I have some experience with rich people who think they can just put whatever they want in contracts …

> stare at you until you sign it because you are physically dependent on eating food every day Even lowest level fast food workers can choose a different employer. An engineer working at OpenAI certainly has a lot of opportunities to choose from. Even when I only had three years in the industry, mid at best, I asked to change the contract I was presented with because non-compete was too restrictive — and they did it. The caliber of talent that OpenAI is attracting (or hopes to attract) can certainly do this too.

> if nothing is perpetual, then how long can it last supposing both sides do get ongoing consideration from it? the answer is, the judge will figure it out. Isn't that the reason more competent lawyers put in the royal lives[1] clause? It specifies the contract is valid until 21 years after the death of the last currently-living royal descendant; I believe the youngest one is currently 1 year old, and they all have good healthcare, so it's almost certainly will be beyond the lifetime of any currently-employed persons. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_lives_clause

This is all basically true, but the problem is that retaining an attorney to confidently represent you for such negotiation is proposition with $10k table stakes (probably $15k+ these days with Trumpflation), and much more if the company sticks to their guns and doesn't settle (which is much more likely when the company is holding the cards and you have to go on the offensive). The cost isn't necessarily outright prohibitive in the context of surveillance industry compensation, but is still a chunk of change and likely to give most people pause when the alternative is to just go with the flow and move on. Personally I'd say there needs to be a general restriction against including blatantly unenforceable terms in a contract document, especially unilateral "terms". The drafter is essentially pushing incorrect legal advice.