zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
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.

>>jstumm+Uf1
If 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.

>>ghusba+xh1
AI researchers and engineers surely have the free choice to sign with another employer than OpenAI?