zlacker

[return to "Leaked OpenAI documents reveal aggressive tactics toward former employees"]
1. jiggaw+Tm[view] [source] 2024-05-23 00:29:26
>>apengw+(OP)
I've learned to interpret anything Sam Altman says as-if an Aes Sedai said it. That is: every word is true, but leads the listener to making false assumptions.

Even if in this specific instance he means well, it's still quite entertaining to interpret his statements this way:

"we have never clawed back anyone's vested equity"

=> But we can and will, if we decide to.

"nor will we do that if people do not sign a separation agreement"

=> But we made everyone sign the separation agreement.

"vested equity is vested equity, full stop."

=> Our employees don't have vested equity, they have something else we tricked them into.

"there was a provision about potential equity cancellation in our previous exit docs;"

=> And also in our current docs.

"although we never clawed anything back"

=> Not yet, anyway.

"the team was already in the process of fixing the standard exit paperwork over the past month or so."

=> By "fixing", I don't mean removing the non-disparagement clause, I mean make it ironclad while making the language less controversial and harder to argue with.

"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."

=> We'll fix the employee, not the problem.

"very sorry about this."

=> Very sorry we got caught.

◧◩
2. datafl+eI[view] [source] 2024-05-23 03:31:59
>>jiggaw+Tm
> We're removing nondisparagement clauses from our standard departure paperwork

How would you interpret this part?

> and we're releasing former employees from existing nondisparagement obligations unless the nondisparagement provision was mutual.

This is interesting - was it mutual for most people?

[go to top]