zlacker

Sama update on X, says sorry:

>in regards to recent stuff about how openai handles equity:

>we have never clawed back anyone's vested equity, nor will we do that if people do not sign a separation agreement (or don't agree to a non-disparagement agreement). vested equity is vested equity, full stop.

>there was a provision about potential equity cancellation in our previous exit docs; although we never clawed anything back, it should never have been something we had in any documents or communication. this is on me and one of the few times i've been genuinely embarrassed running openai; i did not know this was happening and i should have.

>the team was already in the process of fixing the standard exit paperwork over the past month or so. 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. very sorry about this. https://x.com/sama/status/1791936857594581428

>>tim333+(OP)
Utterly spineless. Do something slimy and act surprised when you get got. Rinse and repeat.

>>lupire+m2
I don't think that's an accurate read. He did say

>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

>>lupire+m2
<1% chance that Sam did not know what was in those exit docs

>>insane+Q6
I've been disparaging Sam and OpenAI a fair amount in this thread, but I find it plausible that Sam didn't know.

I remember a job a few years ago where they sent me employment paperwork that was for a very different position than the one I was hired for. (I ended up signing it anyways after a few minor changes, because I liked it better than the paperwork I expected to see.)

If OpenAI is a "move fast and break things" sort of organization, I expect they're shuffling a lot of paperwork that Sam isn't co-signing on. I doubt Sam's attitude towards paperwork is fundamentally different from yours or mine.

If Sam didn't know, however, that doesn't exactly reflect well on OpenAI. As Jan put it: "Act with gravitas appropriate for what you're building." >>40391412 IMO this incident should underscore Jan's point.

Accidentally silencing ex-employees is not what safety culture looks like at all. They've got to start hiring experts and reading books. It's a long slog ahead.

>>airstr+66
Yes, now that it's public knowledge. Had this not been leaked, that wouldn't have been an option.

>>tim333+(OP)
He has 100% been coached by their legal counsel to distance himself from this as this is likely going to court soon (being it’s likely very illegal). That’s why he repeats “we’ve never clawed back” twice…the chilling effect intended had a real effect, at a crucial time for the company, the likely motivation being to defraud investors who may have otherwise been more careful in their support if internal malfeasance around data set sourcing practices were revealed.

I hope ex-employees sue and don’t contact him personally. The damage is done. Don’t be dumb folks.

>>0xDEAF+Ac
I don’t expect Sam to know every detail as CEO. But this particular clause is very impactful and something that the CEO of a startup would have had to sign off on rather than some underling making the decision on their own.