Ex-OpenAI employee reported losing 85% of his family's net worth | Hacker News Reader

Ex-OpenAI employee reported losing 85% of his family's net worth

lesswrong.com

39 pointsgeorgehill26 comments

Suggesting the community raise funds on behalf of a tech worker who gave up stock options by quitting is an odd idea. He's likely well off and flooded with job offers. Maybe there are actual advocacy groups out there that need the money for lobbying congress and such.

To be fair, in the post he estimates it would be 85% of his net worth but says, please don't worry about us we are fine. The headline is disingenuous because he didn't lose 85% of his net worth he just passed up the opportunity to make a lot of money. The difference is that it is framed like he nearly went bankrupt and had to liquidate everything, when in reality he just passed up a massive payday to eschew and NDA. Still admirable but not quite the same as taking an 85% loss on his current assets

He said as much directly in the comments of that post.

I mean he is in AI safety. Are there lots of job offers for these people. Seems to me that is going the way of DEI nonesense. His field is philosophy.

So what? You don't get to play the hardcore tech capitalist game with insane perks and cry for socialism when shit hits the fan

Oh I definitely am not on his side. My opinion of him could hardly be lower.

> losing 85%

He didn't lose anything, he just made a bad decision

It's like the Spotify dude wo got bankrupt because he started living like his 300k+ salary was some form of life long secured payment, it's hard to feel bad for these people

It seems pretty different.

People in a number of professions know (or should know) that they either have a limited shelf life or at least could find their career trailing off at any time.

A lot of people in professional jobs, on the other hand, very optimistically assume their current salary at its current level or multiple thereof will always be there. This is especially true of anyone whose experience in tech is the last decade.

Who’s the Spotify dude? Google searches come up with nothing

I've read some version of something like this a few times over the last while, and I don't really understand it. You typically vest the option to buy shares, separately; when you leave a company, they may ask you to sign additional agreements. You can just walk out the door, but what they often do is say they will vest all your equity to the end of the vesting schedule if you sign it. I've never done that in my career, and I don't feel bad about leaving money on the table. I was fine with what I had and didn't want additional obligations to the company when I left. This is normal stuff...?

OpenAI doesn't give shares or options. They give "profit participation units". They had agreements in place that allowed them to cancel the already vested PPUs if the employer didn't sign a draconian non-disparagement agreement, the contents of which were only revealed to them when they left. (Not when they signed the employement agreement.)

OpenAI has admitted that the contracts really did contain those clauses. They're just claiming that they'd obviously never enforce those clauses, and that the clauses were put in by some rogue employees without the knowledge of the leadership.

It's always exotic with them huh? ;)

So then is this fake news or moot news or...? Now I'm confused.

Update: Found a post by Sam Altman where he admits to the clause and says he is “embarrassed” about it. https://twitter.com/sama/status/1791936857594581428

OpenAI did say they haven’t and wouldn’t claw back an employees equity for not signing a document. So idk - it could just have been unvested equity which they would have lost at any other company when they quit.

Contracts speak louder than tweets

Do you have a link to the contract?

I (UK) once refused to sign an NDA before a US company interviewed me. They were highly confused and they even scheduled a call with one of their lawyers to explain my position. They eventually relented but I really just wanted them to go away. I only went through with the interview because their HR guy put so much effort in. I ended up leaving the interview early after all that.

I still find it bizarre that some companies expect NDAs for interviews. Why would anyone agree to that, there’s literally no gain for me.

It depends, if it was an early-stage startup, pre-patent and pre-IPO, they could have been quite vulnerable, in which case that's common practice.

Doesn’t this fall under counting your chickens before they hatch? We are all taking opportunity risks in life and I don’t see how this person is any different.

> Yeah idk whether the sacrifice was worth it but thanks for the support. Basically I wanted to retain my ability to criticize the company in the future. I'm not sure what I'd want to say yet though

This is the craziest part to me. If someone was paying 85% of their net worth for the freedom to say something, I'd expect them to know exactly what they wanted to say, and for them to actually say it. Otherwise how could it possibly be worth it?

It's about keeping your options open, and being the one holding the cards. The fact that he could speak out is itself incentive for OpenAI to be less evil, even if he's not actually saying anything yet.

85% net worth is huge, but I'm sure that 15% was already more than enough to ensure a comfortable lifestyle for him and his family. It's a whole lot easier to take strong ideological stances when your foundational needs are already met.

I have nothing, but respect for people who are able to do this ( not sign NDA knowing it will hit them financially ). Even in the harsh light of the internet I think it is important that we can.. not sure what the right word is.. celebrate?.. seems too strong.. emotionally support with good vibes on social media and fake internet points?.. seems a little dismissive.

My point is that it had to be a hard decision, I think it was the right one and I hope I would have the balls to do it if it was me.

Kudos.

100% agreed. Must have been a very tough decision. But good for him.

Taking selfless actions like these, that have major personal costs, require serious courage.

It doesn’t seem selfless. It sounds quite narcissistic and as though he has a savior complex.

Even Altman admits ChatGPT didn’t have the economic impact he thought it would. The promoter has finally come to terms with reality.

There's better ways to advocate than punishing yourself financially.

Stay, get the options, spend money on advocacy.

This is not a company so evil you should leave it - not like it's a tobacco company or an asbestos company.

It turns out if you help a company you find unethical its a transitive property. Generally if you find you are working at a company to undo what they've done to the world, you will find yourself changed before the company.

I for one don’t feel I have any way to judge whether by his lights this was something he felt he had to do. I do hope he gave some deep thought prior to making what may have been a financially life-altering decision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com