zlacker

> ”we are identifying and reaching out to former employees who signed a standard exit agreement to make it clear that OpenAI has not and will not cancel their vested equity and releases them from nondisparagement obligations”

Looks like they’re doing that.

>>polack+(OP)
Well, they say they are. But the nondisparagement agreement repeatedly forbids revealing the agreement itself, so if it wasn't cancelled those subject to it would be forbidden to point out that the public claim they were going to release people from it was a lie (or done only for people from whom OpenAI was not particularly concerned about potential disparagement.)

>>polack+(OP)
Note that statement says nothing about whether they will be allowed to participate in liquidity events

>>dragon+01
If your concern is in the validating that they've done so, the article author can at least vet with her anonymous sources.

>>dragon+01
“I have not been released from any exit agreement” is not disparagement.

>>brooks+v6
“disparagement" is whatever is defined in the agreement, which reportedly (from one of the people who declined to sign it) includes discussing the existence of the agreement.

>>dragon+Z7
Dear heavens, being a corporate employee is paranoia and depression-inducing. It's literally like walking into a legal minefield.

>>brooks+v6
OpenCanAIry

>>negles+y9
This is not normal for being a corporate employee. This was certainly going to come out eventually and cause big problems, but to the extent Sam thinks AGI is around the corner he might not be playing the long game.

>>polack+(OP)
"We're hereby making a legally binding commitment that those clauses are void, whether anyone reaches out to us or we manage to reach out to them or not."

Unless and until that's what they say, looks like they’re not doing that.