I have zero respect for companies with such predatory behaviour. Not a knee jerk reaction, but threatening employees "diplomatically" with such draconian agreements and even sometimes non-competes should actually be grounds for mass resignation. I worked in a similar company and till date have traumatic memories from that era.<p>For this and many other reasons, I would never ever use a proprietary AI model in any of my AI projects. "People first" should be the guiding principle for developers.
I love when a website uses the word "credibility", and half the website is filled with flashing ads and it has too many trackers and ad scripts to count.
No defense of the act here, but how can someone take a publication seriously that states an opinion in the first sentence, and in the 2nd paragraph uses a clickbait modifier like "draconian"?
I must be missing some key detail here because this seems even more over blown than AI itself. They wanted to motivate people to not disclose trade secrets? Oh no.
> "We want to make sure you understand that if you don't sign, it could impact your equity," one rep told an outgoing employee, according to Vox.<p>The article is doing a lot of click-bait stuff here. The quote, without the source, is shown at the top of the article, near Sam Altman's face and a title referencing Sam Altman. However, the quote is not from Sam Altman, which makes its placement a bit disingenuous.<p>I am not invested in defending Altman, but this type of journalism is trash clickbait and a far bigger issue than a tech company threatening employees' vested equity unless they comply in some sort of non-NDA NDA scheme.
No evidence in the article that Altman knew about this, and intentionally clickbaity and misleading title.<p>Quoting: "there are only two plausible reasons for Altman's alleged lack of knowledge: either he didn't fully read the employment contracts he was signing or he was lying." No evidence was offered that he read the contracts.