> I can only imagine there some level of employee discontent.

The rank and file mutinied for the return of Altman after his board fired him for deception. They knew what they were getting, though they may find it shameful to admit that their morals have a price.

Things have changed since two years ago. There are probably over 500 employees who have an equity package which makes them worth $5 million dollars. Thats only $2.5bn out of a $750bn valuation or 0.33%

Actually that is too conservative. If they have a 5% employee equity pool, there is $37.5bn of equity based compensation divided by say 5000 employees which is $7.5m each. $3.75m @ 10,000 employees.

and trust me, when people start getting liquid and comfortable they stop caring about things like ethics pretty fast. humans are marvellous at that

i should hope so. they should quit.

> > what's the term for quitting but not leaving and being destructive

> The most common term is “quiet quitting” when someone disengages but stays employed—but that usually implies minimal effort, not active harm.

> If you specifically mean staying while being disruptive or undermining, better fits include:

> - “Malicious compliance” — following rules in a way that intentionally causes problems

> - “Work-to-rule” — doing only exactly what’s required to slow things down (often collective/labor context)

I imagine malicious compliance is fun when there's an AI intermediary that can be blameless.

I'd argue this damage control could be construed as a piece of evidence.

I don't think that evidence would exist yet whether it's true or not. Nobody's gonna log onto their work computer on Saturday to pull and then leak subscriber numbers.