Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–248 of 248 posts

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#241

Post by FireBeyond »

terminous wrote: post #64
tinyhouse wrote: post #57

The guy doesn't even hold personal shares at OpenAI, which could've been worth billions if he did (he's a cofounder and CEO to remind you, so it's unheard of), and you're blaming him for buying chips from a startup he made a small investment in? Seriously. Maybe go after the CEOs who rob their employees and take all the money to themselves. Just to be clear, I never met the guy and have no affiliation with OpenAI.

I don't understand your argument. So corruption is OK because he isn't getting paid as much as he could be? That's like saying embezzlement is OK if you're underpaid.

And quite commonly in white collar crime, this is used as a defense. Volunteer associations, HOAs, where someone decided they were entitled to use the association credit card, or self-deal, etc., as some form of compensation for their efforts being (in their eyes) insufficiently rewarded.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#242

Post by tempaccount420 »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #231
infecto wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hope this makes it to the top. So much artificial outrage.

Many people have sad, angry lives and are addicted to outrage to lash out at anything other than themselves…they just can’t help it like an alcoholic can’t abstain from alcohol.

Reminds me of how people hate Elon Musk.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#243

Post by jwestbury »

airstrike wrote: post #229
avarun wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't wholly own any of them though?

you don't need whole ownership to control a company, just a controlling interest

Sure - but this holds for public companies, too, especially those with different classes of share. For instance, Drew Houston has >50% voting power for Dropbox, despite it being a public company in which he nominally owns Having investors, even if you own a controlling interest, still has implications on company decisions and possible legal action.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#244

Post by tinyhouse »

terminous wrote: post #64
tinyhouse wrote: post #57

The guy doesn't even hold personal shares at OpenAI, which could've been worth billions if he did (he's a cofounder and CEO to remind you, so it's unheard of), and you're blaming him for buying chips from a startup he made a small investment in? Seriously. Maybe go after the CEOs who rob their employees and take all the money to themselves. Just to be clear, I never met the guy and have no affiliation with OpenAI.

I don't understand your argument. So corruption is OK because he isn't getting paid as much as he could be? That's like saying embezzlement is OK if you're underpaid.

All I'm saying is that he doesn't seem like a corrupt person given all the money he gave up on. Maybe that startup gave the best deal to OpenAI and was the right move regardless of his investment in them.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#245

Post by tinyhouse »

FireBeyond wrote: post #241
terminous wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your argument. So corruption is OK because he isn't getting paid as much as he could be? That's like saying embezzlement is OK if you're underpaid.

And quite commonly in white collar crime, this is used as a defense. Volunteer associations, HOAs, where someone decided they were entitled to use the association credit card, or self-deal, etc., as some form of compensation for their efforts being (in their eyes) insufficiently rewarded.

He isn't insufficiently rewarded. He chose not to hold shares. He's already wealthy and holds shares in many tech startups.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#246

Post by infecto »

FireBeyond wrote: post #240
infecto wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless if you like or dislike Altman, it is just a constant distraction to bring up his sister. I think most/all have heard it 10x by now. It’s very old, there has never been more evidence and his sister is mentally unwell. It serves no purpose to a a thread about OpenAI buying chips from a company he is invested in. Does anyone get tired by the tech bros label always being thrown out when people disagree. Can we…

> and his sister is mentally unwell. Potentially as a result of or exacerbated by abuse, or tolerance thereof? Or made her an easier target? > it serves no purpose to a a thread about OpenAI buying chips from a company he is invested in. Certainly it does. Self-interest, conflict of interest etc., raises valid concerns about a person's sense of morality and ethics. Much like alleged assault or abuse of a vulnerable f…

What a weird world we live in. Abuse of any type is not condonable but at the same time proof of some type is necessary. Provide proof and there can be discussion around it. I am concerned you feel the need stretch so far to attack someone.

Edit: Don't even bother replying, this person is a Elon/Altman hater. The majority of comments are just negative spam against any kind of thread related to OpenAI or Tesla.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#247

Post by dzink »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #230
dzink wrote: post #149

A nonbinding letter of intent in 2018? That is a limited downside unlimited upside kind of risk you take to fund extreme moon shots. Boom Supersonic did the same approach with United airlines, to fund a still undeveloped supersonic Airplane. A 1M investment like this is a hedge that has capped downside, restricted to Altman's personal money, and an infinite upside that gives an incentive to the founders to succeed. A…

"A nonbinding letter of intent in 2018?" "OpenAI does not have to buy the chips unless they meet the criteria," The second sentence suggests if the chips meet the criteria then the LOI is binding. Even if, for example, there were other chips from other companies, in which Altman held no interest, that met the criteria. The phrase "have to buy the chips" suggests more than simply a requirement to negotiate in good fai…

I don’t know what the LOI states of every piece of fine print and I’m not affiliated with them in any way, but what we do know is that at IN 2018, the moment of that decision, the information available at the time was:

The odds of success of that 1M investment and the chip company were closer to 0 than 100%

The odds of success of openai in a competitive environment with massive monopolies who were building AI was closer to 0 than 100%.

Trump was president. He was rattling the chains of every trade partner and China was threatening the most important chip-making places.

Sam altman was co-chairman of OpenAI, not CEO, and still led YC.

There could be plenty of other things about him to be concerned about, but this investment, with the information we have about that time, is not. Especially because you don’t get AI without chips.

Re: OpenAI Committed to Buying $51M of AI Chips from a Startup Backed by Sam Altman

#248

Post by FireBeyond »

infecto wrote: post #246
FireBeyond wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and his sister is mentally unwell. Potentially as a result of or exacerbated by abuse, or tolerance thereof? Or made her an easier target? > it serves no purpose to a a thread about OpenAI buying chips from a company he is invested in. Certainly it does. Self-interest, conflict of interest etc., raises valid concerns about a person's sense of morality and ethics. Much like alleged assault or abuse of a vulnerable f…

What a weird world we live in. Abuse of any type is not condonable but at the same time proof of some type is necessary. Provide proof and there can be discussion around it. I am concerned you feel the need stretch so far to attack someone. Edit: Don't even bother replying, this person is a Elon/Altman hater. The majority of comments are just negative spam against any kind of thread related to OpenAI or Tesla.

> Abuse of any type is not condonable but at the same time proof of some type is necessary

You're right, in a criminal court. I don't know what the evidence is or isn't. Neither do you. I just posited a theory. The very vast majority of abuse has no "proof" and often boils down to he said, she said.

> Don't even bother replying, this person is a Elon/Altman hater. The majority of comments are just negative spam against any kind of thread related to OpenAI or Tesla.

Let's see, 9,114 comments on HN, 100 or so which relate to Musk/Tesla, and approximately 20 of which reference the OpenAI drama.

Revisit the site guidelines:

* Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

* Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Post reply on HN