zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
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.

>>aspero+Ps
"Legal" seems like a fuzzy line to OpenAI's leadership.

Pushing unenforceable scare-copy to get employees to self-censor sounds on-brand.

>>ethbr1+Mt
I 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.

>>tptace+Uv
Well, 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.