zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
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.

>>jp57+Ft
It'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.

>>apsec1+Qt
somebody explained to me early on that you cannot have a contract to have a contract. either initial agreement must state this condition clearly or they are signing another contract at employment termination which is bringing these new terms. IDK why would anyone sign that at termination unless they dangle additional equity. I dont think this BS they are trying to pull would be enforceable at least in California. though IANAL obviously.

all this said, in bigger picture I can understand not divulging trade secrets but not being allowed to discuss company culture towards AI safety essentially tells me that all the Sama talk about the 'for the good of humanity' is total BS. at the end of day its about market share and bottom line.