular other individuals. It's a common mistake on here to assume that for every decision there are equally good other options. Also, the fact that they feel the need to enforce silence so strongly implies at least a little that they have something to hide.
- hanspeter 2y agoAI researchers and engineers surely have the free choice to sign with another employer than OpenAI?
- jstummbillig 2y ago> If it's a person vs a corporation of significant size, then no, it's not safe to assume that people have free choice We understand this as a market dynamic, surely? More companies are looking for capable AI people, than capable AI people exist (as in: on the entire planet). I don't see any magic trick a "corporation of significant size" can pull, to make the "free choice" aspect go away. But, of course, individual people can continue to CHOOSE certain corps, because they actually kind of like the outsized benefits that brings. Complaining about certain trade-offs afterwards is fairly disingenuous. > That's also ignoring motivations apart from business ones, like them actually wanting to be at the leading edge of AI research or wanting to work with particular other individuals. I don't understand what you are saying. Is the wish to work on leading AI research sensible, but offering the opportunity to work on leading AI research not a value proposition? How does that make sense?
- subroutine 2y agoThis is an interesting update to the article... > After publication, an OpenAI spokesperson sent me this statement: “We have never canceled any current or former employee’s vested equity nor will we if people do not sign a release or nondisparagement agreement when they exit.” - Updated May 17, 2024, 11:20pm EDT
- jiggawatts 2y agoNeither of those statements negate the key point of the article. I've noticed that both Sam Altman personally, and official statements from OpenAI sound like they've been written by Aes Sedai: Not a single untrue word while simultaneously thoroughly deceptive.[1] Let's try translating some statements, as if we were listening to an evil person that can only make true statements: "We have never canceled any current or former employee’s vested equity" => "But we can and will if we want to. We just haven't yet." "...if people do not sign a release or nondisparagement agreement when they exit." => "But we're making everyone sign the agreement." [1] I've wondered if they use a not-for-public-use version of GPT for this purpose. You know, a model that's not quite as aligned as the chat bots, with more "flexible" morals.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- twobitshifter 2y agoCould also be that they have a unique definition of vesting when they say specifically “vested equity”
- olalonde 2y agoA bit unexpected coming from a non-profit organisation that supposedly has an altruistic mission. It's almost as if there was actually a profit making agenda... I'm shocked.
- baggiponte 2y agoNot a US right expert. Isn’t the “you can’t criticize ever the company or you’ll lose the vested equity” a violation of the first amendment?
- strstr 2y agoCorporations aren’t the government.
- milankragujevic 2y agoIt 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.
- wouldbecouldbe 2y agoThat's probably because the company closed after hiring them
- rKarpinski 2y agoThey have multiple NDA's, including ones that are signed before joining the company [1]. [1]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kovCotfpTFWFXaxwi/simeon_c-s-shortform#G97BaFw83cvegttbv https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kovCotfpTFWFXaxwi/simeon_c-s...
- yashap 2y agoFor a company that is actively pursuing AGI (and probably the #1 contender to get there), this type of behaviour is extremely concerning. 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.
- schmidt_fifty 2y ago> There’s a very real/significant risk that AGI either literally destroys the human race If this were true, intelligent people would have taken over society by now. Those in power will never relinquish it to a computer just as they refuse to relinquish it to more competent people. For the vast majority of people, AI not only doesn't pose a risk but will only help reveal the incompetence of the ruling class.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago>> There’s a very real/significant risk that AGI either literally destroys the human race > If this were true, intelligent people would have taken over society by now The premise you're replying to - one I don't think I agree with - is that a true AGI would be so much smarter, so much more powerful, that it wouldn't be accurate to describe it as "more smart". You're probably smarter than a guy who recreationally huffs spraypaint, but you're still within the same class as intelligence. Both of you are so much more advanced than a cat, or a beetle, or a protozoan that it doesn't even make sense to make any sort of comparison.
- schmidt_fifty 2y ago[dead]
- hyping9 2y ago[flagged]
- strstr 2y agoThis really kills my desire to trust startups and YC. Hopefully paulg makes some kind of statement or commitment on non-disparagement and the like.
- sidewndr46 2y agoisn't such a contracting completely unenforceable in the US? I can't sign a contract with a private party that says I won't consult a lawyer for legal advice for example.
- cashsterling 2y agoIn my experience, and that of others I know, agreements of this kind are generally used to hide/cover-up all kinds of malfeasance. I think that agreements of this kind are highly unethical and should be illegal. Many year ago I signed a NDA/non-disparagement agreement as part of a severance package when I was fired from a startup for political reasons. I didn't want to sign it... but my family needed the money and I swallowed my pride. There was a lot of unethical stuff going on within the company in terms of fiducial responsibility to investors and BoD. The BoD eventually figured out what was going on and "cleaned house". With OpenAI, I am concerned this is turning into huge power/money grab with little care for humanity... and "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
- punnerud 2y agoIn EU all of these are mostly illegal and void, or strictly limited. You have to pay a good salary for the whole duration (up to two years), and let the employer know months before them leave. Almost right after they are fired. Sound like a better solution?
- punnerud 2y agoI see that this commend jump up and down between 5 and 10 points. Guess a lot of up and downvotes.
- lnsru 2y agoI will not vote. But give me US salaries in Germany please. All these €100k@35 hours workweek offers are boring. It’s almost top salary for senior level developers at big companies. Mostly no stock at all. I will sign probably every shady document for one million € stock compensation.
- objektif 2y agoJust come to US pls. It is the whole package you sign up for not just the salaries. Shitty food, healthcare etc.
- ddalex 2y agoI can't speak. If I speak I will be in trouble.
- itronitron 2y agowhat part of 'Open' do I not understand?
- loceng 2y agoNon-disparagements need to be made illegal. If someone shares something that's a lie and defamatory, then they could still be sued of course. The Ben Shapiro-Daily Wire vs. Candace Owens is another scenario where the truth and conversation would benefit all of society - OpenAI and DailyWire arguably being on topics of pinnacle importance; instead the discussions are suppressed.
- shon 2y agoThe article mentions it briefly but Jan Leike, is talking: Reference: https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494?s=46&t=pO499fGQKTiGvvZPpc-cFw https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494?s=46&t=pO4... He clearly states why he left. He believes that OpenAI leadership is prioritizing shiny product releases over safety and that this is a mistake. Even with the best intentions , it’s easy for a strong CEO like Altman to loose sight of more subtly important things like safety and optimize for growth and winning, eventually at all cost. Winning is a super-addictive feedback loop.
- pdonis 2y agoEverything 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.
- varelse 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ur-whale 2y agoIf at this point, it isn't very clear for OpenAI employees that they're working for the dark side and that altman is one of the worst manipulative psychopath the world has ever seen, I doubt anything will get them to realize what is happening to them.
- __lbracket__ 2y agoThey dont want to interrupt the good OpenAI is doing in the world, dont ya know
- tim333 2y agoSama update on X, says sorry: >in regards to recent stuff about how openai handles equity: >we have never clawed back anyone's vested equity, nor will we do that if people do not sign a separation agreement (or don't agree to a non-disparagement agreement). vested equity is vested equity, full stop. >there was a provision about potential equity cancellation in our previous exit docs; although we never clawed anything back, it should never have been something we had in any documents or communication. this is on me and one of the few times i've been genuinely embarrassed running openai; i did not know this was happening and i should have. >the team was already in the process of fixing the standard exit paperwork over the past month or so. 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. very sorry about this. https://x.com/sama/status/1791936857594581428 https://x.com/sama/status/1791936857594581428
- lupire 2y agoUtterly spineless. Do something slimy and act surprised when you get got. Rinse and repeat.
- airstrike 2y agoI 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
- rglover 2y agoYes, now that it's public knowledge. Had this not been leaked, that wouldn't have been an option.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago<1% chance that Sam did not know what was in those exit docs
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
- imranq 2y agoThis seems like fake news. It would extremely dumb to have such a policy since it would eventually be leaked and be negative press
- o999 2y agoIs there a way to plausible deniability? If an Ex-OpenAI tweet from official account a link to anonymous post of cat videos that later gets edited to some sanctioned content, in a way that is authentic to the community, would this still be deniable in court?
- zekiahloreb23 2y ago[dead]