Many points of interest here, including the answer to an earlier HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38384090 Why were the YC posts about Altman stepping down as YC president & becoming chairman so confusingly edited, and Altman seems to have either never been chairman or have quickly left? Well, because his post lacked candor about him becoming YC chairman:
"To smooth his exit, Altman proposed he move from president to chairman. He pre-emptively published a blog post on the firm’s website announcing the change. But the firm’s partnership had never agreed, and the announcement was later scrubbed from the post."
> In early October, OpenAI’s chief scientist approached some fellow board members to recommend Altman be fired, citing roughly 20 examples of when he believed Altman misled OpenAI executives over the years.
I also thought this was interesting, not sure if this detail had been reported before this article, but seems like there were maybe more incidents than initially thought.
"Graham said it was his wife’s doing. “If anyone ‘fired’ Sam, it was Jessica, not me,” he said. “But it would be wrong to use the word ‘fired’ because he agreed immediately.” "
After reading more articles about Sam it seems he is a genius in the game of power. Am I right? He is at the center of the stage and many powerful people and organizations trust on him beyond the "anecdotes". He will gain more power while he is an amplifier of capital and business opportunities. For an investor point of view he is a business ace and you just need to be careful about partnering with him because he will always be pursuing new opportunities, even ones that eat part of the company you invested in.
You can literally just buy articles like this. The question that could be asked is the long term ROI here actually going to be worth it for Sam?
The article talks about his "luck" in "surviving." Which is about all he has, apparently. No consideration for the future of the product, the company, or the industry. The triumphant conclusion of this article is "a bunch of CEOs pulled weight and Altman got his old job back, again."
The more of these I read, the more convinced I am that his company is going nowhere, as they seem more skilled at producing "internal drama" than "new product."
A combination of real drive and a tremendous amount of dumb luck. Never forget the dumb luck part though. Life isn't fair, ask Trevor Moore who wrote a song about that, oh wait, you can't, life isn't fair...
You don't have to like Sam. But people who do big things, by definition, have to get there by pushing things along at a cadence that differs from most other people. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good thing, but I don't get why every article about Sam seems to be surprised that the guy who helped build something nobody thought was possible (AI this decade) got there by doing things in a fast, unique way.
If he followed the norms, he'd be a mid-level manager at FAANG company.
Imagine I win the lottery and hire really smart architects and tell them to make a revolutionary new building. They go on to make some amazing building that gets all sorts of awards and recognition. Is anyone really so naive as to suggest that I am deserving of any credit whatsoever? In the words of Urkel, "Did I do that?"
There are some leaders in the tech world who have clearly done something. John Carmack did something. Steve Wozniak did something. There are some questionable cases as well. As far as Altman goes, I put him firmly in the same camp as Musk. They haven't done jack shit. I give them no respect, recognition, or credit. They were just wealthy people spending money. I seriously question the people who look at them positively in any way whatsoever.
> You don't have to like Sam. But people who do big things, by definition, have to get there by pushing things along at a cadence that differs from most other people. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good thing, but I don't get why every article about Sam seems to be surprised that the guy who helped build something nobody thought was possible (AI this decade) got there by doing things in a fast, unique way.
Why are you surprised by folks reaction? What did he successfully build before OpenAI? Nothing as far as I can tell? His main skill seems to be networking, not building product. Also, doing it fast, does not require lying, as seems his habit.
Sam just got lucky, look who was in the board that ousted him! A bunch of no-names with no experience managing companies with a valuation over 10k except the quora exec. OpenAI was a backwater before ChatGPT and it absolutely exploded. When that happens some people are in over their heads (as the board clearly was). Sam wasn’t to his credit, but regardless non-technical people in this company could be replaced with any run-of-the-mill startup CEO and still have their current valuation. Sam was saved to save investor perception of stability. He’s Ringo.
It's less about not following the norms and more about not following the norms and doing so at a startup. Big companies know how to cut the tall poppies, it's a core corporate competency even.
He's not unique, instead very textbook sociopath. Lines up with the alleged abuse of his younger sister too. There's not much more to him than a wheeler and dealer, self serving abuser.
>If he followed the norms, he'd be a mid-level manager at FAANG company.
If we followed the norms, he's be in prison. If you think fraud and self-dealing are justified if it moves a lot of value to shareholders, write to your senator. Until then the laws should be enforced against the rich as well as the poor.
Of course, I can't much bring myself to care in this case, because all that's at stake is a chatbot.
I've seen variants of this in finance, where the strategy is called "outrunning your mistakes."
There's an art to building a rapid growth trajectory, cutting all kinds of corners to ramp up your customers/assets/users/whatever -- and then pirouetting into a bigger new role, while leaving someone else to stabilize your unstable creation.
Take it up a level, and the best practitioners are also very good at blaming their successors for messing up a good thing. Also very good at cultivating a certain subset of journalists who will keep burnishing the legend, never stepping outside the bubble.
Loosely related: does anyone in the brave new AI community have the patience and humility to try to solve the hallucinations problem? Because it seems as if Sam & Co. are quite determined to ignore it, deny it or minimize it, while continuing to push for breakneck growth of products with a very troubling design flaw.
does anyone in the brave new AI community have the patience and humility to try to solve the hallucinations problem?
I think this is akin to asking if anyone in the software engineering community has the patience and humility to try to solve the software bugs problem.
Yeah, have worked for/been burned by a few of these types. It can be really demoralizing and sets a bad example for how to be successful. Over time I've decided that how I accomplish things matters just as much, if not more than, what I accomplish, and outrunning your mistakes is a terrible "how."
Really interesting how Sam gets compared to Steve Jobs quite often. Sam in some ways embodies the reality distortion field that Steve operated under, and has huge influence on those all that are part of that path.
In the absence of significant new information [2] people mostly just repeat what has already been said, and the more reptition there is in a thread, the dumber and nastier it gets.
(Edit: I double checked that by skimming through the comments in this thread and I think it was the right call—they're generic, i.e. could just as easily have appeared in any similar thread, and range from ok-but-repetitive to outright-bad.)
> There were complaints about Altman pursuing side projects, at one point diverting engineers to work on a gay dating app, which they felt came at the expense of the company’s main work.
Are you saying this behavior is common and acceptable? Your remark strikes me as rhetorical in support of his actions but I’m not sure if I’m reading it right.
The more we learn about this person the more we understand how dubious he is. I am not entirely sure what the end game is for those protecting and promoting him. He’s clearly not steve jobs. Behaves and talks more like a cheap imitation.
It’s revealing that Chesky just needed to know Altman hadn’t done anything illegal, and that was enough to start his campaign to defend him. “Not illegal” is a low bar. Those 20 instances of lying/being deceitful could have been consequential. It’s also amazing how much much support from investors can insulate an unscrupulous CEO.
> “The senior leadership team was unanimous in asking for Sam’s return as CEO and for the board’s resignation, actions backed by an open letter signed by over 95% of our employees. The strong support from his team underscores that he is an effective CEO,” said an OpenAI spokeswoman.
This is where I stopped reading.
At the risk of sounding defensive of Sam Altman. If there's something so fundamentally wrong with him, why does he have such broad support? He's just one man, say that what this article alleges is true, how many tricks does he have up his sleeve to fool the entirety of Silicon Valley?
I mean, we can beat around the bush all day but he managed to get his old/new?? job back at OpenAI. This means to me that his ouster was either unwarranted or the board was acting blindly and should have stepped aside just on account of being clearly incapable of making sound decisions.
This article does not ask the right questions. Doesn't answer any questions either like the many articles written before it riddled with speculation about Sam's much belabored firing.
95% of employees voted with their wallets. Their millions of dollars in “stock options” were at risk of being worthless and the tender offer of cashing out was halted. Of course they wanted him back. And of course they would have joined Microsoft too — but almost none of them would have joined had they gotten a standard Microsoft offer, they would only join if they got a matching or near matching offer.
Many years ago I once tried to share a History channel documentary on the JFK assassination with a friend. They watched up until the first part, the documentary dramaticized the assassination and talked about how the shot seemed impossible based off the shape of the car.
See I had already watched this documentary in full, and knew that this was just a cliffhanger for the second part that explained the car was modified, making the seemingly impossible shot very possible. Yet, my friend said "See? That's enough evidence." and walked away.
I asked, "don't you want to hear the rest?" the response: "nope."
how much do you know about the signature collection process? I can easily see how a large number of these could've been out of fear of retaliation and some out of greed. Many autocrats claim high support numbers on every election, doesn't mean they are beloved.
It takes time to report these things, you can't just bang it out overnight. In addition, breaking a preference falsification cascade can take a lot of hits: a lot of people didn't want to talk about Altman, but with every article in WSJ/NYT/WaPo revealing some more, that reluctance fades a little bit. That is how you go from a few months ago, there being nothing but a whisper here or there that Altman had been fired from YC as one of the crown jewel secrets of YC known to a handful of people, to now Paul Graham casually confirming it to the WSJ.
As for what the benefit is, the ongoing report is one benefit. If the law firm (named here for the first time, I believe) didn't know about, say, Sutskever's list of 20 incidents, well, they do now.
I benefit. You benefit. Everyone benefits when we learn more. Who fears these disclosures at the current point in time and why? What's your reason for questioning them? What do you have to lose?
It's called journalism. This is going to be happening for a while as journalists get more and more of the inside scoop. The new board also has a full slate ahead for it, including the investigation, recruiting a full board, and dealing with the non-profit and corporate structure which has a few holes showing. Plus there is all the stuff the company is actually doing with new products and the "Preparedness Framework" they are working on.
Up until recently, the press about OpenAI has been mostly "look at the shiny lights" and now it's going to get the Elon Musk treatment.
My read - wildly successful business person, bad human being. So long as SV values what you do over how you got there (with criminal conduct being the obvious red line in how), Sam A and Steve Jobs types will continue to rise generation after generation.
Altman is the perfect 3-letter inside man, that photo with Nadella towards the end of the article is the perfect representation of that (MS having won the race of "which IT company will the System choose to represent its tech interests?", ahead of Amazon and Alphabet).
Sam is great, some eggs might've been cracked along the way, but overall, very positive influence on the world.
You could shine a light into most people's lives and find in most cases broken egg shells here & there. Fixating on them at the expense of the bigger picture is a mistake.
Regarding the openai board, the problem imo is that too much weight was given to a nebulous & subjective mission, allowing those sitting to make up ridiculous positions and find them tenable (ie the company going kaput being in line with the mission, like srsly??)
Could there be a more dangerous version of reality where we allow the government and a chosen monopoly to collude in controlling AI for the rest of society? Because that is precicely what he was/is attempting to do.
smoothjazz|2 years ago
gwern|2 years ago
"To smooth his exit, Altman proposed he move from president to chairman. He pre-emptively published a blog post on the firm’s website announcing the change. But the firm’s partnership had never agreed, and the announcement was later scrubbed from the post."
natdempk|2 years ago
I also thought this was interesting, not sure if this detail had been reported before this article, but seems like there were maybe more incidents than initially thought.
hutzlibu|2 years ago
"Graham said it was his wife’s doing. “If anyone ‘fired’ Sam, it was Jessica, not me,” he said. “But it would be wrong to use the word ‘fired’ because he agreed immediately.” "
anotherhue|2 years ago
wslh|2 years ago
akira2501|2 years ago
The article talks about his "luck" in "surviving." Which is about all he has, apparently. No consideration for the future of the product, the company, or the industry. The triumphant conclusion of this article is "a bunch of CEOs pulled weight and Altman got his old job back, again."
The more of these I read, the more convinced I am that his company is going nowhere, as they seem more skilled at producing "internal drama" than "new product."
bmitc|2 years ago
What business has he aced?
BeefDinnerPurge|2 years ago
gkoberger|2 years ago
If he followed the norms, he'd be a mid-level manager at FAANG company.
Apreche|2 years ago
Imagine I win the lottery and hire really smart architects and tell them to make a revolutionary new building. They go on to make some amazing building that gets all sorts of awards and recognition. Is anyone really so naive as to suggest that I am deserving of any credit whatsoever? In the words of Urkel, "Did I do that?"
There are some leaders in the tech world who have clearly done something. John Carmack did something. Steve Wozniak did something. There are some questionable cases as well. As far as Altman goes, I put him firmly in the same camp as Musk. They haven't done jack shit. I give them no respect, recognition, or credit. They were just wealthy people spending money. I seriously question the people who look at them positively in any way whatsoever.
infamia|2 years ago
Why are you surprised by folks reaction? What did he successfully build before OpenAI? Nothing as far as I can tell? His main skill seems to be networking, not building product. Also, doing it fast, does not require lying, as seems his habit.
mlazos|2 years ago
BeefDinnerPurge|2 years ago
brcmthrowaway|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
richbell|2 years ago
A lot can be accomplished by skirting pesky rules and regulations. It isn't something commendable.
skullone|2 years ago
asfgkadnhiok|2 years ago
If we followed the norms, he's be in prison. If you think fraud and self-dealing are justified if it moves a lot of value to shareholders, write to your senator. Until then the laws should be enforced against the rich as well as the poor.
Of course, I can't much bring myself to care in this case, because all that's at stake is a chatbot.
catlover76|2 years ago
[deleted]
GCA10|2 years ago
There's an art to building a rapid growth trajectory, cutting all kinds of corners to ramp up your customers/assets/users/whatever -- and then pirouetting into a bigger new role, while leaving someone else to stabilize your unstable creation.
Take it up a level, and the best practitioners are also very good at blaming their successors for messing up a good thing. Also very good at cultivating a certain subset of journalists who will keep burnishing the legend, never stepping outside the bubble.
Loosely related: does anyone in the brave new AI community have the patience and humility to try to solve the hallucinations problem? Because it seems as if Sam & Co. are quite determined to ignore it, deny it or minimize it, while continuing to push for breakneck growth of products with a very troubling design flaw.
kevinventullo|2 years ago
I think this is akin to asking if anyone in the software engineering community has the patience and humility to try to solve the software bugs problem.
throwaway778945|2 years ago
itake|2 years ago
milkglass|2 years ago
layer8|2 years ago
Both have been characterized as being manipulative liars though.
boucher|2 years ago
dang|2 years ago
It was also downweighted as a follow-up [1] because there had been a similar profile article / megathread the day before:
"King of the Cannibals": How Sam Altman Took over Silicon Valley - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38744021 - Dec 2023 (162 comments)
In the absence of significant new information [2] people mostly just repeat what has already been said, and the more reptition there is in a thread, the dumber and nastier it gets.
(Edit: I double checked that by skimming through the comments in this thread and I think it was the right call—they're generic, i.e. could just as easily have appeared in any similar thread, and range from ok-but-repetitive to outright-bad.)
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
amadeuspagel|2 years ago
Who among us ...
replwoacause|2 years ago
gumballindie|2 years ago
jstummbillig|2 years ago
nvy|2 years ago
CPLX|2 years ago
Billionaires need on the ground types like him to actually do stuff.
It’s hard to find people who are young and ambitious and effective, and yet fundamentally and ruthlessly aligned with corporate hegemony.
And I suspect he must be spectacularly good at flattery.
codingcroc20|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
Timber-6539|2 years ago
This is where I stopped reading.
At the risk of sounding defensive of Sam Altman. If there's something so fundamentally wrong with him, why does he have such broad support? He's just one man, say that what this article alleges is true, how many tricks does he have up his sleeve to fool the entirety of Silicon Valley?
I mean, we can beat around the bush all day but he managed to get his old/new?? job back at OpenAI. This means to me that his ouster was either unwarranted or the board was acting blindly and should have stepped aside just on account of being clearly incapable of making sound decisions.
This article does not ask the right questions. Doesn't answer any questions either like the many articles written before it riddled with speculation about Sam's much belabored firing.
az226|2 years ago
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
He makes people money. Plenty of terrible people commanded great loyalty. All the loyalty tells you is he’s a good leader. Not where he’s leading us.
(Not saying anything about Sam. Just pointing out that loyalty is orthogonal.)
voxl|2 years ago
See I had already watched this documentary in full, and knew that this was just a cliffhanger for the second part that explained the car was modified, making the seemingly impossible shot very possible. Yet, my friend said "See? That's enough evidence." and walked away.
I asked, "don't you want to hear the rest?" the response: "nope."
Your comment reminds me of this experience
psswrd12345|2 years ago
Stock options and a carefully built cult of personality, my friend
alm1|2 years ago
Invictus0|2 years ago
75 million people voted for Trump.
odyssey7|2 years ago
gwern|2 years ago
As for what the benefit is, the ongoing report is one benefit. If the law firm (named here for the first time, I believe) didn't know about, say, Sutskever's list of 20 incidents, well, they do now.
asadotzler|2 years ago
baking|2 years ago
Up until recently, the press about OpenAI has been mostly "look at the shiny lights" and now it's going to get the Elon Musk treatment.
throwaway778945|2 years ago
psswrd12345|2 years ago
haltist|2 years ago
[deleted]
disgruntledphd2|2 years ago
Now, it's possible that this time this argument is correct, but the odds are against you.
aycaramba|2 years ago
maxlamb|2 years ago
paganel|2 years ago
throw7764228|2 years ago
[deleted]
MicolashKyoka|2 years ago
You could shine a light into most people's lives and find in most cases broken egg shells here & there. Fixating on them at the expense of the bigger picture is a mistake.
Regarding the openai board, the problem imo is that too much weight was given to a nebulous & subjective mission, allowing those sitting to make up ridiculous positions and find them tenable (ie the company going kaput being in line with the mission, like srsly??)
Geisterde|2 years ago
Gud|2 years ago
OpenAI going kaput might indeed be the best for humanity as a whole, only time will tell.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]