It's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release they are asked to sign includes a lifetime no-criticism clause.
But a general release is not a non-criticism clause.
They're not required to sign anything other than a general release of liability when they leave to preserve their rights. They don't have to sign a non-disparagement clause.
But they'd need a very good lawyer to be confident at that time.
In general, an agreement to agree is not an agreement. A requirement for a "general release" to be signed at some time in the future is iffy.
And that's before labor law issues.
Someone with a copy of that contract should run it through OpenAI's contract analyzer.
Duress can take other forms, unless we are really trying to differentiate general 'coercion' here.
Perhaps as an example of the blurred line; Pre-nup agreements sprung the day of the wedding, will not hold up in a US court with a competent lawyer challenging them.
You can try to call it 'economic' duress but any non-sociopath sees there are other factors at play.
That’s a really good point. Was this a prenuptial agreement? If it wasn’t May take is section 174 would apply and we would be talking about physical compulsion — and not “it’s a preferable economic situation to sign.”
somebody explained to me early on that you cannot have a contract to have a contract. either initial agreement must state this condition clearly or they are signing another contract at employment termination which is bringing these new terms. IDK why would anyone sign that at termination unless they dangle additional equity. I dont think this BS they are trying to pull would be enforceable at least in California. though IANAL obviously.
all this said, in bigger picture I can understand not divulging trade secrets but not being allowed to discuss company culture towards AI safety essentially tells me that all the Sama talk about the 'for the good of humanity' is total BS. at the end of day its about market share and bottom line.
You haven't worked with many contracts, have you? Unenforceable clauses are the norm, most people are willing to follow them rather than risk having to fight them in court.
Typically there is no penalty - and contracts explicitly declare that all clauses are severable so that the rest of the contract remains valid even if one of the scare-clauses is found to be invalid. IANAL
Have you read the actual document or contracts? Opining on stuff you haven't actually read seems premature. Read the contract, then tell us which clause violates which statute, that's useful.
