Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

I think Microsoft offered them the jobs because a large number signed a petition suggesting they were unhappy. Salesforce made a similar offer so I guess by that logic, Salesforce should receive similar scrutiny

https://m.economictimes.com/tech/technology/salesforce-ceo-o...

View on HN

Salesforce didn't also announce that they'd hired the ex-CEO, nor did Salesforce have a $10 billion investment in the company prior to that. Salesforce also didn't get a board observer after the ex-CEO was hired back.

It's the combination of factors that are raising eyebrows, not any one of them.

There's also this from Satya Nadella:

> "We have all the rights and all the capability. I mean, look, right, if tomorrow, if OpenAI disappeared, I don't want any customer of ours to be worried about it, quite honestly, because we have all of the rights to continue the innovation, not just to serve the products."[1]

Microsoft has access to OpenAI IP that SalesForce or others do not.

[1] https://stackdiary.com/satya-nadella-we-have-all-the-rights-...

So once the profit cap is hit, won't all employees just move to Microsoft for further stock compensation with a chance of appreciation, vs OpenAI's dead end stock? And likewise what stops the non-profit from just creating a second for-profit with all the IP too: "No Profit Cap OpenAI 2, inc."

I guess it depends on why the employees joined OpenAI? If I want to maximize my comp I don't work for a nonprofit in the first place.

I believe in workers right to organize and work wherever they want. I don't believe in non compete although I don't think they were subject to one.

What is the issue?

Refusing to hire the workers of partners would be a worse problem. But their offer sounded a lot to me like they were presuming access to salary information, etc. In a proper system neither microsoft nor salesforce would know if a candidate was bluffing about their pay, internal evaluations, etc, beyond customary things like references. Being guaranteed a job could mean being unable to play biggest a-hole with HR without an information disadvantage. In the worst case that data could have transferred before anyone even attempted to utilize the offer and as it turned out never needed the offer.

Given past crimes by big tech they should be examined extremely carefully.

Was Salesforce actually set up to absorb these engineers, do they have the ability to take advantage of their potential availability?

Regardless of whether or not there was any sort of plan beforehand (I bet there almost certainly wasn’t), the fact that OpenAI’s engineers have shown the ability to make the “we’ll switch to MS threat,” and have it be seen seriously enough to change the company, changes facts on the ground in a way that regulators need to at least think about.

As set up as any other giant tech company

They could have absorbed them financially, but I doubt their ability to effectively utilize and keep them. Management issues are causing a ton of churn now

I honestly don't get what the outrage is. Should engineers not be allowed to organize and threaten to leave as a group? Should they be disallowed from joining some company based on some relationship their parent has with them?

This is all very weird and contrived outrage

I don’t see the outrage. It seems like a signal that the companies are closer than previously described. It is worth checking out, that’s all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com