Hey, he's in competition with his old mate Elon. Clearly this is what he's referencing.
Tesla has made about 34bn in income over the last 3 years, with stormy waters ahead, yet Elon pocketed himself 56bn under the guise of saving humanity, which is a "vibe" OpenAI also needlessly projects.
You aren’t missing anything. The comment you’re responding to is wrong and understating net income for some reason. It was indeed $15B last year. Plus the targets set for Elon’s package was based on a number of metrics there were already met, so I don’t know why net income matters.
Pocketed? No he took a zero salary comp package with equity for hitting absurd targets no one thought he could hit. A strong majority of shareholders approved the package then and reapproved it now. He hit the targets so it’s accurate to say he earned it.
That’s the claim, but the court document’s tone and language shows this was an ideological decision for the judge rather than a factual determination.
Regardless, shareholders just voted again on that same exact package retroactively and re approved it. This was a clear indication that the market still feels, even in hindsight, that the past targets were deserving of the equity granted. What internal folks thought or the judge’s guess about shareholders being “tricked” doesn’t matter since it is something shareholders (owners of the company) have judged on their own with all the information they have now about past performance. Also, neither Elon nor his brother voted on the measure. So to me all this serves as evidence that enough people think the targets were absurd enough to at least justify the equity.
If internal folks really thought the share price would increase by 983%(the pay package target), they would have bought shares with all the money they have, plus sell/pawn everything they have and borrow as much as they could. That didn't happen.
> Altman said OpenAI's long development time-horizon ultimately meant it had no choice but to abandon the nonprofit model if the company intends to survive.
>
> "In spirit, we still view ourselves as working for the world," Altman said. "But I think you have to sort of play the field as it lies. And we just need so much capital to do our work. I think we'll need more capital than any nonprofit has ever raised, probably, and so this was sort of a reflection of reality."
Did he make statements counter to this at a later date?
The company started as a non-profit. A pretty damning evidence in itself.
This was in December 2015. Did it take this genius 4 years to figure out that to survive as a company, you need to a for profit entity?
Nah.
I think the strategy was to milk the marketing for all its worth, claiming to be "advancing the world, with no penny in pocket" high minded savior company. And then pivot (an innovative move) into raking in the money.
Did all the investors pour in billions without the understanding that this will become a for profit, and a for profit that will 10x their investments?
> We're a non-profit research company. Our full-time staff of 60 researchers and engineers is dedicated to working towards our mission regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way.
"regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way", they failed really hard on that point. That Sam Altman had already changed course by 2019 doesn't mean he didn't lie at the start.
I thought Sam had no equity in OpenAI and this story is claiming there's no plan for him to have a significant stake.
Where is the selfish gain?
You can claim that the story is false and there is a plan for gain but at this stage we have someone saying A and someone saying !A. It's probably a time to look for evidence.
The whole point is that Sam is not going to stick to his statements.
He is working behind the scenes to get a good stake in the company, and he most likely has told them he needs that stake to motivate himself to take the company to the next level.
I am guessing that they have a slew of new tools upcoming and this is Sam cashing out.
I realize that you believe that he will not stick to his statements.
My query is what evidence are you basing this belief upon? I'm prepared to be convinced by evidence. It seems like for so many people to have a strong opinion that he is a serial liar that there should be many cite-able sources where
A) It is undeniable that Sam Altman said that.
B) It is clear that this is false.
and C) this has happened repeatedly.
Too much of this seems to be relying on "Sources familiar with .... claim .... ".
I'm really not trying to advocate for Altman or OpenAI here, I just would like the claims against them to be robust.
Of course, as with any conspiracy theory, there are many unknown unknowns so make of it what you will. Personally, the many accounts of those who've worked with him along with these recorded statements push me towards being wary of his intentions.
It actually reminds me of descriptions I've heard of Larry Ellison (including the ones famously made by bcantrill) that he's very personable. You'll hear all these things about him that sound awful but then you meet him and he seems okay, quite reasonable, even. Then you start to observe that he's really just motivated by money, full stop. The charm is only there to get yours. That's the feeling I get reading about sama.
He's already a billionaire. I don't understand the motivation. I follow a lot of fatFIRE type subreddits and those people are done when they get a few tens of millions and concentrate on quality of life and enjoying their years remaining. It must take an enhanced level of megalomania or God complex to throw away everything (humanity, your reputation) to go for more than 1 billion.
If he does get equity (not options) then he'll have to pay taxes on it at the 409a valuation which is usually lower than market, but would still be crazy high.
Hey now, he spent at least 15 hours a week telling various groups of people at OpenAI petty lies in between dinners with Saudi Princes and sundry well-heeled, gullible, low-lifes.
When you're saying the investors are demanding it, the board is saying they've discussed it but don't have specific numbers, saying there are no "current plans" is pretty weak tea as a denial. Okay, there's no plan today but you're... actively working on one?
The timing of the executive departures is extremely suspicious. There's clearly a major shift happening here in Altman's favor, and even if he's not getting equity now it seems inevitable at this point.
As others have noted, the wording here is also highly suspect: "no current plans" for a "giant equity stake" gives him at least two different paths to claim he never lied about the situation if and when he gets equity.
Indeed, I heard there are plans for a giant equity stake to be awarded to a company called Notsam Naltman, LLC, which would leave nothing left to give to Sam Altman.
I was a bit distracted and read this as Sam Bankman-Fried, the realized it was Sam Altman, then realised there wasn't much light between the two names imho.
Yeah, but he’s good at it, though. That’s the amazing thing. It’s really obvious to everyone what he’s doing, and yet he still manages to pull it off, repeatedly.
Paul Graham said: “Sam is extremely good at becoming powerful.”
Altman is a predator; people respect their power even if they fear their motives. The investor class love guys like him, because he doesn’t let ethics get in the way of seeking power. Same reason they loved Zuckerberg.
>Yeah, but he’s good at it, though. That’s the amazing thing. It’s really obvious to everyone what he’s doing, and yet he still manages to pull it off, repeatedly.
Is it "amazing"? Or is it just that everything he does is technically legal, and he has enough wealth behind him that is hoping for even more wealth that nobody really gives a shit about ethics?
Sam Altman seems like a really shady guy. The tech community wont forget. Im sure there is better alternatives to OpenAI already, and new ones coming in the future.
The tech community loves shady people and plain doesn't care. Look at where Musk is today. He's been lying and being an idiot for years. It's not like people didn't know about Altman. Yet, he somehow landed these extremely high paying and powerful jobs with literally no resume.
> investors have raised concerns about Altman not having equity in the high-valued artificial intelligence company that he co-founded
I think here lies the interesting point. I’m not gonna try to mindread Sam and guess at what his true intentions are, but the investors’ intentions are clear: align Sam’s incentives with profit. I wish him the best of luck in navigating this.
>Regarding his potentially attaining an equity stake, Altman said, “There are no current plans here,” the person said.
>OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor told CNBC in a statement that while the board has talked about the matter, no specific figures are on the table.
>“The board has had discussions about whether it would be beneficial to the company and our mission to have Sam be compensated with equity, but no specific figures have been discussed nor have any decisions been made,” Taylor said.
So, they're definitely talking about it and it's definitely an option. Yes, technically, there might not be a definitive plan, but the intent and want are both there, and at no point has anybody flatly said, "There will be no equity stake".
Given Sam's history, none of what was said by them today means anything at all, and it cannot be trusted. This is just corporate weasel-wording.
93 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 154 ms ] thread>A sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.
When billions of dollars are up for grabs, values, ethics, morality, past promises and everything else in between will be thrown out the window.
For society, the framework should always be that a corporation is inherently evil. It is only a matter of time when that evil presents itself.
Tesla has made about 34bn in income over the last 3 years, with stormy waters ahead, yet Elon pocketed himself 56bn under the guise of saving humanity, which is a "vibe" OpenAI also needlessly projects.
Regardless, shareholders just voted again on that same exact package retroactively and re approved it. This was a clear indication that the market still feels, even in hindsight, that the past targets were deserving of the equity granted. What internal folks thought or the judge’s guess about shareholders being “tricked” doesn’t matter since it is something shareholders (owners of the company) have judged on their own with all the information they have now about past performance. Also, neither Elon nor his brother voted on the measure. So to me all this serves as evidence that enough people think the targets were absurd enough to at least justify the equity.
I just find it hilarious that Tesla's total profit over all these years is still lower than this pay package.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
In 2019 his position seemed to be this. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sam-altman-says-openai-still-...
> Altman said OpenAI's long development time-horizon ultimately meant it had no choice but to abandon the nonprofit model if the company intends to survive.
>
> "In spirit, we still view ourselves as working for the world," Altman said. "But I think you have to sort of play the field as it lies. And we just need so much capital to do our work. I think we'll need more capital than any nonprofit has ever raised, probably, and so this was sort of a reflection of reality."
Did he make statements counter to this at a later date?
The company started as a non-profit. A pretty damning evidence in itself.
This was in December 2015. Did it take this genius 4 years to figure out that to survive as a company, you need to a for profit entity?
Nah.
I think the strategy was to milk the marketing for all its worth, claiming to be "advancing the world, with no penny in pocket" high minded savior company. And then pivot (an innovative move) into raking in the money.
Did all the investors pour in billions without the understanding that this will become a for profit, and a for profit that will 10x their investments?
> We're a non-profit research company. Our full-time staff of 60 researchers and engineers is dedicated to working towards our mission regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way.
"regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way", they failed really hard on that point. That Sam Altman had already changed course by 2019 doesn't mean he didn't lie at the start.
https://www.openphilanthropy.org/files/Grants/OpenAI/OpenAI_...
Where is the selfish gain?
You can claim that the story is false and there is a plan for gain but at this stage we have someone saying A and someone saying !A. It's probably a time to look for evidence.
He is working behind the scenes to get a good stake in the company, and he most likely has told them he needs that stake to motivate himself to take the company to the next level.
I am guessing that they have a slew of new tools upcoming and this is Sam cashing out.
My query is what evidence are you basing this belief upon? I'm prepared to be convinced by evidence. It seems like for so many people to have a strong opinion that he is a serial liar that there should be many cite-able sources where
A) It is undeniable that Sam Altman said that.
B) It is clear that this is false.
and C) this has happened repeatedly.
Too much of this seems to be relying on "Sources familiar with .... claim .... ".
I'm really not trying to advocate for Altman or OpenAI here, I just would like the claims against them to be robust.
And a plausible interpretation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41657334.
Of course, as with any conspiracy theory, there are many unknown unknowns so make of it what you will. Personally, the many accounts of those who've worked with him along with these recorded statements push me towards being wary of his intentions.
It actually reminds me of descriptions I've heard of Larry Ellison (including the ones famously made by bcantrill) that he's very personable. You'll hear all these things about him that sound awful but then you meet him and he seems okay, quite reasonable, even. Then you start to observe that he's really just motivated by money, full stop. The charm is only there to get yours. That's the feeling I get reading about sama.
What you say is not true, otherwise nobody would retire early and many people do just that.
However, many billionaires become that rich for being exactly the type of person for whom money is never enough. But we don't need to be like them.
That is only true if you are constrained by lack of opportunities.
When money is never enough, then every opportunity to make some is going to be used to the full extent.
That time is worth money!
As others have noted, the wording here is also highly suspect: "no current plans" for a "giant equity stake" gives him at least two different paths to claim he never lied about the situation if and when he gets equity.
There is after you burn this image into your brain: https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/1av88z5/fir...
:-)
ok I'll pay that.
Paul Graham said: “Sam is extremely good at becoming powerful.”
Altman is a predator; people respect their power even if they fear their motives. The investor class love guys like him, because he doesn’t let ethics get in the way of seeking power. Same reason they loved Zuckerberg.
Is it "amazing"? Or is it just that everything he does is technically legal, and he has enough wealth behind him that is hoping for even more wealth that nobody really gives a shit about ethics?
I think here lies the interesting point. I’m not gonna try to mindread Sam and guess at what his true intentions are, but the investors’ intentions are clear: align Sam’s incentives with profit. I wish him the best of luck in navigating this.
>OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor told CNBC in a statement that while the board has talked about the matter, no specific figures are on the table.
>“The board has had discussions about whether it would be beneficial to the company and our mission to have Sam be compensated with equity, but no specific figures have been discussed nor have any decisions been made,” Taylor said.
So, they're definitely talking about it and it's definitely an option. Yes, technically, there might not be a definitive plan, but the intent and want are both there, and at no point has anybody flatly said, "There will be no equity stake".
Given Sam's history, none of what was said by them today means anything at all, and it cannot be trusted. This is just corporate weasel-wording.