It seems increasingly plausible that it would be in the public interest to ban non-disparagement clauses more generally going forward, or at least set limits on scope and length (although I think nullifying existing contracts is bad and the government should not do that and shouldn’t have done it for non-competes either.)

I concur.

It should be noted though; we can spend all day taking apart these contracts and applying pressure publicly but real change will have to come from the courts. I await an official judgment to see the direction of this issue. Arguably, the outcome there is more important for any alignment initiative run by a company than technical goals (at the moment).

How do you reconcile keeping genuine cognito hazards away from the public, while also maintaining accountability & employee health? Is there a middle ground that justifies the existence of NDAs & NDCs? 

Would love to collaborate with you on a post, check out my posts and let me know.

I think these points are common sense to an outsider. I don't mean to be condescending, I consider myself an outsider. 

I've been told that ideas on this website are sometimes footnoted by people like Sam Altman in the real world, but they don't seem to ever be applied correctly. 

1. It's been obvious from the start that not enough effort was put into getting buy-in from the government. Now, their strides have become oppressive and naive (the AI Act is terribly written and unbelievably complicated, it'll be three-five years before it's ever implemented). 
2. Many of my peers who I've introduced to some arguments on this website who do not know what alignment research is identified many of these 'mistakes' at face value. LessWrong got into a terrible habit of fortifying an echo chamber of ideas that only worked on LessWrong. No matter how good an idea, if it cannot be simply explained to the average layperson, it will be discarded as obfuscatory.
3. Hero worship & bandwagons seems to be a problem with the LessWrong community inherently, rather than something unique to the Alignment movement (again, I haven't been here long, I'm simply referring to posts by long-time members critiquing the cult-like mentalities that tend to appear). 
4. Advocating for pause - well duh. The genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back. We literally cannot go back because the gravy train of money in the throats of those with the power to change things aren't going to give that up.

I don't see these things as mistakes but rather common-sense byproducts of the whole: "We were so concerned with whether we could, we didn't ask whether we should," idea. The LessWrong community literally couldn't help itself, it just had to talk about these things as rationalists of the 21st century.

I think... well, I think there may be a 10-15% chance these mistakes are rectified in time.  But the public already has a warped perception of AI, divided on political lines. LessWrong could change if there was a concerted effort - would the counterparts who read LessWrong also follow? I don't know.

I want to emphasise here, since I've just noticed how many times I mentioned LW, I'm not demonising the community. I'm simply saying that, from an outsider's perspective, this community held promise as the vanguards of a better future. Whatever ideas it planted in the heads of those at the top a few years ago, in the beginning stages of alignment, could've been seeded better. LW is only a small cog of blame in the massive machine that is currently outputting a thousand mistakes a day.

It was always going to come down to the strong arm of the law to beat AI companies into submission. I was always under the impression that attempts at alignment or internal company restraints were hypothetical thought experiments (no offence). This has been the reality of the world with all inventions, not just AI.

Unfortunately, both sides (lawyers & researchers) seem unwilling to find a middle-ground which accommodates the strengths of each and mitigates the misunderstandings in both camps. 

Feeling pessimistic after reading this.

In my opinion, a class action filed by all employees allegedly prejudiced (I say allegedly here, reserving the right to change 'prejudiced' in the event that new information arises) by the NDAs and gag orders would be very effective.

Were they to seek termination of these agreements on the basis of public interest in an arbitral tribunal, rather than a court or internal bargaining, the ex-employees are far more likely to get compensation. The litigation costs of legal practitioners there also tend to be far less.

Again, this assumes that the agreements they signed didn't also waive the right to class action arbitration. If OpenAI does have agreements this cumbersome, I am worried about the ethics of everything else they are pursuing.

For further context, see:

• Trump's NDA termination;
• A Practical Guide to Challenging Gag Orders Under the Stored Communications Act (alston.com); and
• 1909_Class Actions_Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers _Federal, CA_.pdf (sheppardmullin.com).

I have reviewed his post. Two (2) things to note: 

(1) Invalidity of the NDA does not guarantee William will be compensated after the trial. Even if he is, his job prospects may be hurt long-term. 

(2) State's have different laws on whether the NLRA trumps internal company memorandums. More importantly, labour disputes are traditionally solved through internal bargaining. Presumably, the collective bargaining 'hand-off' involving NDA's and gag-orders at this level will waive subsequent litigation in district courts. The precedent Habryka offered refers to hostile severance agreements only, not the waiving of the dispute mechanism itself. 

I honestly wish I could use this dialogue as a discrete communication to William on a way out, assuming he needs help, but I re-affirm my previous worries on the costs. 

I also add here, rather cautiously, that there are solutions. However, it would depend on whether William was an independent contractor, how long he worked there, whether it actually involved a trade secret (as others have mentioned) and so on. The whole reason NDA's tend to be so effective is because they obfuscate the material needed to even know or be aware of what remedies are available.
 

I'm so happy you made this post. 

I only have two (2) gripes. I say this as someone who 1) practices/believes in determinism, and 2) has interacted with journalists on numerous occasions with a pretty strict policy on honesty.

1. "Deep honesty is not a property of a person that you need to adopt wholesale. It’s something you can do more or less of, at different times, in different domains."

I would disagree. In my view, 'deep honesty' excludes dishonesty by omission. You're either truthful all of the time or you're manipulative some of the time. There can't be both. 

2. "Fortunately, although deep honesty has been described here as some kind of intuitive act of faith, it is still just an action you can take with consequences you can observe.

Not always. If everyone else around you goes the mountain of deceit approach, your options are limited. The 'rewards' available for omissions are far less, and if you want to have a reasonably productive work environment, at least someone has to tell the truth unequivocally. Further, the 'consequences' are not always immediately observable when you're dealing with practiced liars. The consequences can come in the form of revenge months, or, even years later. 

I am a lawyer. 

I think one key point that is missing is this: regardless of whether the NDA and the subsequent gag order is legitimate or not; William would still have to spend thousands of dollars on a court case to rescue his rights. This sort of strong-arm litigation has become very common in the modern era. It's also just... very stressful. If you've just resigned from a company you probably used to love, you likely don't want to fish all of your old friends, bosses and colleagues into a court case.

Edit: also, if William left for reasons involving AGI safety - maybe entering into (what would likely be a very public) court case would be counteractive to their reason for leaving? You probably don't want to alarm the public by flavouring existential threats in legal jargon.  American judges have the annoying tendency to valorise themselves as celebrities when confronting AI (see Musk v Open AI).