Which IMO was a dumb choice on MIRI’s part since the NDA has made it much harder to clear things up here
The lack of comment from Eliezer and other MIRI personnel had actually convinced me in particular that the claims were true. This is the first I heard that there’s any kind of NDA preventing them from talking about it.
The lack of comment from Eliezer and other MIRI personnel had actually convinced me in particular that the claims were true. This is the first I heard that there’s any kind of NDA preventing them from talking about it.
I think this means you had incorrect priors (about how often legal cases conclude with settlements containing nondisparagement agreements.)
You can confirm this if you’re aware that it’s a possibility, and interpret carefully-phrased refusals to comment in a way that’s informed by reasonable priors. You should not assume that anyone is able to directly tell you that an agreement exists.
Why not? Is it common for NDAs/non-disparagement agreements to also have a clause stating the parties aren’t allowed to tell anyone about it? I’ve never heard of this outside of super-injunctions which seems a pretty separate thing
Absolutely common. Most non-disparagement agreements are paired with non-disclosure agreements (or clauses in the non-disparagement wording) that prohibit talking about the agreement, as much as talking about the forbidden topics.
It’s pretty obvious to lawyers that “I would like to say this, but I have a legal agreement that I won’t” is equivalent, in many cases, to saying it outright.
The lack of comment from Eliezer and other MIRI personnel had actually convinced me in particular that the claims were true. This is the first I heard that there’s any kind of NDA preventing them from talking about it.
I think this means you had incorrect priors (about how often legal cases conclude with settlements containing nondisparagement agreements.)
They can presumably confirm whether or not there is a nondisparagement agreement and whether that is preventing them from commenting though right
You can confirm this if you’re aware that it’s a possibility, and interpret carefully-phrased refusals to comment in a way that’s informed by reasonable priors. You should not assume that anyone is able to directly tell you that an agreement exists.
Why not? Is it common for NDAs/non-disparagement agreements to also have a clause stating the parties aren’t allowed to tell anyone about it? I’ve never heard of this outside of super-injunctions which seems a pretty separate thing
Absolutely common. Most non-disparagement agreements are paired with non-disclosure agreements (or clauses in the non-disparagement wording) that prohibit talking about the agreement, as much as talking about the forbidden topics.
It’s pretty obvious to lawyers that “I would like to say this, but I have a legal agreement that I won’t” is equivalent, in many cases, to saying it outright.
my boilerplate severance agreement at a job included an NDA that couldn’t be acknowledged (I negotiated to change this).