5 ms·

OpenAI is not the government. Yet.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
If the courts enforce the agreement then that is state action. So I think an argument can be made that NDAs and similar agreements should not be enforceable by courts. See Shelley v. Kraemer
a_wild_dandan 2y ago
What do I do with this information?
- jaredklewis 2y ago
  Your original comment uses the term "free speech," which in the context of the discussion of the legality of contract in the US, brings to mind the first amendment. But first amendment basically only restricts the government's ability to suppress speech, not the ability of other parties (like OpenAI). This restriction may be illegal, but not on first amendment ("free speech") grounds.
- mynegation 2y ago
  Anti frame is saying that free speech guarantee in Constitution only applies to the relationship between the government and the citizens, not between private entities.
- solardev 2y ago
  In the US, the Constitution prevents the government from regulating your speech. It does not prevent you from entering into contracts with other private entities, like your company, about what THEY allow you to say or not. In this case there might be other laws about whether a company can unilaterally force that on you after the fact, but that's not a free speech consideration, just a contract dispute. See https://www.themuse.com/advice/non-disparagement-clause-agreement-sample https://www.themuse.com/advice/non-disparagement-clause-agre...
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  I think we need to face the fact that these companies aren’t trustworthy in upholding their own stated morals. We need to consider whether streaming video from our phone to a complex AI system that can interpret everything it sees might have longer term privacy implications. When you think about it, a cloud AI system is an incredible surveillance machine. You want to talk to it about important questions in your life, and it would also be capable of dragnet surveillance based on complex concepts like “show me all the people organizing protests” etc. Consider for example that when Amazon bought the Ring security camera system, it had a “god mode” that allowed executives and a team in Ukraine unlimited access to all camera data. It wasn’t just a consumer product for home users, it was a mass surveillance product for the business owners: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/amazon-ring-security-camera/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/amazon-ring-security-cam... The EFF has more information on other privacy issues with that system: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-storm-privacy-threats https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-s... These big companies and their executives want power. Withholding huge financial gain from ex employees to maintain their silence is one way of retaining that power.
idontpost 2y ago
[dead]
impossiblefork 2y ago
Free speech is a much more general notion than anything having to do with governments. The first amendment is a US free speech protection, but it's not prototypical. You can also find this in some other free speech protections, for example that in the UDHR >Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. doesn't refer to states at all.
- lupire 2y ago
  UDHR is not law so it's irrelevant to a question of law.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    Originally the comment to which that comment responded said something about free speech rather than anything about legality, and it was in that context which I responded, so the comment to which I responded must have also been written in that context.
- kfrzcode 2y ago
  Free speech is a God-given right. It is innate and given to you and everyone at birth, after which it can only be suppressed but never revoked.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Good luck serving God with a subpoena when you have to defend yourself in court. He's really good at dodging process servers.
    - kfrzcode 2y ago
      The inalienable rights of mankind are not given to us or validated in a court of man's law. This is not new philosophy and comes from at least as far back as the Greeks. Your quips will serve you well, I'm sure, in whatever microcosm you populate.
janalsncm 2y ago
A lot of people forget that although 1A means the government can’t put you in prison for things, there are a lot of pretty unpleasant consequences from private entities. As far as I know, it wouldn’t be illegal for a dentist to deny care to someone who criticized them, for example.
- Marsymars 2y ago
  Right, and that's why larger companies need regulation around those consequences. If a dentist doesn't want to treat you because you criticized them, that's fine, but if State Farm doesn't want to insure your dentistry because you criticized them, regulators shouldn't allow that.

If the courts enforce the agreement then that is state action. So I think an argument can be made that NDAs and similar agreements should not be enforceable by courts. See Shelley v. Kraemer

a_wild_dandan 2y ago

What do I do with this information?

jaredklewis 2y ago
Your original comment uses the term "free speech," which in the context of the discussion of the legality of contract in the US, brings to mind the first amendment. But first amendment basically only restricts the government's ability to suppress speech, not the ability of other parties (like OpenAI). This restriction may be illegal, but not on first amendment ("free speech") grounds.
mynegation 2y ago
Anti frame is saying that free speech guarantee in Constitution only applies to the relationship between the government and the citizens, not between private entities.
solardev 2y ago
In the US, the Constitution prevents the government from regulating your speech. It does not prevent you from entering into contracts with other private entities, like your company, about what THEY allow you to say or not. In this case there might be other laws about whether a company can unilaterally force that on you after the fact, but that's not a free speech consideration, just a contract dispute. See https://www.themuse.com/advice/non-disparagement-clause-agreement-sample https://www.themuse.com/advice/non-disparagement-clause-agre...
TaylorAlexander 2y ago
I think we need to face the fact that these companies aren’t trustworthy in upholding their own stated morals. We need to consider whether streaming video from our phone to a complex AI system that can interpret everything it sees might have longer term privacy implications. When you think about it, a cloud AI system is an incredible surveillance machine. You want to talk to it about important questions in your life, and it would also be capable of dragnet surveillance based on complex concepts like “show me all the people organizing protests” etc. Consider for example that when Amazon bought the Ring security camera system, it had a “god mode” that allowed executives and a team in Ukraine unlimited access to all camera data. It wasn’t just a consumer product for home users, it was a mass surveillance product for the business owners: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/amazon-ring-security-camera/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/amazon-ring-security-cam... The EFF has more information on other privacy issues with that system: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-storm-privacy-threats https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-s... These big companies and their executives want power. Withholding huge financial gain from ex employees to maintain their silence is one way of retaining that power.

idontpost 2y ago

[dead]

impossiblefork 2y ago

Free speech is a much more general notion than anything having to do with governments. The first amendment is a US free speech protection, but it's not prototypical. You can also find this in some other free speech protections, for example that in the UDHR >Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. doesn't refer to states at all.

lupire 2y ago
UDHR is not law so it's irrelevant to a question of law.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Originally the comment to which that comment responded said something about free speech rather than anything about legality, and it was in that context which I responded, so the comment to which I responded must have also been written in that context.
kfrzcode 2y ago
Free speech is a God-given right. It is innate and given to you and everyone at birth, after which it can only be suppressed but never revoked.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Good luck serving God with a subpoena when you have to defend yourself in court. He's really good at dodging process servers.
  - kfrzcode 2y ago
    The inalienable rights of mankind are not given to us or validated in a court of man's law. This is not new philosophy and comes from at least as far back as the Greeks. Your quips will serve you well, I'm sure, in whatever microcosm you populate.

janalsncm 2y ago

A lot of people forget that although 1A means the government can’t put you in prison for things, there are a lot of pretty unpleasant consequences from private entities. As far as I know, it wouldn’t be illegal for a dentist to deny care to someone who criticized them, for example.

Marsymars 2y ago
Right, and that's why larger companies need regulation around those consequences. If a dentist doesn't want to treat you because you criticized them, that's fine, but if State Farm doesn't want to insure your dentistry because you criticized them, regulators shouldn't allow that.