tedivm
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.

redbell
The amount [and scale] of practices, chaos and controversies caused by OpenAI since ChatGPT was released are "on par" with the powerful products it has built since.. in a negative way!

These are the hottest controversial events so far, in a chronological order:

  OpenAI's deviation from its original mission (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34979981).
  The Altman's Saga (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38309611).
  The return of Altman (within a week) (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239).
  Musk vs. OpenAI (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39559966). 
  The departure of high-profile employees (Karpathy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39365935 ,Sutskever: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40361128).
  "Why can’t former OpenAI employees talk?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40393121).
kashyapc
Great, if these documents are credible, this is exactly what I was implying[1] yesteday. Here, listen to Altman say how he is "genuinely embarrassed":

"this is on me and one of the few times i've been genuinely embarrassed running openai; i did not know this was happening and i should have."

The first thing the above conjures up is the other disgraced Sam (Bankman-Fried) saying "this is on me" when FTX went bust. I bet euros-to-croissants I'm not the only one to notice this.

Some amount of corporate ruthlessness is part of the game, whether we like it or not. But these SV robber-barrons really crank it up to something else.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425735

zniturah
Looking forward for a document leak about openai using YouTube data for training their models. When asked if they use it, Murali (CTO) told she doesn't know which makes you believe that for 99% they are using it.
Havoc
I find it hard to believe that Sam didn’t know about something that draconian in something so sensitive as NDAs that affects to equity.

He’s not exactly new to this whole startup thing and getting equity right is not a small part of that

notshift
So what happened to Daniel Kokotajlo, the ex-OAI employee who made a comment saying that his equity was clawed back? Was it a miscommunication and he was referring to unvested equity, or is Sama just lying?

In the original context, it sounded very much like he was referring to clawed-back equity. I’m trying to find the link.

redbell
> ..or agreeing not to criticize the company, with no end date

Oh! free speech is on trade! We used to hear the above statement coming from some political regimes but this is the first time I read it in the tech world. Would we live to witness more variations of this behavior on a larger scale?!

> High-pressure tactics at OpenAI

> That meant the former employees had a week to decide whether to accept OpenAI’s muzzle or risk forfeiting what could be millions of dollars

> When ex-employees asked for more time to seek legal aid and review the documents, they faced significant pushback from OpenAI.

> “We want to make sure you understand that if you don't sign, it could impact your equity. That's true for everyone, and we're just doing things by the book,”

Although they've been able to build the most capable AI models that could replace a lot of human jobs, they struggle to humanely manage the people behind these models!!

dmitrygr
Going to be hard to keep claiming you didn’t know something, if your signature is on it. I don’t really think a CEO gets to say he didn’t read what he was signing.
thereal_tron
Does someone know why the employees wanted him back so badly? Must be very few employees actually upset with him and his way of doing things.
coahn
In my third world country, when they do something unethical they say "everything is in accordance with the law", here it's "this is on me", both are very cynical. From the time they went private, it was apparent that this company is unethical to say the least. Given what it is building, this can be very dangerous, but I think they are more proficient in creating hype, than actually coming up with something meaningful.
boh
It's funny how finding out about corporate misdoing has almost a common ritual attached to it. First shock and dismay is expressed to the findings, then the company leadership has to say it was a mistake (rather than an obvious strategy they literally signed off on), we then bring up the contradiction. Does this display of ignorance from every side really need to take place? Why bother asking for an explanation, they obviously did the thing they obviously did and will obviously do as much as possible to keep doing as much of things like that they can get away with.
manlobster
Do OpenAI employees actually get equity in the company (e.g. options or RSUs)? I was under the impression that the company awards "profit units" of some kind, and that many employees aren't sure how they work.
tptacek
I'm not following this very closely, but agreements that block employees from selling (private) vested equity are a market term, not something uniquely aggressive OpenAI does. The Vox article calls this "just as important" as the clawback terms, but, obviously, no.
istjohn
I wonder if this HN post will get torpedoed as fast as the one from yesterday[0].

0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435440

tangentstar
Nothing quite like a contract’s consideration consisting solely of a pre-existing obligation. I wonder what they were thinking with that?
blackeyeblitzar
Everyone is out for Sam Altman, and there are reasons to scrutinize him. But on this issue - it is common for a company's Legal and HR teams to make decisions on language in docs like these (exit docs) entirely on their own. So it is plausible that Sam Altman had no idea that this aggressive language existed. One reason to think the same thing is true here, is I recall Sam spoke up for employee friendly equity plans when he was running YC.
lhnz
I'm surprised that an executive or lawyer didn't realise the reputational damage adding these clauses would eventually cause the leadership team.

Were they really stupid enough to think that the amount of money being offered would bend some of the most principled people in the world?

Whoever allowed those clauses to be added and let them remain has done more damage to the public face of OpenAI than any aggravated ex-employee ever could.

ionwake
Does anyone remember the name of that coder who made a kickstarter for his game but he was unable to finish it because it was a bit too big ( but still epic ) and then due to his talent he got hired at OpenAI? I always wanted to follow him on Twitter but I forgot his name :\ if anyone knows that be great

Edit - sry why is this the top comment

cambaceres
> this is on me and one of the few times i've been genuinely embarrassed running openai

This statement seems to suggest that feeling embarrassed by one's actions is a normal part of running a company. In reality, the expectation is that a CEO should strive to lead with integrity and foresight to avoid situations that lead to embarrassment.

seffect
Streisand Effect at work
andy_ppp
I think it’s time to cancel that Chat GPT subscription and move to something else. I am tired of the arrogance of these companies and particularly their narcissistic leaders who constantly want to make themselves the centre of the piece. It’s absolutely ridiculous to run a company as if you’re the lead in a contemporary drama.
aagha
I don't understand whenever you read about something like this, why the head of HR at a company like this (just google (head of people|hr|"human resources" openai linkedin) and see the first result) doesn't end up on a public blacklist of bad actors who are knowingly aggressive toward employees!
wouldbecouldbe
Who is bullish or bearish on OpenAI?

Now that LLM alternatives are getting better and better, as well as having well funded competitors. They don't yet have seem to developed a new, more advanced technology. What's their long term moat?

treme
PG is Altman's godfather more or less. I am disappoint of these OpenAI news as of late.

5. Sam Altman

I was told I shouldn't mention founders of YC-funded companies in this list. But Sam Altman can't be stopped by such flimsy rules. If he wants to be on this list, he's going to be.

Honestly, Sam is, along with Steve Jobs, the founder I refer to most when I'm advising startups. On questions of design, I ask "What would Steve do?" but on questions of strategy or ambition I ask "What would Sama do?"

What I learned from meeting Sama is that the doctrine of the elect applies to startups. It applies way less than most people think: startup investing does not consist of trying to pick winners the way you might in a horse race. But there are a few people with such force of will that they're going to get whatever they want.

https://[email protected]/5founders.html *edited link due to first post getting deleted

thereal_tron
Imagine if these people, obviously narrow-minded and greedy, gain access to AGI. It really would be a thread to mankind.
skepticATX
I don’t believe in the AGI claims, or in X-Risk. But I do think it’s apparent that AI will only become more powerful and ubiquitous. Very concerning that someone like Sam, with a history of dishonesty and narcissism that is only becoming more obvious time, may stand to control a large chunk of this technology.

He can’t be trusted, and as a result OpenAI cannot be trusted.

senderista
we're deeply sorry we got caught, we need to do better. i take full responsibility for this mistake, i should have ensured all incriminating documents were destroyed.

ps "responsibility" means "zero consequences"

lenerdenator
It's okay everyone. Silicon Valley will save us. Pay no mind to the "mistakes" they've made over the last 60 years.
m3kw9
I feel there is a smear campaign going on to tarnish OpenAI
ein0p
Protip: you can’t negotiate terms after you agree to them.
CRConrad
From OpenAI's "fuller statement":

> “We're incredibly sorry that we're only changing this language now; it doesn't reflect our values or the company we want to be.”

Yeah, right. Words don't necessarily reflect one's true values, but actions do.

And to the extent that they really are "incredibly sorry", it's not because of what they did, but that they got caught doing it.

rehitman
The company that fails in even a simple good faith gesture in their employee aggreement, claims it is the only one who can handle AGI while government creating regulation to lock out open source.
frednoodle
AI-native companies seem to bring a new form of working culture. It could be different from tech industries environment.
surume
yikes... turns out that lily is actually a venus fly trap...
ecjhdnc2025
This really is OpenAI's Downing Street Christmas Party week isn't it.
surfingdino
It's for the good of humanity... that part of humanity that may not want bad PR.
mateus1
What surprises me about these stories surrounding openAI is how they apologize while lying and downplaying any blame. Do they expect anybody to believe they didn’t know about clawback clauses?
aAaaArrRgH
I tried to delete my ChatGPT account but the confirmation button remained locked. Anyone else have the same issue?
_jab
OpenAI's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad month only continues to worsen.

It's pretty established now that they had some exceptionally anti-employee provisions in their exit policies to protect their fragile reputation. Sam Altman is bluntly a liar, and his credibility is gone.

Their stance as a pro-artist platform is a joke after the ScarJo fiasco, that clearly illustrates that creative consent was an afterthought. Litigation is assumed, and ScarJo is directly advocating for legislation to prevent this sort of fiasco in the future. Sam Altman's involvement is again evident from his trite "her" tweet.

And then they fired their "superalignment" safety team for good measure. As if to shred any last measure of doubt that this company is somehow more ethical than any other big tech company in their pursuit of AI.

Frankly, at this point, the board should fire Sam Altman again, this time for good. This is not the company that can, or should, usher humanity into the artificial intelligence era.

tomcam
From Sam Altman:

> this is on me and one of the few times i've been genuinely embarrassed running openai; i did not know this was happening and i should have.

Bullshit. Presumably Sam Altman has 20 IQ points on me. He obviously knows better. I was a CEO for 25 years and no contract was issued without my knowing every element in it. In fact, I had them all written by lawyers in plain English, resorting to all caps and legal boilerplate only when it was deemed necessary.

For every house, business, or other major asset I sold if there were 1 or more legal documents associated with the transaction I read them all, every time. When I go to the doctor and they have a privacy or HIPAA form, I read those too. Everything the kids' schools sent to me for signing--read those as well.

He lies. And if he doesn't... then he is being libeled right and left by his sister.

https://twitter.com/anniealtman108

jiggawatts
I've learned to interpret anything Sam Altman says as-if an Aes Sedai said it. That is: every word is true, but leads the listener to making false assumptions.

Even if in this specific instance he means well, it's still quite entertaining to interpret his statements this way:

"we have never clawed back anyone's vested equity"

=> But we can and will, if we decide to.

"nor will we do that if people do not sign a separation agreement"

=> But we made everyone sign the separation agreement.

"vested equity is vested equity, full stop."

=> Our employees don't have vested equity, they have something else we tricked them into.

"there was a provision about potential equity cancellation in our previous exit docs;"

=> And also in our current docs.

"although we never clawed anything back"

=> Not yet, anyway.

"the team was already in the process of fixing the standard exit paperwork over the past month or so."

=> By "fixing", I don't mean removing the non-disparagement clause, I mean make it ironclad while making the language less controversial and harder to argue with.

"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."

=> We'll fix the employee, not the problem.

"very sorry about this."

=> Very sorry we got caught.

animanoir
Mr. Altman seems like a quite pedantic and evil people to work with—absolute psychopath.
souvenir
So disappointing of OpenAI. I hope they'll make things right with all their former employees.
arnklint
I thought freedom of speech was a foundational thing in the US.

But I guess anyone could be silenced with enough economic incentive?

naveen99
Are there more than 2 former openai employees ?
ambicapter
> “The team did catch this ~month ago. The fact that it went this long before the catch is on me.”

I love this bullshit sentence formulation that claims to both have known this already--as in, don't worry we're ALREADY on the case--and they're simultaneously embarrassed that they "just" caught it--a.k.a. "wow, we JUST heard about this, how outRAGEOUS".

almog
Unfortunately it is unlikely to result in Altman's dismissal but imagine being fired from the same company, twice, in less than 12 months.
JCM9
There’s a recurring pattern here of OpenAI getting caught red handed doing bad things and then being all like “Oh it was just a misunderstanding, nothing more, we’ll get on to fixing that ASAP… nothing to see here…”

It’s becoming too much to just be honest oversights.

GianFabien
Equity in a unlisted, non-public company is an IOU scribbled onto a piece of loo paper.
tsunamifury
Why had the advent of semi-intelligent agents suddenly turned Silicon Valley into a place that now hates its own workers. Why is it that a place that once believed the mutual benefit of an intelligent worker and a company has turned into a time to brutalize or even hate the very creators of this technology

Where is all this hatred coming from?

dontupvoteme
It's really maddening just how right the board was.
outside1234
Scam Altman strikes again. And if you don’t believe he knew about this, then you are the fool.
neglesaks
I'll make a prediction here: OpenAI will in the coming years turn out just as ruthless and socially damaging as Facebook did.
ssklash
Why anyone trusts Altman or OpenAI with something as societally consequential as AI is beyond me.
0x5f3759df-i
but sam said he was sorry in all lowercase so it must be okay
falalalalalala
[dead]
ramesh31
They could have been cool. They could have been 2001 Google. They could have been the number one place any new PhD wanted to work.

But no. The MBAs saw dollar signs, and everything went out the window. They fumbled the early mover advantage, and will be hollowed out by the competition and commodified by the PaaS giants. What a shame.

brcmthrowaway
What is up with the allegations of Annie Altman?

Something doesn't smell right

idkdotcom
[dead]
dominojab
[dead]
davidQ123
It's better to check whether it's true
svaha1728
[flagged]
blueyes
[flagged]
kurts_mustache
Another day, another article where Vox is hating on OpenAI.
Uptrenda
HN hates cryptocurrencies but 'equity' to me is even worse than the worst shitcoins. It's an IOU that the company controls (and one people think is a tangle part of their 'compensation.') Just imagine if a company thinks you're about to jump ship and you have equity close to being vested. The company almost has a perverse incentive to fire you to nullify that equity. This gets much much worse when you know the typical vesting schedules that startups like to use. I know some of you working at the top companies might get your equity vested every month. But in my experience its much more common to be talking about yearly vesting schedules at startups where you have to stay for many years to get anything.

So think about that. They offer you an average to low base salary but sweeten the deal with some 'equity' saying that it gives you a stake in the company. Neglecting to mention of course, how many different ways equity can be invalidated; How a year in tech is basically a life time; And how the whole thing is kind of structured to prevent autonomy as an employee. Often founders will use these kind of offers to gauge 'interest' because surely the people who are willing to take an offer that's backed more by magic bean equity money (over real money) are truly the ones most dedicated to the companies mission. So not being grateful for such amazing offers would be taken as a sign of offence by most founders (who would prefer to pay in hopes and dreams if they could.)

Now... with a shitcoin... even though the price may tank to zero you'll at least end up with a goofy item you own at the end of the day. Equity... not so much.

jobs_throwaway
I bet similar claw-back clauses are waaay more common than many on this thread would imagine at private co's. I've always been under the impression that 'vested equity' doesn't mean ~anything until you actually see liquidity. The company can generally fuck you before that point if they choose to. Hope I'm being overly cynical with this take.
tivert
Can't we all just go back to being positive and amazed with OpenAI and it's technology? Why does everyone have to be so negative about tech?
af3d
It just seem petty, refusing to sign a simple document agreeing to not to trash your former employer (with whom you intend to continue to benefit from a shared interest in said company). It wasn't as if Altman was threatening to take back equity. Little more than a "just be nice, OK" and yet somehow that is asking too much?