[throwaway_5753]

A lot of people here bending over backwards to try to interpret this maximally negatively.

Probably because the "Sam Altman is an amoral, power hungry mastermind who was run out of all his previous gigs" is a more interesting narrative than whatever is actually happening.

[gizmo]

What you call "maximal negativity" is what I would call skepticism about spin. Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move. PG is not universally opposed to people running multiple organizations. He's fine with Musk being in charge of Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink and Starlink. I don't think pg was unhappy about Dorsey running both Square and Twitter[1]. OpenAI leadership was fine with Sam in both roles. But Sam had to either quit OpenAI or quit YC, and would get fired from YC if he refused to choose.

[1] https://x.com/paulg/status/1235363862159003649

[zild3d]

> PG is not universally opposed to people running multiple organizations

I don't see why that matters, YC is "his" organization, other organizations can do what they want

Take out all the names, and it's just a belief that YC should be run by someone that's all in / fully committed.

[tptacek]

It it nothing whatsoever like being fired.

[goodcanadian]

Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move.

Sure, but is that what happened? Or, did they sit down and have a chat and mutually agree that on what was best? I guess we will never know with certainty (and I frankly don't care).

[LMYahooTFY]

Or it's not a forceful move at all.

Maybe YC requires more dedication than Altman could provide to both it and OpenAI.

You print off companies as if being a CEO is just being a CEO, and as if Musk doesn't work an unhealthy amount of hours.

Or maybe there's some secret reason for pg to carry water for Sam and it's worth his integrity.

[mindwok]

Agree, people need to chill. The thread says they would have been happy if Sam stayed, they just wanted him to choose one or the other which he agreed with. It seems like a very amicable parting of ways when the parties involved were being pulled in different directions.

[lukan]

"The thread says they would have been happy if Sam stayed"

No, he said they would have been fine with it. That has a different quality and honestly, I am quite sure they knew sama was so invested in OpenAI that he would not have choosen to step away from it.

So everybody could save face and no one was "fired".

[mateus1]

Weird times when moral relativism is saved for the rich and powerful instead of the poor and meek.

[FireBeyond]

Because PG is being very selective.

Does he forget that it is known that Sam posted to YC's site that he was now Chairman in the day or so prior to him leaving? So... what... they asked him to choose, he decided to promote himself and make a post about it, and then they hurriedly deleted that post and then Same "chose" to leave YC?

[burnished]

Or someone had some copy prepared (you don't think everyone waits until afterwards to write anything do you?) and whoopsied the publish button?

This line of thinking just reads as sensationalist or needlessly conspiratorial given that the indictment it is trying to support is so weak.

[ctvo]

> Probably because the "Sam Altman is an amoral, power hungry mastermind who was run out of all his previous gigs" is a more interesting narrative than whatever is actually happening.

It's not either or. The above can be true and also the reason pg wanted him to run YC.

[dehrmann]

Between the weird exit agreements OpenAI had departing employees sign and the Scarlett Johansson voice incident, people are wondering if there's a pattern to Altman's behavior.

[hn_throwaway_99]

How many logical fallacies are in this statement?

I mean, so what, this still has no bearing on what happened between pg and sama. I may think sama has done some sketchy things but why would that lead anyone to believe pg is lying? It's not like he had to make this statement or anything - it appears much more likely that it was just characterized in a way pg thought was not true.

[jimbob45]

There was no Scarlett voice incident. There was a verifiably different actress hired before Scarlett was approached. That’s it.

[nottorp]

I have no idea what Sam Altman is but based on how he runs OpenAI's marketing I have zero trust in him.

The lies start at the company name. What's "open" about OpenAI?

[1024core]

> What's "open" about OpenAI?

It's "open" for everyone to use, for the right fee.

[muzani]

Lots of people dislike PG and YC too, so it's doubly fun to strike up some bad blood between them.

[edgyquant]

I can see why, Paul Grahams Twitter is good enough reason to find him insufferable

[mattmaroon]

I personally find it a lot less interesting. It’s probably not true and even if it were, it’s still basically an ad hominem. The story is the tech.

[bfeist]

That Twitter thread (as most are) is poison.

[loceng]

Have you read his sister's allegations about their childhood? He avoids addressing those and apparently gaslights her about it.

There appears to be a pattern in regards to honesty and integrity.

[ImaCake]

Yeah, this is about the most positive and amiable way to solve the real problem of Sam Altman not having enough time to lead YC. It is a testament to Sam's own marketing skills that even banal stuff is driving mad speculation.

[latexr]

> It is a testament to Sam's own marketing skills that even banal stuff is driving mad speculation.

That’s beginning to enter “he’s playing 5D chess and making you think exactly what he wants” territory. Would you say that it’s a testament to tobacco companies’ marketing skills that everyone talks about cigarettes being cancerous?

The mad speculation is due to him being CEO of a highly talked about company but also the creator of dubious exploitative ventures[1][2] and rubbing a lot of people the wrong way, many of which talk in vague terms instead of being specific from the start.

[1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...

[2]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...

[meiraleal]

Well, that's visible. It doesn't need to be said and PG doesn't wanna be his arch enemy. The guy's becoming too powerful after all

[itsoktocry]

>A lot of people here bending over backwards to try to interpret this maximally negatively.

This thread exposes who buys into whatever the SF/VC overlords say.

"Got fired" may be a tad ambiguous, but being told "stop working on that other thing or leave" is not too far off.

[dmix]

Getting fired usually implies they did something wrong. Sam was always going to have a lot going on in his life so it was a given there would be competing priorities when he joined YC.

It’s like not he was some random full time employee at YC and concealing his busy life.

So when a smaller AI project he started (with PGs involvement) rapidly turned into a monster overnight and started demanding the bulk of his attention, it’s not a big deal to ask him if he has enough time for both, and to make a decision early on before it becomes overwhelming (note: he still gave him the choice to decide).

Like a lot of entrepreneurs they take on a lot of responsibilities and think they can swing a lot more stuff than they really can, and PG’s whole thing is guiding entrepreneurs to make the best decisions.

[fairity]

> "Got fired" may be a tad ambiguous, but being told "stop working on that other thing or leave" is not too far off.

It's very different.

When employees begin working at my company, they're told a list of things they're not allowed to do. And, they're told if they do these things, they will be shown the door.

By your definition of "not too far off", we're basically firing people on day one. Absurd.