22 ms·
If this really was a mistake the easiest way to deal with it would be to release people from their non disparagement agreements that were only signed by leaving
by tedivm 2y ago
If this really was a mistake the easiest way to deal with it would be to release people from their non disparagement agreements that were only signed by leaving employees under the duress of losing their vested equity.
It's really easy to make people whole for this, so whether that happens or not is the difference between the apologies being real or just them just backpedaling because employees got upset.
Edit: Looks like they're doing the right thing here:
> Altman’s initial statement was criticized for doing too little to make things right for former employees, but in an emailed statement, OpenAI told me that “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” — which goes much further toward fixing their mistake.
- marcinzm 2y agoAssuming that’s the only clause that they can use to cause people trouble. The article indicates it’s not.
- polack 2y ago> ”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.
- dragonwriter 2y agoWell, 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.)
- lelandfe 2y agoIf your concern is in the validating that they've done so, the article author can at least vet with her anonymous sources.
- brookst 2y ago“I have not been released from any exit agreement” is not disparagement.
- dragonwriter 2y ago“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.
- neglesaks 2y agoDear heavens, being a corporate employee is paranoia and depression-inducing. It's literally like walking into a legal minefield.
- Symmetry 2y agoThis 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.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ecjhdnc2025 2y agoOpenCanAIry
- taylorfinley 2y agoNote that statement says nothing about whether they will be allowed to participate in liquidity events
- CRConrad 2y ago"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.
- madeofpalk 2y agoFor whatever it's worth (not much), Sam Altman did say they would do that > 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 https://x.com/sama/status/1791936857594581428
- DaiPlusPlus 2y agoGiven what OpenAI's been in the press for the past few weeks, I can't help but feel this is a trap; even if it isn't, Sam is certainly making it look like it is...
- tedivm 2y agoWhat Sam is saying is very different than what I'm saying. I'm saying he should be proactive and just do it, he's saying that if people explicitly reach out to him then he'll do it specifically for them.
- super256 2y agoTurkeys don't vote for an early Christmas.
- johnbellone 2y agoBingo.
- Symmetry 2y agoImportantly if he just said publicly that that he wouldn't enforce the non-disparagement agreements that could be legally binding[1]. But if he just says he'll release people who he's, legally speaking, free to just not do that. [1] The keywords are promissory estoppel. I'm not a lawyer but this looks at least like a borderline case worth worrying about.
- pempem 2y agoSure and anyone who has worked in a toxic workplace knows exactly what it means to require a direct path to leadership to resolve an issue instead of just resolving it.
- belter 2y agoNot a mistake... "...But there's a problem with those apologies from company leadership. Company documents obtained by Vox with signatures from Altman and Kwon complicate their claim that the clawback provisions were something they hadn’t known about..."
- doctorpangloss 2y agoMistake? The clawback provisions were the executives' idea!
- KennyBlanken 2y ago"We are sorry...that we got caught." "...and that our PR firm wasn't good enough to squash the story." They will follow the standard corporate 'disaster recovery' - say something to make it look like they're addressing it, then do nothing and just wait for it to fall out of the news cycle.
- tedivm 2y agoHonestly I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on that, depending on their actions, because I'm sure they sign so many documents they just rely on their legal teams to ensure they're good.
- neglesaks 2y agoI'm not.
- Terr_ 2y agoHold up... Do you really think that a C-suite including career venture-capitalists who happen to be leading+owning stock in a private startup which has hit an estimated billion+ valuation are too naive/distracted to be involved in how that stock is used to retain employees? In other words, I'm pretty sure the Ed Dillingers are already in charge, not Walter Gibbs garage-tinkerers. [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atmQjQjoZCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atmQjQjoZCQ
- 2y ago
- NotSammyHagar 2y agoThis reads like more than standard restrictions. I hate those like everyone, they are just intended to chill complaints in my opinion with enough question to scare average people without legal expertise (like me, like most devs), just like non-competes used to seemingly primarily be used to discourage looking at other jobs, separate from whether it was enforceable - note the recent FTC decision to end non-competes. About 5 months ago I had a chance to join a company, their company had what looked like an extreme non-compete to me, you couldn't work for any company for the next two years after leaving if they had been a customer of that company. I pointed out to them that I wouldn't have been able to join their company if my previous job had that non-compete clause, it seemed excessive. Eventually I was in meetings with a lawyer at the company who told me it's probably not enforceable, don't worry about it, and the FTC is about to end non-competes. I said great, strike it from the contract and I'll sign it right now. He said I can't do that, no one off contracts. So then I said I'm not working there.
- tedivm 2y agoI have worked for multiple startups (Malwarebytes, Vicarious, Rad AI, Explosion AI, Aptible, Kenna Security). Not once have I seen an exit agreement that stated they would steal back my vested equity if I didn't sign. This is definitely not "standard restrictions".
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoComp clawbacks are quite common in finance, at least contractually. It's rare for it to go ahead, but it happens. It isn't some especially weird thing.
- voxic11 2y agoIs OpenAI a finance company? I guess that would explain a lot.
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoThey pay like one.
- croes 2y ago>Edit: Looks like they're doing the right thing here That's like P.Diddy saying I'm sorry. That's damage control for being caught doing something bad ... again.
- ixaxaar 2y agoExtreme pinky swear.
- hughesjj 2y ago"Trust me bro, if it weren't up to me you wouldn't even have to sign that contract. I mean it is up to me, but, like, I won't enforce the thing I made you sign. What? No I won't terminate the contract why don't you trust me bro? I thought we were a family?"
- samspot 2y agoYeah, agree, but they don't have to cancel the disparagement clause. They could just eat the PR hit. Allowing former employees to talk freely seems risky to me (if I were them). I think we can give them back 5 points for this move but still leave them at -995 overall.
- cyanydeez 2y agoLLM cares not whether something is said or whether the action is described. No doubt, openai is as vacuous as their product is effect. GIGO.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y agoForm follows function, art imitates life, dog owners grow to look like their dogs...
- CRConrad 2y ago...and software products reflect the corporate structure of the companies that created them. Think I'll be staying away from "AI" for a while longer.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whaleofatw2022 2y ago> Edit: Looks like they're doing the right thing here: > Altman’s initial statement was criticized for doing too little to make things right for former employees, but in an emailed statement, OpenAI told me that “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” — which goes much further toward fixing their mistake. 1. Get cash infusion from microsoft 2. Do microsoft playbook of 'oh I didn't mean to be shady we will correct' when caught. 3. In the meantime there are uncaught cases as well as the general hand waving away of repeated bad behavior. 4. What sama did would get him banned from some -fetish- circles, if that says something about how his version of 'EA' deals with consent concerns.
- comp_throw7 2y agoPlenty of legitimate things to criticize EA for, no need to smear them by association with someone who's never claimed to be an EA and hasn't obviously behaved like one either.
- whaleofatw2022 2y agoTo be clear I'm saying he's an effective accelerationist not an effective altruist.
- gcr 2y agoI think E/Acc may be the preferred abbreviation.
- pdonis 2y ago> Looks like they're doing the right thing here Even if that's true (and I'm not saying it is, or it isn't, I don't think anyone on the outside knows enough to say for sure), is it because they genuinely agree they did something egregiously wrong and they will really change their behavior in the future? Or is it just because they got caught this time so they have to fix this particular mistake, but they'll keep on using similar tactics whenever they think they can get away with it? The impact of such uncertainty on our confidence in their stewardship of AI is left as an exercise for the reader.
- mvdtnz 2y agoYou surely don't actually believe Altman when he says they're doing this? Like Elon Musk, Altman is a known liar and should not be trusted. It's truly unbelievable to me that people take statements like this at face value after having been lied to again and again and again. I think I'm starting to understand how crypto scams work.
- asveikau 2y agoThe right thing would be to not try to put that clause in there to begin with, not release employees from it when they get caught.
- interludead 2y agoMeant to write the same thing. Agree but at least it is known now
- zaptheimpaler 2y agoThat really is not enough. Now that they have been publicly embarrassed and the clause is common knowledge they really have to undo the mistake. If they didn't, they would look like a horrible employer and employees would start valuing their stock at $0, dropping their effective compensations by a ton and then people will leave. Given the situation, undoing the agreement is an act of basic self-preservation at this point. The documents show this really was not a mistake and "I didn't know what the legal documents I signed meant, which specifically had a weird clause that standard agreements don't" isn't much of a defence either. The whole thing is just one more point in favor of how duplicitous the whole org is, there are many more.
- lyu07282 2y ago> Looks like they're doing the right thing here: Well, no: > We're removing nondisparagement clauses from our standard departure paperwork, and we're releasing former employees from existing nondisparagement obligations unless the nondisparagement provision was mutual. We'll communicate this message to former employees. So the former successfully blackmailed employees, stay blackmailed.
- _jab 2y agoIt shouldn't take a Vox article to ensure employees basic security over their compensation. The fact that this provision existed at all is exceptionally anti-employee.
- bambax 2y ago> If this really was a mistake The article makes it clear that it wasn't a mistake at all. It's a lie. They were playing hardball, and when it became public they switched to PR crisis management to try and save their "image", or what's left of it. They're not the good guys. I'd say they're more of a caricature of bad guys, since they get caught every time. Something between a classic Bond villain and Wile E. Coyote.