5 ms·

Brought this up in another thread and was downvoted. But yes the 900k compensation package was probably more than 600k PPU equity which is worth who knows what

Brought this up in another thread and was downvoted. But yes the 900k compensation package was probably more than 600k PPU equity which is worth who knows what now. https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html Only a few days ago there was a post here about them poaching researchers with “10M” equity compensation packages.. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38258406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38258406

lumost 3y ago
This could yield a lawsuit at some point if those PPUs are worthless due to the board refusing to allow profits…
- almost_usual 3y ago
  Right, PPUs are worthless until profitability but the board doesn’t want to be profitable?
  - lumost 3y ago
    I don’t believe offering PPUs as compensation when you intend never to be profitable is entirely legal
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      For a salaried position where the base salary is above the legal minimum salary for wage & hour exemption, I don't see what the legal problem would be.
      - junofan 3y ago
        Tortious interference? It’s pretty textbook right?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Tortious interference? How? > It’s pretty textbook right? No? Offering a compensation package can't be tortious interference, tortious interference requires an existing contract, and action by a third party that (along with a whole bunch of other conditions) causes a breach of that contract.
        junofan 3y ago
        Well, you have to specify a jurisdiction. Let’s go with California since that’s where a lot of OpenAI’s employees are. Here’s what you need: 1. an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to plaintiff; 2. the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship; 3. the defendant was negligent; 4. and such negligence caused damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship It’s pretty open and shut, no?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Yes, its open and shut that offering a compensation package doesn't mean that, starting with #1. And you can't make that case with the later decision by the nonprofit board (even if one assumes that an entity that has complete control of a party can even count as a "third party" for tortious interference rather than just being a source of breach of contract if it actually induces a breach), because the OpenAI Global LLC operating agreement expressly sets this out as normal, so there is no reasonable expected benefit of the relationship that is being interfered with. If OpenAI Global LLC offered its employees the PIU/PPU as compensation but did not disclose (or, a fortiori, actively concealed), you could make a case for fairly simple fraud. But tortious interference is just not a tort that works here.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > This could yield a lawsuit at some point if those PPUs are worthless due to the board refusing to allow profits… A lawsuit based on what? The OpenAI Global LLC operating agreement has a prominent notice... https://images.openai.com/blob/142770fb-3df2-45d9-9ee3-7aa069acada1/image1.png https://images.openai.com/blob/142770fb-3df2-45d9-9ee3-7aa06... from https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure
  - almost_usual 3y ago
    OpenAI recruits employees based on equity packages that will not amount to anything based on their operating agreement. Live and learn I guess.

lumost 3y ago

This could yield a lawsuit at some point if those PPUs are worthless due to the board refusing to allow profits…

almost_usual 3y ago
Right, PPUs are worthless until profitability but the board doesn’t want to be profitable?
- lumost 3y ago
  I don’t believe offering PPUs as compensation when you intend never to be profitable is entirely legal
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    For a salaried position where the base salary is above the legal minimum salary for wage & hour exemption, I don't see what the legal problem would be.
    - junofan 3y ago
      Tortious interference? It’s pretty textbook right?
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Tortious interference? How? > It’s pretty textbook right? No? Offering a compensation package can't be tortious interference, tortious interference requires an existing contract, and action by a third party that (along with a whole bunch of other conditions) causes a breach of that contract.
        junofan 3y ago
        Well, you have to specify a jurisdiction. Let’s go with California since that’s where a lot of OpenAI’s employees are. Here’s what you need: 1. an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to plaintiff; 2. the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship; 3. the defendant was negligent; 4. and such negligence caused damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship It’s pretty open and shut, no?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Yes, its open and shut that offering a compensation package doesn't mean that, starting with #1. And you can't make that case with the later decision by the nonprofit board (even if one assumes that an entity that has complete control of a party can even count as a "third party" for tortious interference rather than just being a source of breach of contract if it actually induces a breach), because the OpenAI Global LLC operating agreement expressly sets this out as normal, so there is no reasonable expected benefit of the relationship that is being interfered with. If OpenAI Global LLC offered its employees the PIU/PPU as compensation but did not disclose (or, a fortiori, actively concealed), you could make a case for fairly simple fraud. But tortious interference is just not a tort that works here.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> This could yield a lawsuit at some point if those PPUs are worthless due to the board refusing to allow profits… A lawsuit based on what? The OpenAI Global LLC operating agreement has a prominent notice... https://images.openai.com/blob/142770fb-3df2-45d9-9ee3-7aa069acada1/image1.png https://images.openai.com/blob/142770fb-3df2-45d9-9ee3-7aa06... from https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure
- almost_usual 3y ago
  OpenAI recruits employees based on equity packages that will not amount to anything based on their operating agreement. Live and learn I guess.