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.

>>a_wild+sx
This to me is like the "don't be evil" thing. I didn't take it seriously to begin with, I don't think reasonable people should have taken it seriously, and so it's not persuasive or really all that interesting to argue about.

People are different! You can think otherwise.

>>tptace+Kz
Therein lies the issue. The second you throw idealistic terms like “don’t be evil” and __OPEN__ ai around you should be expected to deliver.

But how is that even possible when corporations are typically run by ghouls who enjoy relativistic morals when it suits them. And are beholden to profits, not ethics.