Why is the word "poached" though, like it's illegal or those people "rightfully belongs" to OpenAI but now Facebook "stole" them somehow? Feels like something Steve Jobs would coin just to make it sound worse than it is. People switch jobs, this is OK.
Words do indeed convey an idea. What is being debated is whether the use of the word "poached" conveys the correct idea.
"Poaching" a thing implies that a thing is owned and was unjustly taken.
Humans are employed, not owned. An employer<->employee relationship requires both parties to continue. If an employee breaks this relationship and makes a new one with another employer, there is no theft.
So why do we use the word "poach"? It does not convey what occurred!
My injection into the thread was to query whether a term having been used for a long time is reason enough to continue to use the word "poached" with its associated connotations. We have plenty of other words to use.
In the world of recruiters and hiring, a “headhunter” is probably not slaying candidates with a spear and decapitating them for a trophy, but nevertheless, we use that term routinely! It does not convey what occurred!
Yeah man, they're call "loaded terms" for a reason. They are loaded with connotations beyond what occurred.
For example, I could call you a nitpicker. Are you picking nits? No.
Are you being conscientious? Paying attention to detail? Sure.
Which word would you want me to label you with?
As an employee do I want to be poached? No. I want to be approached, reasoned with, and make my own choices no matter what either employer "feels" about the situation.
They hired many accomplished researchers, with track records of both papers and work at other frontier companies. They gave those folks huge autonomy, huge budget, and 18 months - some would say at the expense of the rest of the company. Check out blind references to TBD. I'd call the strategy ruthless, but it certainly was effective.
