Personally I wouldn’t take advice on how to be successful from someone like Sam Altman. There’s better sources. Business/career success is only one facet of success.
- Have friends in high places (ideally rich friends)
I know it's kinda sarcastic, but that is the truth. Being successful is not an exact science.
For the odd 'regular' person becoming successful, it's usually luck. They might have worked really hard enough to deserve it, but it's likely luck that got them to where they are.
This is measuring something different. If you want to become rich, the US is still the land of opportunity. In Europe, once you max out on education and try to climb higher, you start hitting glass ceilings and those glass ceilings are far lower than in the US.
it depends on what your measure of rich is, a euro millionaire is pretty easy here. Maybe a Billionaire is less common. But that's probably a good thing.
The system is designed to favour wealth over income. Income tax vs capital gains tax is a good way to demonstrate that.
Another example of this is how homeowners are treated vs renters. Specifically, in terms of tax breaks for mortgage interest payments, expenses incurred during major home improvements, etc. Also you can withdraw a decent chunk of money from your IRA early without the hefty penalty if the withdrawal goes toward buying a home. On the other hand, renters are not eligible for any such benefits.
I agree with your thinking but it just occurred to me that I have never seen anyone show the math (if it is even available information) as to what the total benefit is to capital gains being taxed at 1/2 the rate vs the total downside is to capital losses being written off at only 1/2 the rate.
The other thing about capital gains is that they aren’t adjusted for inflation, so someone could hold an asset for two decades and sell it for a big nominal gain and pay taxes but have the same or less purchasing power with the outcome.
> Self-belief is immensely powerful. The most successful people I know believe in themselves almost to the point of delusion.
Careful with this. This can be very counterproductive for your team/partners/customers/etc.
Such as when it drives bad decisions that you want to believe, but if you had a slightly less supermassive ego, you would've collaborated better with people, or individually thought harder and more creatively to come up with a path that was actually viable.
Or such as when your self-belief is so strong that you're misrepresenting situations to others who depend on your assurances.
Or cutting corners and breaking rules that you really ethically/legally can't, because you think it's justified or will work out in the end.
You need enough confidence to attempt and persevere at difficult things. But not so much that it's a liability.
Which prompts:
> “I will fail many times, and I will be really right once” is the entrepreneurs’ way. You have to give yourself a lot of chances to get lucky.
While you keep playing the lottery, don't let your ego leave a trail of bodies.
Be smart, be ambitious, be persistent, be from a financially-secure background, be well-connected, and be lucky.
Works every time!
It's possible to be deficient in one metric, if compensated by the others.
The simplest and most common multiplier for "successful" (e.g. many anonymous people here) vs "notoriously successful" (e.g. people we talk about by last name) is extra luck (and a taste for the spotlight!).
The only "trick" here is to maximize your luck potential by leveraging the other factors. They call it "making your own luck", but that's just a clever way of saying "cultivate and grow your available resources".
This might change as the thread matures, but the first 10 comments were all exclusively disagreeing with the premise of the post in ways that made it clear that 1) the commenters didn't read the post, and 2) their arguments were highly generic and didn't make any sense in the context of Sam Altman's life and path to success. So I would add one additional point to Sam's list: try to be a good listener.
Ok, reasonably well articulated argument, which I think says something along the line of "Sam Altman could have achieved his success more easily if he was born rich." I suppose that could be true, although you're certainly introducing new variables here that could also have unpredictable outcomes. For example, a unique Sam Altman quality is that during his time at YC, he used to send more messages per day than any other partner. He was doing that as a person who went from a middle class upbringing to being worth hundreds of millions. Is it safe to assume that the "other" Sam who was raised with a golden spoon would have been equally ambitious and productive? I honestly don't know and doubt that anyone can say with certainty.
The part that I am not following in your argument is why are we even introducing that variable in the first place. I mean, sure, money, beauty, health, IQ, EQ, and so many other factors are helpful and make everything easier. But why is money so intrinsically linked to Sam Altman's specific path to success? He comes from middle class, and all the money he made came after he was validated in his approach, not before. So why bring it up here? And if you're going to bring up money, why not bring up all the other factors I mentioned above?
It's far too early to say Sam Altman has succeeded at anything. We must imagine "replacement Sam Altman" who does the same things with the same resources and obtains lesser outcomes, or totally fails.
There's a Sam Altman replacement middle manager out there who only got the job because of nepotism, one of them barely pays his rent because his parents cut him off, the other one died of a bad trip of psychedelics in college, etc.
If success of this scale were repeatable we'd have bottled lightning for sale like it was Coca Cola. If people had such a formula they'd keep it just as secret.
Sam Altman was, to paraphrase, "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple."
His parents were upper middle class, he attended private school and Stanford. He then networked his way into the Silicon Valley priesthood and has been enchambered ever since.
I have no illusions about how Sam Altman succeeded. That makes one of us.
> His parents were upper middle class, he attended private school and Stanford. He then networked his way into the Silicon Valley priesthood and has been enchambered ever since.
The first sentence is true of many people who accomplish nothing compared to Altman. The second is an accomplishment that couldn’t be handed to him no matter how rich his parents were, indicating there is some significant level of skill involved.
Even if I grant you this, an article about how Sam Altman ingratiated himself into YC would be more much interesting than blathering about "work hard" and "be bold."
Maybe the list could've included "14. Get discovered by Paul Graham at just the right time." Or maybe that's the luck Altman was talking about.
But I don't understand some of the criticisms here. Of course we all know that much of the tech world is people who have their early ducks lined up for them until graduation, and then later have the money and connections to keep iterating. But AFAICT, Altman didn't just go through the motions a default way. And I like some of the ideas he's promoted (e.g., making startup equity more fair for early hires).
Apart from the fact this list is a bit repetitive, these aren't lessons in how to get rich, they are actually a description of what being rich IS.
You can have your own ideas because you don't need your job, it doesn't matter if your boss doesn't see things the way you do. You can sell things because you are completely aligned with your own ideas, not bound to what some existing business needs you to sell.
You can focus because you don't have to do things like take care of the laundry and pick up the kids. You don't need to work so you can work hard on whatever you want.
Immanuel Kant (I paraphrase liberally) said the Golden Rule was not enough to decide if an action was ethical or not. One also had to answer in a positive way the question, "What would happen if everyone behaved this way?" So, Sam Altman, what if everyone lived by your 13 lessons?
There is not a shred of humanity here. It's all about money, money, and more money. Think about what the world would be like if everyone, and I mean everyone, only valued money. (Ironically, money in and of itself has no value.) I don't think cutthroat would begin to describe that world.
Interestingly, native Americans disparaged Europeans because they were addicted to money. For native Americans, time spent with friends and family was more important than money. Almost all the native Americans who went to Europe returned to native America, and likewise the Europeans who had once lived among native Americans, then went back to Europe, returned to native America.
Colin Shaw said, "Every generation has something they regret. The generation before me was smoking. My generation is obesity. I worry that this generation is about the lack of social interaction and having your head down at a screen rather than talking." I think he's wrong: it's artificial intelligence that we will regret.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I don't expect to live much beyond a decade. I do feel immensely sorry for my kids, though, and I do hope the world will hold Sam Altman personally responsible for the harm I think he has unleashed.
The AI revolution is not going to end well, starting with the AI-powered hatred that will be spewed before the 2024 election and then continuing with AI-powered monitoring of every microsecond of a person's life. 1984 will be paradise by comparison.
All that might be true, but, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra (unlikely; Niels Bohr is more likely).
36 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 86.0 ms ] thread- Be born into a rich family
- Have friends in high places (ideally rich friends)
I know it's kinda sarcastic, but that is the truth. Being successful is not an exact science.
For the odd 'regular' person becoming successful, it's usually luck. They might have worked really hard enough to deserve it, but it's likely luck that got them to where they are.
Social mobility has been a long researched and debated topic. In most EU countries it's pretty high nowadays.
You can check the social mobility of a society and compare those: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
But if you define success as becoming super-rich with your startup and investing, that's mostly what the poster above you says.
Its true, but that's just because income is taxed so high and assets relatively low.
Another example of this is how homeowners are treated vs renters. Specifically, in terms of tax breaks for mortgage interest payments, expenses incurred during major home improvements, etc. Also you can withdraw a decent chunk of money from your IRA early without the hefty penalty if the withdrawal goes toward buying a home. On the other hand, renters are not eligible for any such benefits.
The other thing about capital gains is that they aren’t adjusted for inflation, so someone could hold an asset for two decades and sell it for a big nominal gain and pay taxes but have the same or less purchasing power with the outcome.
> Self-belief is immensely powerful. The most successful people I know believe in themselves almost to the point of delusion.
Careful with this. This can be very counterproductive for your team/partners/customers/etc.
Such as when it drives bad decisions that you want to believe, but if you had a slightly less supermassive ego, you would've collaborated better with people, or individually thought harder and more creatively to come up with a path that was actually viable.
Or such as when your self-belief is so strong that you're misrepresenting situations to others who depend on your assurances.
Or cutting corners and breaking rules that you really ethically/legally can't, because you think it's justified or will work out in the end.
You need enough confidence to attempt and persevere at difficult things. But not so much that it's a liability.
Which prompts:
> “I will fail many times, and I will be really right once” is the entrepreneurs’ way. You have to give yourself a lot of chances to get lucky.
While you keep playing the lottery, don't let your ego leave a trail of bodies.
Be smart, be ambitious, be persistent, be from a financially-secure background, be well-connected, and be lucky.
Works every time!
It's possible to be deficient in one metric, if compensated by the others.
The simplest and most common multiplier for "successful" (e.g. many anonymous people here) vs "notoriously successful" (e.g. people we talk about by last name) is extra luck (and a taste for the spotlight!).
The only "trick" here is to maximize your luck potential by leveraging the other factors. They call it "making your own luck", but that's just a clever way of saying "cultivate and grow your available resources".
Second, with only the slightest hint of jaundice, just add "Boy is it easy when you're born rich and well connected to...." in front of these points.
Boy is it easy when you're born rich and well connected to compound yourself!
Boy is it easy when you're born rich and well connected to make it hard to compete with you!
Boy is it easy when you're born rich and well connected to build a network!
Pass.
The part that I am not following in your argument is why are we even introducing that variable in the first place. I mean, sure, money, beauty, health, IQ, EQ, and so many other factors are helpful and make everything easier. But why is money so intrinsically linked to Sam Altman's specific path to success? He comes from middle class, and all the money he made came after he was validated in his approach, not before. So why bring it up here? And if you're going to bring up money, why not bring up all the other factors I mentioned above?
There's a Sam Altman replacement middle manager out there who only got the job because of nepotism, one of them barely pays his rent because his parents cut him off, the other one died of a bad trip of psychedelics in college, etc.
If success of this scale were repeatable we'd have bottled lightning for sale like it was Coca Cola. If people had such a formula they'd keep it just as secret.
His parents were upper middle class, he attended private school and Stanford. He then networked his way into the Silicon Valley priesthood and has been enchambered ever since.
I have no illusions about how Sam Altman succeeded. That makes one of us.
The first sentence is true of many people who accomplish nothing compared to Altman. The second is an accomplishment that couldn’t be handed to him no matter how rich his parents were, indicating there is some significant level of skill involved.
But I don't understand some of the criticisms here. Of course we all know that much of the tech world is people who have their early ducks lined up for them until graduation, and then later have the money and connections to keep iterating. But AFAICT, Altman didn't just go through the motions a default way. And I like some of the ideas he's promoted (e.g., making startup equity more fair for early hires).
You can have your own ideas because you don't need your job, it doesn't matter if your boss doesn't see things the way you do. You can sell things because you are completely aligned with your own ideas, not bound to what some existing business needs you to sell.
You can focus because you don't have to do things like take care of the laundry and pick up the kids. You don't need to work so you can work hard on whatever you want.
You can build a network because you have time.
Immanuel Kant (I paraphrase liberally) said the Golden Rule was not enough to decide if an action was ethical or not. One also had to answer in a positive way the question, "What would happen if everyone behaved this way?" So, Sam Altman, what if everyone lived by your 13 lessons?
There is not a shred of humanity here. It's all about money, money, and more money. Think about what the world would be like if everyone, and I mean everyone, only valued money. (Ironically, money in and of itself has no value.) I don't think cutthroat would begin to describe that world.
Interestingly, native Americans disparaged Europeans because they were addicted to money. For native Americans, time spent with friends and family was more important than money. Almost all the native Americans who went to Europe returned to native America, and likewise the Europeans who had once lived among native Americans, then went back to Europe, returned to native America.
Colin Shaw said, "Every generation has something they regret. The generation before me was smoking. My generation is obesity. I worry that this generation is about the lack of social interaction and having your head down at a screen rather than talking." I think he's wrong: it's artificial intelligence that we will regret.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I don't expect to live much beyond a decade. I do feel immensely sorry for my kids, though, and I do hope the world will hold Sam Altman personally responsible for the harm I think he has unleashed.
The AI revolution is not going to end well, starting with the AI-powered hatred that will be spewed before the 2024 election and then continuing with AI-powered monitoring of every microsecond of a person's life. 1984 will be paradise by comparison.
All that might be true, but, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra (unlikely; Niels Bohr is more likely).
\end{rant}