from Hacker News

OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

by fnbr on 5/17/24, 6:55 PM with 961 comments

• by modeless on 5/18/24, 1:37 AM

  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.

• by fragmede on 5/18/24, 12:26 AM

  It'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

• by Al-Khwarizmi on 5/18/24, 7:25 AM

  "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.

• by jay-barronville on 5/18/24, 1:06 AM

  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, 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...

• by thorum on 5/17/24, 11:10 PM

  Extra respect is due to Jan Leike, then:

  https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494

• by jp57 on 5/17/24, 11:02 PM

  The 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.

• by underlogic on 5/18/24, 4:22 AM

  This 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

• by toomuchtodo on 5/17/24, 11:03 PM

  I 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.

• by 0cf8612b2e1e on 5/17/24, 10:55 PM

  Why 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?

• by benreesman on 5/18/24, 6:28 AM

  This 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.

• by ecjhdnc2025 on 5/18/24, 1:49 AM

  It 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.

• by yumraj on 5/18/24, 2:20 AM

  Compared 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.

• by tim333 on 5/18/24, 9:10 PM

  Sama 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

• by asperous on 5/17/24, 10:54 PM

  Not 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.

• by cashsterling on 5/18/24, 4:46 PM

  In 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".

• by bambax on 5/18/24, 7:54 AM

  > 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.

• by rvz on 5/17/24, 11:00 PM

  So 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.

• by lopkeny12ko on 5/18/24, 12:30 AM

  What 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.

• by atomicnumber3 on 5/18/24, 2:37 AM

  I 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).

• by jimnotgym on 5/18/24, 6:10 AM

  >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!

• by zombiwoof on 5/18/24, 3:11 AM

  Sam 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

• by MBlume on 5/17/24, 7:32 PM

  Submission 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.

• by Barrin92 on 5/18/24, 1:35 AM

  We'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

• by Andrew_nenakhov on 5/18/24, 8:25 AM

  I wonder if employees rallying for Altman when the board was trying to fire him were obligated to do it by some secret agreement.

• by krick on 5/18/24, 3:32 AM

  I'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.

• by mrweasel on 5/18/24, 7:00 AM

  When 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.

• by alexpetralia on 5/18/24, 3:59 AM

  If 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.

• by whatever1 on 5/18/24, 7:29 AM

  So 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.

• by Buttons840 on 5/18/24, 1:52 AM

  So 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?

• by subroutine on 5/18/24, 11:29 AM

  This 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

• by swat535 on 5/18/24, 1:37 AM

  I 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.

• by blackeyeblitzar on 5/17/24, 11:46 PM

  They 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.

• by pdonis on 5/18/24, 8:07 PM

  Everything I see about OpenAI makes me more and more convinced that the people running it are the last people anyone should want to be stewards of AI technology.

• by tonyhart7 on 5/18/24, 1:23 AM

  "Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it." now its not so much more open anymore right

• by shuckles on 5/17/24, 7:03 PM

  I'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?

• by strstr on 5/18/24, 3:42 PM

  This really kills my desire to trust startups and YC. Hopefully paulg makes some kind of statement or commitment on non-disparagement and the like.

• by croemer on 5/18/24, 12:38 AM

  Link should probably go here instead of X: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai...

  This is the article that the author talks about on X.

• by loceng on 5/18/24, 7:08 PM

  Non-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.

• by croes on 5/18/24, 8:38 AM

  I guess OpenAI makes the hero to villain switch faster than Google as they dropped "don't be evil"

• by milankragujevic on 5/18/24, 3:05 PM

  It 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.

• by jameshart on 5/17/24, 11:38 PM

  The Basilisk's deal turned out to be far more banal than expected.

• by yashap on 5/18/24, 3:22 PM

  For 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.

• by shon on 5/18/24, 7:13 PM

  The article mentions it briefly but Jan Leike, is talking: Reference: 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.

• by ryandrake on 5/17/24, 11:08 PM

  Non-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?"

• by anvuong on 5/18/24, 7:35 AM

  This sounds very illegal, how is California allowing this?

• by User23 on 5/17/24, 11:39 PM

  What 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!”

• by I_am_tiberius on 5/18/24, 8:51 AM

  I get Theranos / David Boies vibes.

• by olalonde on 5/18/24, 12:07 PM

  A 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.

• by nextworddev on 5/18/24, 12:43 AM

  Unfortunately 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.

• by i5heu on 5/18/24, 10:40 AM

  It 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.

• by surfingdino on 5/18/24, 7:48 AM

  It'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?

• by RomanPushkin on 5/18/24, 4:02 AM

  They 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.

• by BeFlatXIII on 5/18/24, 1:07 PM

  I 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.

• by photochemsyn on 5/18/24, 4:24 AM

  OpenAI's military-industrial contracting options seems to be making some folks quite nervous.

• by bradleyjg on 5/18/24, 12:26 AM

  For 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.

• by andrewstuart on 5/18/24, 1:17 AM

  I would like people to sign a lifetime contract to not criticize me.

• by dandanua on 5/18/24, 4:32 AM

  With 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.

• by diebeforei485 on 5/18/24, 6:23 AM

  > 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.

• by a_wild_dandan on 5/17/24, 10:58 PM

  Is this a legally enforceable suppression of free speech? If so, are there ways to be open about OpenAI, without triggering punitive action?

• by photochemsyn on 5/17/24, 11:15 PM

  I 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.

• by almost_usual on 5/18/24, 5:28 AM

  This is what a dying company does.

• by o999 on 5/19/24, 8:24 AM

  Is 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?

• by nsoonhui on 5/18/24, 12:11 AM

  But what's stopping the ex-staffers from criticizing once they sold off the equity?

• by iamflimflam1 on 5/18/24, 8:05 AM

  Doesn’t seem to be everyone - https://x.com/officiallogank/status/1791652970670747909

• by koolala on 5/18/24, 4:51 AM

  They all can combine their testimony into 1 document, give it to an AI, and lol

• by sidewndr46 on 5/18/24, 4:42 PM

  isn'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.

• by mise_en_place on 5/18/24, 6:20 AM

  Why 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.

• by atum47 on 5/18/24, 12:59 AM

  That'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.

• by baggiponte on 5/18/24, 3:00 PM

  Not 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?

• by imranq on 5/18/24, 10:05 PM

  This seems like fake news. It would extremely dumb to have such a policy since it would eventually be leaked and be negative press

• by doubloon on 5/18/24, 1:50 AM

  deleting my OpenAI account.

• by Madmallard on 5/18/24, 4:19 AM

  I'm really sick of seeing people jump in and accelerating the demise of society wholeheartedly due to greed.

• by Melatonic on 5/17/24, 11:18 PM

  So much for the "Open" in OpenAI

• by autonomousErwin on 5/17/24, 10:54 PM

  Is 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)

• by dakial1 on 5/17/24, 11:11 PM

  What if I sell my equity? Can I criticize them then?

• by dbuser99 on 5/18/24, 3:53 AM

  Man. No wonder openai is nothing without its people

• by rich_sasha on 5/17/24, 8:35 PM

  So what's open about it these days?

• by StarterPro on 5/18/24, 4:51 AM

  Glad to see that all giant companies are just evil rich white dudes racing each other to taking over the world.

• by RockRobotRock on 5/18/24, 4:48 AM

  so much money stuffed in their mouth it’s physically impossible

• by ur-whale on 5/18/24, 8:09 PM

  If 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.

• by itronitron on 5/18/24, 7:03 PM

  what part of 'Open' do I not understand?

• by ggm on 5/18/24, 12:31 AM

  I am not a lawyer.

• by ddalex on 5/18/24, 6:52 PM

  I can't speak. If I speak I will be in trouble.

• by Delmololo on 5/18/24, 7:23 AM

  Why should they?

  It's absolutely normal not to spill internals.

• by mwigdahl on 5/18/24, 4:13 AM

  The 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.

• by olliej on 5/17/24, 11:44 PM

  As 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.

• by topspin on 5/18/24, 5:27 AM

  "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.

• by ecjhdnc2025 on 5/18/24, 1:22 AM

  Totally 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.

• by jgalt212 on 5/18/24, 1:08 AM

  I 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.

• by OldMatey on 5/17/24, 10:59 PM

  Well 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.

• by 31337Logic on 5/18/24, 12:10 AM

  This is how you know you're dealing with an evil tyrant.

• by throwaway5959 on 5/18/24, 1:30 AM

  Definitely the stable geniuses I want building AGI.

• by __lbracket__ on 5/18/24, 8:30 PM

  They dont want to interrupt the good OpenAI is doing in the world, dont ya know

• by danielmarkbruce on 5/18/24, 4:10 AM

  This 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.

• by jstummbillig on 5/18/24, 11:00 AM

  I 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.