zlacker

A lot of the brouhaha about OpenAI is silly, I think. But this is gross. Forcing employees to sign a perpetual non-disparagement agreement under threat of clawing back the large majority of their already earned compensation should not be legal. Honestly it probably isn't, but it'll take someone brave enough to sue to find out.

>>modele+(OP)
If I have equity in a company and I care about its value, I’m not going to say anything to tank its value. If I sell my equity later on, and then disparage the company, what can OpenAI hope to do to me?

>>twobit+Z5
> If I sell my equity later on, and then disparage the company, what can OpenAI hope to do to me?

Well, that would obviously depend on the terms of the contract, but I would be astonished if the people who wrote it didn't consider that possibility. It's pretty trivial to calculate the monetary value of equity, and if they feel entitled to that equity, they surely feel entitled to its cash equivalent.

>>twobit+Z5
They can sue you into bankruptcy, obviously.

Also, what if you can't sell? Selling is at their discretion. They can prevent you from selling some of your so-called "equity" to keep you on their leash as long as they want.

>>twobit+Z5
From what other people have commented, you don't get equity. You get a profit sharing plan. You're chained to them for life. There is no divestiture.

>>modele+(OP)
It's very possible someone has already threatened to sue, and either had their equity restored or received a large payout. But they probably had to sign an NDA about that in order to receive it. End result, every future person thinks they are the first to challenge the legality contract, and few actually try.

>>cdchn+k6
Well, then, people are selling their souls.

I got laid off by a different company and can't disparage them. I can tell the truth. I'm not signing anything that requires me to lie.

>>twobit+Z5
Clout > money

>>pizzaf+Z8
Just playing the devils advocate here, but what if you're not lying.. what if you're just keeping your mouth shut, for millions, maybe tens of millions?

Wish I could say I would have been that strong. Many would not disparage a company they hold equity in, unless they went full baby genocide.

>>modele+g6
If you can't sell, it's worthless anyway.

>>cdchn+k6
Here's something I just don't understand. I have a profit sharing plan *for life*, and yet I want to publicly thrash it so that the benefits I can derive from it is reduced, all in the name of some form of ... what, social service?

>>modele+g6
> * They can prevent you from selling some of your so-called "equity"*

But how much do you need? Sell half, forgo the rest, and you'll be fine.

>>nsoonh+Ak
Yeah, people do things financially not optimal for the sake of ethics. That’s a key part of living in a society. That’s part of why we don’t just murder each other.

>>LtWorf+4g
Liquidity and value are different things. If someone offered you 1% of OpenAI, would you take it? Duh.

But it's a private venture and not a public company, and you "can't sell" that holding on a market, only via complicated schemes that have to be authorized by the board. But you'd take it anyway in the expectation that it would be liquid someday. The employees are in the same position.

>>modele+g6
That’s a good point, if you can get the equity liquid - I don’t think the lawsuit would go far or end up in bankruptcy. In this case, the truth of what happened at OpenAI would be revealed even more in a trial, which is not something they’d like and this type of contract with lifetime provisions isn’t likely to be enforced by a court IMO - especially when the information revealed is in the public’s interest and truthful.

>>modele+(OP)
Lawsuits are tedious, expensive and drawn-out affairs that many people would rather just move on than initiate.

>>bambax+hm
Not a lot of people out there willing to drop half of their net worth on the floor on principle. And then sign up for years of high profile lawsuits and character assassination.

>>listen+o7
Man, sounds like NDAs all the way down.

>>twobit+Z5
They might attack your book deal (which would sell more books!)

>>nsoonh+Ak
Your assumption is that covering up unethical behavior is good for you in the long run. Really it's only good for you in the long run if you manage to be canny enough to sell just before the ****storm hits.

>>modele+g6
> They can sue you into bankruptcy, obviously.

Apologies in advance, my comment does not add to progressing the thread at all.

I was just in the middle of eating a delicious raspberry danish - I read your comment and just about lol'd it all over my keyboard and wall.

The last thing I would do if I had a bunch of equity is screw with a company with some of the most sought after technology in the world. There is a team of lawyers waiting and foaming at the mouth to take everything from you and not bat an eye about it. This seems very obvious.

>>twobit+Z5
> and I care about its value, I’m not going to say anything to tank its value

Probably people like Kokotajlo cared about the value of their equity but even more about their other principles, like speaking the truth publicly even if it meant their losing millions.

>>cdchn+na
> Just playing the devils advocate here, but what if you're not lying.. what if you're just keeping your mouth shut, for millions, maybe tens of millions?

The you're not just lying to others but also to yourself.