It seems really quite bad for Paul to work in the U.S. government on AI legislation without having disclosed that he is under a non-disparagement clause for the biggest entity in the space the regulator he is working at is regulating. And if he signed an NDA that prevents him from disclosing it, then it was IMO his job to not accept a position in which such a disclosure would obviously be required.
I am currently like 50% Paul has indeed signed such a lifetime non-disparagement agreement, so I do think I don’t buy that a “presumably” is appropriate here (though I am not that far away from it).
It would be bad, I agree. (An NDA about what he worked on at OA, sure, but then being required to never say anything bad about OA forever, as a regulator who will be running evaluations etc...?) Fortunately, this is one of those rare situations where it is probably enough for Paul to simply say his OA NDA does not cover that—then either it doesn’t and can’t be a problem, or he has violated the NDA’s gag order by talking about it and when OA then fails to sue him to enforce it, the NDA becomes moot.
At the very least I hope he disclosed it to the gov’t (and then it was voided at least in internal government communications, I don’t know how the law works here), though I’d personally want it to be voided completely or at least widely communicated to the public as well.
lol Paul is a very non-disparaging person. He always makes his criticism constructive, i don’t know if there’s any public evidence of him disparaging anyone regardless of NDAs
It seems really quite bad for Paul to work in the U.S. government on AI legislation without having disclosed that he is under a non-disparagement clause for the biggest entity in the space the regulator he is working at is regulating. And if he signed an NDA that prevents him from disclosing it, then it was IMO his job to not accept a position in which such a disclosure would obviously be required.
I am currently like 50% Paul has indeed signed such a lifetime non-disparagement agreement, so I do think I don’t buy that a “presumably” is appropriate here (though I am not that far away from it).
It would be bad, I agree. (An NDA about what he worked on at OA, sure, but then being required to never say anything bad about OA forever, as a regulator who will be running evaluations etc...?) Fortunately, this is one of those rare situations where it is probably enough for Paul to simply say his OA NDA does not cover that—then either it doesn’t and can’t be a problem, or he has violated the NDA’s gag order by talking about it and when OA then fails to sue him to enforce it, the NDA becomes moot.
At the very least I hope he disclosed it to the gov’t (and then it was voided at least in internal government communications, I don’t know how the law works here), though I’d personally want it to be voided completely or at least widely communicated to the public as well.
lol Paul is a very non-disparaging person. He always makes his criticism constructive, i don’t know if there’s any public evidence of him disparaging anyone regardless of NDAs
Examples of maybe disparagement:
Arguing with Soares about whether AIs will kill everyone
Saying OpenAI is probably wrong and has motivated cognition in this comment
Wow, good point. I’ve never considered that aspect.