[throw5345346]

Not sure how many really better words there are.

Onerous? Extreme? Oppressive? Bullying?

It does after all refer to a contract people were apparently pressured into signing when quitting (and not when signing up), that apparently offered no new consideration, and required them to never say anything bad about OpenAI, for life, on penalty of losing remuneration another signed contract entitled them to.

It's journalism. But even the lawyers are saying "egregious". Which is really really not good in this context.

"Draconian" fits, considering how it is normally used.

[frabjoused]

Egregious is a much better word that doesn't intentionally sound alarming.

The only new information here is that his signature was on these documents. This article took 18 paragraphs to say that.

Real journalism that wasn't influenced by SEO or ad views should probably be one sentence with the new information and a link to a previous article filling in the missing context, for those who happen not to have it.

[throw5345346]

Have a look at how "draconian" is used.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/draconian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconian

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Draconian

Now consider the thing that is happening: someone is being essentially pressured to agree a contract forcing them to stay functionally silent about anything bad they experienced or saw at OpenAI, on pain of losing things they've already earned.

For that individual's experience, "draconian" -- harsh, unusually severe, repressive -- seems like it would be a good fit, right?

And as it is not in the title or the subhead, it's not really being deployed to be clickbait, is it? The title is even more damning

(As an aside, why should this article not intentionally sound alarming? This whole situation is a pretty damning indictment of one of the most influential startups on earth right now. IMO it is alarming.)

[throw5345346]

Also:

> The only new information here is that his signature was on these documents.

This is what's called "confirming the story". News organisations do this all the time -- corroborate their competitors' stories -- and it is absolutely news.

In this case it's a really big bit of news, to people outside the tech world: it means there will likely prove to be concrete, potentially-lawsuit-bound corroboration that Sam Altman is not "consistently candid".

[aaomidi]

Are you basing this off of the assumption that every single person reading this has the same relationship to specific words as you?

Egregious and draconian create the same “idea” in my head. There is literally no way to write that takes into account each persons relationship with words.