Some red flags:
"she took the board role with reservations because she felt it was important someone like her was on it" (climber way of talking)
".. Despite the thoughtfulness of those involved..." (cliche way of describing people, also climber adjacent)
TLDR: someone who worked at OpenAI relates their firsthand experiences with Sam (not always positive; some lies and deceptive behavior), while strongly vouching for Helen's and Ilya's integrity and character.
My take: this is a counterpoint to a point that is not very relevant. Yes, the ad hominen attacks are despicable, but it should be a debate of their actions, not people's values and character. It's undeniable that the 4 board members didn't demonstrate competence to handle this situation, and very likely didn't fulfill their duty towards the interests of OpenAI's mission (neither the for-profit or the non-profit one). They don't have anyone but themselves to blame for this s*show.
That's really good data. Better than all the data from people who never met him or don't even know what's going on. I still can't answer the question why was he fired, but we have 400 pages of speculation on HN.
This twitter post is literally better information then anything I've seen for the past weekend.
97% of OpenAI's employees? You can probably find dozens if not hundreds of active users on this site you are using, who have at some point crossed paths with Sam, given his involvement in building YC. Haven't there already been data points relating their positive views of Altman?
I think if you truly believed you were as in the dark as you admit you are, you wouldn't have jumped to conclusions about this affair as early as you did.
Bro. Literally We do not have an honest statement about the details of WHY he's fired. We are all in the dark.
The logical answer is to be neutral. But everyone is exploding and thinking the board is full of mentally retarded simpletons.
Like seriously. Tell me which is more likely? That the board is mentally retarded or that there's some reasoning here that we don't know about?
HN is a mob. And I like the mobs take: The entire board of several people is coincidentally ALL mentally retarded and we should make them all resign. That's clearly the most rational and most likely analysis of what happened here.
You're inferring a lot from my comment, a lot that isn't there and wouldn't be there. You're also straw-manning rationalize your position: that you've been right for 2+ days that Sam Altman is an evil "clout chasing" tech bro who was going to oust the board but thankfully the ethical good people got to him first, because the only alternative everyone else is proposing is that the board is... "ALL mentally retarded", and this is impossible (I agree there). There are other possibilities and I don't think some hn mob is taking the position you say they are. Again, my point is you admit to being in the dark but I don't think you consider the implications that being in the dark would have on making such lucid conclusions.
My take comes from a background of not thinking boards are all that special compared to company leaders, and they're at their best when they don't interfere with extraordinary CEOs/Founders. Further, my general belief is that inexperienced boards are common, detrimental, and don't really understand this. I'm also biased against nonprofit boards, mostly from personal experience though obviously with smaller orgs.
My current take on this situation is not so much that the board was mentally retarded, but that the org structure allowed people with strong competing interests and very little "skin in the game" in the org to serve on the board, creating stronger incentives for an activist board than incentives for long-term success, which (as I alluded to) leads to poor outcomes.
Exhibit A: Adam D'Angelo at Quora/Poe.
Exhibit B: Moskovitz's ties to the other board members.
Strong incentives here to slow down OpenAI in favor of their own external, competing missions.
which brings on Exhibit C: Installing Emmett Shear, a man who wanted to slow down OpenAI's pace by 90%.
>You're inferring a lot from my comment, a lot that isn't there and wouldn't be there. You're also straw-manning rationalize your position: that you've been right for 2+ days that Sam Altman is an evil "clout chasing" tech bro who was going to oust the board but thankfully the ethical good people got to him first
First you say I'm inferring then you infer what my position is.
I told you my position. I'm speculative on anything except for the board being mentally retarded. You agree with me but you proceed to say this:
>My take comes from a background of not thinking boards are all that special compared to company leaders, and they're at their best when they don't interfere with extraordinary CEOs/Founders. Further, my general belief is that inexperienced boards are common, detrimental, and don't really understand this. I'm also biased against nonprofit boards, mostly from personal experience though obviously with smaller orgs.
This up above is essentially YOU saying the board is mentally retarded but dressing it up in nicer clothes. Literally you don't even mention a reason here. You just say, inexperience and detrimental which is "stupid" but dressed up.
>My current take on this situation is not so much that the board was mentally retarded, but that the org structure allowed people with strong competing interests and very little "skin in the game" in the org to serve on the board, creating stronger incentives for an activist board than incentives for long-term success, which (as I alluded to) leads to poor outcomes.
An "activist" board? That's just another synonym for being a dumbass. When someone gets fired it's usually because of incompetence, hatred, dislike, public pressure or power.
>Strong incentives here to slow down OpenAI in favor of their own external, competing missions.
This is valid IF you have the evidence of the incentive. State the competing interests and Emmet Shears motive for slowing down OpenAI by 90%.
A VC gushing about a charismatic founder does not itself convey meaningful information. They did about Sam Bankman-Fried, after all. That an overwhelming majority of OpenAI staff threatened to quit unless he is reinstated is more informative, but that might just be because they trust in his ability to wheel and deal and are seeing their big payday go away.
Gotta be honest. Anyone described as "thoughtful" has nothing to recommend them. It's like if you reviewed a restaurant as "bringing out all dishes correctly in order".
I am firmly on the side of Ilya and the Board on this. Yes it could have been handled better (easy to say for us who have no "emotional baggage" nor "skin in the game") but it is what it is. There must have been a precipitating factor which we still don't know. Somebody needs to standup for them.
When i look at the various comments across the various posts on this topic i am ashamed of the people in the Tech. Industry. There is just unbridled greed where it seems folks would sell their own mother for money. While i am no better than most of my fellow humans when it comes to love of money, i hope i have some moral/ethical compass which will allow me to make better decisions when it comes to societal altering technologies. Ilya and his team stood for something and we need to encourage such moral/ethical stands in the industry.
Sam Altman is just a business schmoozer and hustler who seems to have only gotten to where he is due to patronage by other well-established folks and not due to any inherent technical vision/mastery/knowledge. He is replaceable but the brains behind the technology is not.
I trust Ilya in his original decision, not in his retraction under intense pressure. Ilya has not changed his beliefs. Rather, he was unable to pay the price of those beliefs.
He will not even say the real reason that he, not the Board, fired Sam. If he has lost trust in Sam, he can no longer say so.
I also do not see why the board would endanger their already weak position by giving any courtesy notice to Microsoft, who has the best lawyers in the world and will move instantly.
There is more news (rumours?) coming out that suggest that Ilya (and others) may have been "played" by Adam D'Angelo. Things seem to be getting murkier by the minute.
But all said and done, people need to get behind Ilya and the Technical Team at OpenAI. They deserve it.
Steve Jobs, driven by his genius and his gut, invented the iPhone and built Apple into the world’s most valuable company ...
Sam Altman spent the last year taking on the mantle of Mr. Jobs as the Silicon Valley entrepreneur in charge of tomorrow. It is the biggest job in Silicon Valley, and now the most difficult.
Huhhhh???
What a ridiculously partisan PR piece. Borders on disinformation
The NYTimes is often fairly critical of tech, and even AI -- I can't believe they would publish this without a favor being called in.
35 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 48.2 ms ] threadSome red flags: "she took the board role with reservations because she felt it was important someone like her was on it" (climber way of talking) ".. Despite the thoughtfulness of those involved..." (cliche way of describing people, also climber adjacent)
That said, it feels awkward to even point out these gradations, without knowing the people in question.
I just realized that this is the kind of conversation that preceded forum witch hunts. Or tribe formation :/
My take: this is a counterpoint to a point that is not very relevant. Yes, the ad hominen attacks are despicable, but it should be a debate of their actions, not people's values and character. It's undeniable that the 4 board members didn't demonstrate competence to handle this situation, and very likely didn't fulfill their duty towards the interests of OpenAI's mission (neither the for-profit or the non-profit one). They don't have anyone but themselves to blame for this s*show.
Anybody else who knows Sam well want to Chime in? All this hero worship is coming from people who don't know Sam and don't know why he's fired.
This twitter post is literally better information then anything I've seen for the past weekend.
It is a datapoint. It's not the only datapoint.
The logical answer is to be neutral. But everyone is exploding and thinking the board is full of mentally retarded simpletons.
Like seriously. Tell me which is more likely? That the board is mentally retarded or that there's some reasoning here that we don't know about?
HN is a mob. And I like the mobs take: The entire board of several people is coincidentally ALL mentally retarded and we should make them all resign. That's clearly the most rational and most likely analysis of what happened here.
My take comes from a background of not thinking boards are all that special compared to company leaders, and they're at their best when they don't interfere with extraordinary CEOs/Founders. Further, my general belief is that inexperienced boards are common, detrimental, and don't really understand this. I'm also biased against nonprofit boards, mostly from personal experience though obviously with smaller orgs.
My current take on this situation is not so much that the board was mentally retarded, but that the org structure allowed people with strong competing interests and very little "skin in the game" in the org to serve on the board, creating stronger incentives for an activist board than incentives for long-term success, which (as I alluded to) leads to poor outcomes.
Exhibit A: Adam D'Angelo at Quora/Poe. Exhibit B: Moskovitz's ties to the other board members.
Strong incentives here to slow down OpenAI in favor of their own external, competing missions.
which brings on Exhibit C: Installing Emmett Shear, a man who wanted to slow down OpenAI's pace by 90%.
First you say I'm inferring then you infer what my position is.
I told you my position. I'm speculative on anything except for the board being mentally retarded. You agree with me but you proceed to say this:
>My take comes from a background of not thinking boards are all that special compared to company leaders, and they're at their best when they don't interfere with extraordinary CEOs/Founders. Further, my general belief is that inexperienced boards are common, detrimental, and don't really understand this. I'm also biased against nonprofit boards, mostly from personal experience though obviously with smaller orgs.
This up above is essentially YOU saying the board is mentally retarded but dressing it up in nicer clothes. Literally you don't even mention a reason here. You just say, inexperience and detrimental which is "stupid" but dressed up.
>My current take on this situation is not so much that the board was mentally retarded, but that the org structure allowed people with strong competing interests and very little "skin in the game" in the org to serve on the board, creating stronger incentives for an activist board than incentives for long-term success, which (as I alluded to) leads to poor outcomes.
An "activist" board? That's just another synonym for being a dumbass. When someone gets fired it's usually because of incompetence, hatred, dislike, public pressure or power.
>Strong incentives here to slow down OpenAI in favor of their own external, competing missions.
This is valid IF you have the evidence of the incentive. State the competing interests and Emmet Shears motive for slowing down OpenAI by 90%.
When i look at the various comments across the various posts on this topic i am ashamed of the people in the Tech. Industry. There is just unbridled greed where it seems folks would sell their own mother for money. While i am no better than most of my fellow humans when it comes to love of money, i hope i have some moral/ethical compass which will allow me to make better decisions when it comes to societal altering technologies. Ilya and his team stood for something and we need to encourage such moral/ethical stands in the industry.
Sam Altman is just a business schmoozer and hustler who seems to have only gotten to where he is due to patronage by other well-established folks and not due to any inherent technical vision/mastery/knowledge. He is replaceable but the brains behind the technology is not.
He will not even say the real reason that he, not the Board, fired Sam. If he has lost trust in Sam, he can no longer say so.
I also do not see why the board would endanger their already weak position by giving any courtesy notice to Microsoft, who has the best lawyers in the world and will move instantly.
But all said and done, people need to get behind Ilya and the Technical Team at OpenAI. They deserve it.
e.g. startup founders building on OpenAI and so forth
Usually Hacker News isn't so one-sided
Also the PR around this is absolutely incredible
---
Just saw this
The Long Shadow of Steve Jobs Looms Over the Turmoil at OpenAI
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/technology/sam-altman-ste...
Steve Jobs, driven by his genius and his gut, invented the iPhone and built Apple into the world’s most valuable company ...
Sam Altman spent the last year taking on the mantle of Mr. Jobs as the Silicon Valley entrepreneur in charge of tomorrow. It is the biggest job in Silicon Valley, and now the most difficult.
Huhhhh???
What a ridiculously partisan PR piece. Borders on disinformation
The NYTimes is often fairly critical of tech, and even AI -- I can't believe they would publish this without a favor being called in.