Daniel Kokotajlo

And it was – a couple of things were very obvious from that exchange.

One –

Nobody had done this before.

They just did not think this is a thing somebody would do.

And it was because one of the reasons I assume – I assume many high-integrity people have worked for OpenAI and then have left.

A high-integrity person might say at some point, like, look, you're asking me to do something obviously evil and keep money.

And many of them would say no to that.

But this is something where it was just like –

super augatory to be like there's no immediate thing i want to say right now but just the principle of being suppressed is worth at least two million dollars uh for me and and the other thing that i actually want to ask you about is in retrospect and i know it's so much easier to say in retrospect than it must have been at the time especially with the family and everything in retrospect i

This asks for OpenAI to have lifetime non-disclosure that you couldn't even talk about from all employees.

Non-disparagement.

Non-disparagement.

From all employees.

Again, to emphasize, I'm glad you brought that up.

Non-disparagement means not just that, it's not about classified information.

It's like you cannot say anything negative about OpenAI after you've left.

This non-discrimination agreement where you can't say, you can't ever criticize OpenAI in the future, it seems like the kind of thing that IndirectSpect was like an obvious bluff or in the sense that if somebody, and this is a rate that you have earned, right?

So this is not about some future payment.

This is like when you signed the contract to work for OpenAI, you were like, I'm getting equity, which is most of my compensation, not just the cash.

In retrospect, I'd be like, okay, well, if you tell a journalist about this, they're obviously going to have to walk back, right?