Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

bizjournals.com

181–190 of 192 posts

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#181
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the theory—surely publishing more data would reassure everyone and help settle things—but this is based on an assumption which in my experience is false: that these dynamics are rational. I don't think that's how they work at all, so I don't have faith that earnestly publishing a moderation log would improve things. On the contrary, I find it easier to imagine it making things worse. Why? Because there w…

Reading through the linked comment (and it's linked algolia feed) I'll add that public mod actions are less aimed at the making interactions with small and loud subset who will never engage rationally themselves any better and more aimed at helping the rest of the community easily ignore said subset. If the typical rational user will have seen many posts about YC critical news not related to celebrity gossip they wil…

> If the typical rational user will have seen many posts about YC critical news not related to celebrity gossip they will immediately know such claims are unfounded and have public references to it.

No, if it looks to them like many/most/all of those posts have been more or less subtly de-emphasized, the impression they'll get is the exact opposite of what you postulate.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#182
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This looks like a flimsy story from a couple of months ago about something from many years ago. "Here's me obediently following the rule (Oh, the world is so full of silly rules!), but let me editorialise a bit on why any story about how Sam Altman isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread should be disregarded..." And you don't see how that undermines any "trust we have with the bulk of the community"?

I don't, because it doesn't. If the bulk of the community distrusted us, that would be by far the dominant issue on HN. That's how internet dynamics work. The reason I post such long explanations when a case like this comes up is not because I think it will satisfy the disgruntled, chronically distrustful fraction of users (though that would be nice!) but because I know that explaining everything that happened, and w…

> I don't, because it doesn't.

It rather obviously does, AFAICS -- would we be having this discussion if it didn't? ;-)

> The reason I post such long

The issue for me certainly isn't the length, but the tone (or "whiff" :-) of your comments.

> explanations when a case like this comes up is not because I think it will satisfy the disgruntled, chronically distrustful fraction of users (though that would be nice!)

Hope I don't count among those. I've been a bit vocally critical recently, but that's just (at least intended as) pointing out where you slip up in your stated goals and policies, which on the whole I'm fairly certain you (all) are doing a pretty good job at.

> but because I know that explaining everything that happened, and why, is enough to reassure the bulk of the community.

OK, so I'm apparently not in that bulk. Hope there's some "moderately sceptical" group between that bulk and your "disgruntled, chronically distrustful fraction" above for me to be counted in.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#183
post #173
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may give some insight on the creepiness you sense, it involves DARPA https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...

The idea that "DARPA is incompetent" because they promote hair-brained ideas, is one of their biggest ruses. Of course they're competent. Corollary: Elon Musk https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1dgyujd/comment/l8...

> The idea that "DARPA is incompetent" because they promote hair-brained ideas

Hare-brained. It refers not to hair on the brain, but to hares not being the world's smartest animals.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#184
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the document was not written by an oligarch, lol. No, only about one, in order to pump up his career, and AIUI signed by him. "lol hahaha"

I replied to a comment about normal people being fired over mistakes like these. Who is supposedly at risk of being fired if not the person who wrote the document? Should Altman fire himself or what are you talking about?

> Should Altman fire himself

He probably won't, so someone else should do it for him.

(Ideally, someone who seems so shady should of course never have ended up in such positions of power in the first place.)

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#185
post #154
post #107

I think these types of posts are extremely nitpicky and not useful. From my experience, these sort of SEC filings are compiled by associates in a biglaw firm under a lot of time pressure, with file names like "version 41.B FINAL EDIT". Things get lost in translation. The signing off parties on the document are not sama: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849056/000110465921... I think someone made a mistake. Al…

How does a mistake like that get made 3 or 4 years later when he was never the chair, and the only official source for that had been edited within days to remove that, and apparently there has never been a YC chair at all?

I imagine the associates googled for it and repeated whichever source existed at that time.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#186
post #170

I've never met him in person and I don't usually judge a book by its cover, but he gives me a creepy vibe. It is difficult to put in words because this the first time I feel like this about someone I've never met. Something feels always off when I look at his photos or videos. This has been happening long before all this OpenAi drama.

Yup. Personally I think he might have dirt on Paul Graham.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the CEO lies on a resume, nothing happens I think it’s abundantly clear that if OpenAI fails, powerful people will face prosecution. It’s an uncomfortable but unavoidable part of our justice system that we don’t like to prosecute people until they’re no longer winners.

It's far from clear. Dozens of finance executives wiped a decade worth of economic growth off the United States the year before I graduated high school. My generation will never recover. They left their jobs with more money that I'll make in an entire lifetime. None went to prison.

Sure, it was only the executives and not the government bailing them....

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#188
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't, because it doesn't. If the bulk of the community distrusted us, that would be by far the dominant issue on HN. That's how internet dynamics work. The reason I post such long explanations when a case like this comes up is not because I think it will satisfy the disgruntled, chronically distrustful fraction of users (though that would be nice!) but because I know that explaining everything that happened, and w…

> I don't, because it doesn't. It rather obviously does, AFAICS -- would we be having this discussion if it didn't? ;-) > The reason I post such long The issue for me certainly isn't the length, but the tone (or "whiff" :-) of your comments. > explanations when a case like this comes up is not because I think it will satisfy the disgruntled, chronically distrustful fraction of users (though that would be nice!) Hope…

Yes, I just mean that the way we moderate HN (including how we handle negative YC-related stories), while it doesn't satisfy everyone, does satisfy the majority of users here. That's no accident—it's why we moderate HN this way in the first place. Keeping the community happy (er, as happy as possible under the circumstances) is the important job. Without that, HN would disintegrate.

Of course I'd rather satisfy even more users, but it's hard to figure out how to do that at scale. For one thing, i's not monotonic: making changes to satisfy class X can easily dissatisfy class Y, and then it's unclear if we're worse off or better; probably worse.

That applies in cases like the current thread, btw. I believe the majority of HN readers would find HN less satisfying if flamebait were more prominent on the site. People come here to get away from all that, to find new and (above all) interesting things they haven't seen before. Doing our best to clear away the less intellectually-curious stuff (riler-uppers, mountain-from-molehill clickbait, tawdry drama and so on) helps keep a large part, and actually the more valuable part, of the audience here. It would be foolish to trade that away in the hope of winning over the bitter contingent who, though vocal and prolific, are a tiny sliver of the community. Especially since attempting to win them over would likely be futile. I know, because I've tried—hard and for years.

The conflict-of-interest concern is a real one, of course, and the solution to that is the rule I've been explaining elsewhere in the thread (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). It does the job fine and has held up well. It doesn't satisfy everyone, but the users it doesn't are probably unsatisfiable anyhow; and it reduces the risk of alienating the ones who are here for the right reason (to read interesting things).

> Hope I don't count among those.

Don't worry, we're good! But I appreciate you adding those bits because it's not always easy to tell where people are coming from.

I should say one other thing: criticism is fine, I'm happy to do my best to answer it, and critical users have their place. Even the users (not talking about you here!) who are mad about something we did or didn't do 10 years ago and show up at every opportunity with garish accusations—even they have their place...though they're not necessarily the easiest to relate to.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#189
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the document was not written by an oligarch, lol. No, only about one, in order to pump up his career, and AIUI signed by him. "lol hahaha"

I replied to a comment about normal people being fired over mistakes like these. Who is supposedly at risk of being fired if not the person who wrote the document? Should Altman fire himself or what are you talking about?

Furthermore:

> Who is supposedly at risk of being fired if not the person who wrote the document?

The one who stands to benefit from the lie. In the case of the ordinary Joe that is of course one and the same; he can't afford to hire someone to delegate his CV faking to. But just because the bigshots can offload “trivial” tasks like that onto someone else doesn't make the moral responsibility anyone else's than their own.

Suggesting the one who should be fired is the office slave who actually typed the hype is

1) As absurd as Joe Schmoe claiming it isn't he, but the pen he signed his faked CV with that should be fired; and

2) A sign of a wholly non-functional moral compass.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#190
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replied to a comment about normal people being fired over mistakes like these. Who is supposedly at risk of being fired if not the person who wrote the document? Should Altman fire himself or what are you talking about?

Furthermore: > Who is supposedly at risk of being fired if not the person who wrote the document? The one who stands to benefit from the lie. In the case of the ordinary Joe that is of course one and the same; he can't afford to hire someone to delegate his CV faking to. But just because the bigshots can offload “trivial” tasks like that onto someone else doesn't make the moral responsibility anyone else's than their…

It's not a lie, it's a trivial mistake done by whoever was drafting the document.

Yes, I'm sure any board would fire their CEO for this if only he wasn't an oligarch. /s

Post reply on HN