[asperous]

Not a lawyer but those contracts aren't legal. You need something called "consideration" ie something new of value to be legal. They can't just take away something of value that was already agreed upon.

However they could add this to new employee contracts.

[ethbr1]

"Legal" seems like a fuzzy line to OpenAI's leadership.

Pushing unenforceable scare-copy to get employees to self-censor sounds on-brand.

[tptacek]

I agree with Piper's point that these contracts aren't common in tech, but they're hardly unheard of. In 20 years of consulting work I've seen dozens of them. They're not uncommon. This doesn't look uniquely hostile or amoral for OpenAI, just garden-variety.

[a_wild_dandan]

Well, an AI charity -- so founded on openness that they're called OpenAI -- took millions in donations, everyone's copyright data...only to become effectively for-profit, close down their AI, and inflict a lifetime gag on their employees. In that context, it feels rather amoral.

[tptacek]

This to me is like the "don't be evil" thing. I didn't take it seriously to begin with, I don't think reasonable people should have taken it seriously, and so it's not persuasive or really all that interesting to argue about.

People are different! You can think otherwise.

[thumrusn72]

Therein lies the issue. The second you throw idealistic terms like “don’t be evil” and __OPEN__ ai around you should be expected to deliver.

But how is that even possible when corporations are typically run by ghouls who enjoy relativistic morals when it suits them. And are beholden to profits, not ethics.

[int_19h]

I think we do need to start taking such things seriously, and start holding companies accountable using all available venues (including legal, and legislative if the laws don't have enough leverage as it is) when they act contrary to their publicly stated commitments.

[comp_throw7]

Contracts like this seem extremely unusual as a condition for _retaining already vested equity (or equity-like instruments)_, rather than as a condition for receiving additional severance. And how common are non-disclosure clauses that cover the non-disparagement clauses?

In fact both of those seem quite bad, both by regular industry standards, and even moreso as applied to OpenAI's specific situation.

[lupire]

as an exit contract? Not part of a severance agreement?

Boomberg famously used this as an employment contract, and it was a campaign scandal for Mike.

[dylan604]

This sounds just like the non-compete issue that the FTC just invalidated. I can see if the current FTC leadership is allowed to continue working after 2025/01/20 that these things might be moved against as well. If new admin is brought in, they might all get reversed. Just something to consider going into your particular polling place

[blackeyeblitzar]

It doesn’t matter if they are not legal. Employees do not have resources to fight expensive legal battles and fear retaliation in other ways. Like not being able to find future jobs. And anyone with family plain won’t have the time.

[lxgr]

“You get shares in our company in exchange for employment and eternal never-talking-bad-about-us”?

Doesn’t mean that that’s legal, of course, but I’d doubt that the legality would hinge on a lack of consideration.

[hannasanarion]

You can't add a contingency to a payment retroactively. It sounds like these are exit agreements, not employment agreements.

If it was "we'll give you shares/cash if you don't say anything bad about us", that's normal, kind of standard fare for exit agreements, it's why severance packages exist.

But if it is "we'll take away the shares that you already earned as part of your regular employment compensation unless you agree to not say anything bad about us", that's extortion.

[koolba]

Through in a preamble of “For $1 and other consideration…”

[singleshot_]

They give you a general release of liability, as noted elsewhere in the thread.

[danielmarkbruce]

Have you seen the contracts?