OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft • Hacker News Board

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#141

Post by gkoberger » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:21 PM UTC

kvee wrote: post #129

kvee wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are a couple I could find in notes I took while listening to podcasts, though there are more - “I get like all of the power of running OpenAI” “I don’t think it’s particularly altruistic. Like it would be if I didn’t already have a bunch of money. The money is gonna pile up faster than I can spend it anyway.” Those I think are either from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sWH2e5xpdo or https://www.youtube.com/wat…

Just went to the first video and got the following from 1:36, here's a link which starts at that point: https://youtu.be/3sWH2e5xpdo?si=bmum-8B02FLoVkWj&t=96 "I mean I have like lots of selfish reasons for doing this and as you've said I get like all the power of running OpenAI, but I can't think of anything more fulfilling to work on and I don't think it's particularly altruistic, it would be if I didn't already hav…

To me, that sounds like he acknowledged his power but disagreed with the person who said it. He's just repeating the question but shifted to it being fulfilling (and not about money). Without the question being included, I think it's hard to use this quote as proof.

He's also said something similar in another interview:

“One of the takeaways I’ve learned is that this concept of having enough money is not an idea that’s easy to get across to people. I have enough money. What I want more of is, like, an interesting life, impact; access to be in the conversation. So I still get a lot of selfish benefit from this. What else am I going to do with my time? This is really great. I cannot imagine a more interesting life than this one and a more interesting thing to work on.”

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#142

Post by aetherson » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:23 PM UTC

ponector wrote: post #117

vthallam wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> >> and comp was reasonable there's no way you guys would get the same comp though? like not even close. MSFT irrespective of how much it wants you is not going to honor the 10X increase in valuation from the upcoming $90 billion valuation. Even if they do, you will miss on the upside. MSFT stock is not going to 10X but OpenAI's might.

Don't forget that with new rounds and new valuation there is also a dilution of shares. If the valuation goes up x10 after next round average developer probably will have the same money locked in rsu/options.

Uh, what? Are you claiming that if a company experiences a 10x (!) increase in valuation, that the dilution fully destroys that upside and the average developer experiences no increase in their comp? That is not even vaguely close to true in my experience.

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#143

Post by capableweb » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:24 PM UTC

zamalek wrote: post #140

vthallam wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> >> and comp was reasonable there's no way you guys would get the same comp though? like not even close. MSFT irrespective of how much it wants you is not going to honor the 10X increase in valuation from the upcoming $90 billion valuation. Even if they do, you will miss on the upside. MSFT stock is not going to 10X but OpenAI's might.

> there's no way you guys would get the same comp though? Nadella was directly involved and he's way smarter than that. Comping one the best ML teams in the world correctly is child's play compared to undoing Balmer's open source mess.

LinkedIn data says ~44% of the OpenAI team is "Engineering", the rest is operations, human resources and sales.

So most likely, if most of the employees moved over to Microsoft, they wouldn't get the same comp, at most 44% of the company would.

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#144

Post by kvee » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:30 PM UTC

gkoberger wrote: post #141

kvee wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just went to the first video and got the following from 1:36, here's a link which starts at that point: https://youtu.be/3sWH2e5xpdo?si=bmum-8B02FLoVkWj&t=96 "I mean I have like lots of selfish reasons for doing this and as you've said I get like all the power of running OpenAI, but I can't think of anything more fulfilling to work on and I don't think it's particularly altruistic, it would be if I didn't already hav…

To me, that sounds like he acknowledged his power but disagreed with the person who said it. He's just repeating the question but shifted to it being fulfilling (and not about money). Without the question being included, I think it's hard to use this quote as proof. He's also said something similar in another interview: “One of the takeaways I’ve learned is that this concept of having enough money is not an idea that…

I think I can see how you interpret it that way.

I certainly didn't interpret as him disagreeing with his statement "I mean I have like lots of selfish reasons for doing this"

It's the "as you've said" part of "as you've said I get like all the power of running OpenAI" that would make me inclined to think what you wrote here.

But I do think there's a greater chance that he is saying that he does like the power.

There's also another quote either in this video or the other one I shared I think where he's asked why he's doing this, or what motivates him, or something like that, and he responds with something like "I'd be lying if I didn't say I really like the power"

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#145

Post by bogomipz » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:35 PM UTC

reso wrote: post #53

I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days later. I have to assume that the individuals involved are under a mix of social and legal pressure to not talk about the circumstances.

There was a bit of insight today from a board member on her perspective. See:

https://archive.is/Sy3Xm

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#146

Post by darkerside » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:35 PM UTC

tivert wrote: post #123

reso wrote: post #53

I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days later. I have to assume that the individuals involved are under a mix of social and legal pressure to not talk about the circumstances.

> I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days later. I don't know how anyone can call the board's action a "coup." Calling it that seems to be a propagandistic abuse of the term. The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the boar…

I think the coup is on the part of other employees who advocated for the board to fire Altman. No judgement in whether that was justified or not.

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#147

Post by mrtksn » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:37 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #138

mrtksn wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not all companies try to exploit their strength in one area to make me use some other product that I have no interest in. I'm not talking about "hey, we have this product that you might like", I'm talking about "if you want to use this product, you must also use this product". There's also no technical reason for it, sometimes they will let me use it. Not O.K.

> No, not all companies try to exploit their strength in one area to make me use some other product that I have no interest in. I'm not sure of any large one that doesn't. The incentives are aligned such that it's hard for them not to. It's easy to find examples of similar (sometimes almost identical) behavior from most large companies.

Okay, what other company does it? You may say Apple & App Store but that's not the same.

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#148

Post by Crosseye_Jack » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:37 PM UTC

Well that's the benefit then you have multiple entities bidding for your labor. You just need to say Company A will give me the same terms (if not better), not need to list A, B, C, D, etc even if you just want to stay where you are, you are still in the position to cherry pick who you want to work for.

Heck I've done it myself, Was happy where I was, but wanted a pay bump, shopped around, went back to my employer and said if you will pay (highest bid + percentage) I'll stay, but otherwise I'm out the door. They paid up.

Its the gamble you take. Granted when most off the staff also have the same demands it puts the company more on the back foot.

Just a note, I've also taken work for less pay, but (imo) better working conditions. It all just depends on what you want your working conditions to be and what your willing to accept in terms of comp.

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#149

Post by nicce » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:41 PM UTC

reso wrote: post #53

I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days later. I have to assume that the individuals involved are under a mix of social and legal pressure to not talk about the circumstances.

> No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days later.

Board’s job is to hire or fire CEO. Technically CEO made the coup since he managed to throw his bosses out of their positions.

Re: OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

#150

Post by tivert » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 10:45 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #146

tivert wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days later. I don't know how anyone can call the board's action a "coup." Calling it that seems to be a propagandistic abuse of the term. The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the boar…

I think the coup is on the part of other employees who advocated for the board to fire Altman. No judgement in whether that was justified or not.

> I think the coup is on the part of other employees who advocated for the board to fire Altman. No judgement in whether that was justified or not.

The GP was pretty clear that he thought "the entire board decided to do a coup," which does not fit that interpretation.

But even the scenario you describe isn't something that can be properly described as a "coup." In that case, the employees are just appealing to a legitimate higher authority, which is a totally OK thing to do (e.g. it's not wrong to report a bribe-taking boss to the company ethics hotline). IMHO, a coup is where subordinates illegitimately usurp and depose the highest authority from below.