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

Reflections on OpenAI

calv.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 446 posts

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#331

Post by sanitycheck »

stickfigure wrote: post #231
rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no Bond villain at the helm. It's good people rationalizing things. I worked for a few years at a company that made software for casinos, and this was absolutely not the case there. Casinos absolutely have fully shameless villains at the helm.

Interesting. A year ago I joined one of the larger online sportsbook/casinos. In terms of talent, employees are all over the map (both good and bad). But I have yet to meet a villain. Everyone here is doing the best they can.

There are jobs in which one may find oneself where doing them poorly is better for the world than doing them well.

I think you and your colleagues should sit back and take it easy, maybe have a few beers every lunchtime, install some video games on the company PCs, anything you can get away with. Don't get fired (because then you'll be replaced by keen new hires), just do the minimum acceptable and feel good about that karma you're accumulating as a brake on evil.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#332

Post by NicuCalcea »

mcosta wrote: post #296
a_bonobo wrote: post #263

>Thanks to this bottoms-up culture, OpenAI is also very meritocratic. Historically, leaders in the company are promoted primarily based upon their ability to have good ideas and then execute upon them. Many leaders who were incredibly competent weren't very good at things like presenting at all-hands or political maneuvering. That matters less at OpenAI then it might at other companies. The best ideas do tend to win.…

Are you implying that a top-down corporate structure is better?

If not better, certainly more honest.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#333

Post by newswasboring »

hinterlands wrote: post #52

It is fairly rare to see an ex-employee put a positive spin on their work experience. I don't think this makes OpenAI special. It's just a good reminder that the overwhelming majority of "why I left" posts are basically trying to justify why a person wasn't a good fit for an organization by blaming it squarely on the organization. Look at it this way: the flip side of "incredibly bottoms-up" from this article is that…

> It goes like this: we're the good guys. If we were evil, we could be doing things so much worse than X! Sure, some might object to X, but they miss the big picture: X is going to indirectly benefit the society because we're going to put the resulting money and power to good use. Without us, you could have the bad guys doing X instead!

This is a great insight. But if we think a bit deeper about why that happens, I land on because there is nobody forcing anyone to do the right thing. Our governments and laws are geared more towards preventing people from doing the wrong thing, which of course can only be identified once someone has done the wrong thing and we can see the consequences and prove that it was indeed the wrong thing. Sometimes we fail to even do that.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#334

Post by mettamage »

norskeld wrote: post #287
billmcneale wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am convinced! Which god should I believe in, though? There are so many. And what if I pick the wrong god?

You should believe in all of them. Just spray and pray!

You have to filter out all the religions where you can't worship other gods or be in other religions.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#335

Post by samultio »

darkoob12 wrote: post #302
a_bonobo wrote: post #263

>Thanks to this bottoms-up culture, OpenAI is also very meritocratic. Historically, leaders in the company are promoted primarily based upon their ability to have good ideas and then execute upon them. Many leaders who were incredibly competent weren't very good at things like presenting at all-hands or political maneuvering. That matters less at OpenAI then it might at other companies. The best ideas do tend to win.…

I think in this structure people only think locally and they are not concerned with the overall mission of the company and do not actively think about morality of the mission or if they are following it.

Kind of sounds like a traditional public company is a constitutional monarchy, not always the best but at least there's a balance of interests. While a private company could either be an autocracy or oligarchy where sucking up and playing tribal politics is the only way to survive.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#336

Post by hnbad »

ben_w wrote: post #324
sensanaty wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no Bond villain at the helm We're talking about Sam Altman here, right, the dude behind Worldcoin? A literal bond-villainesque biological data harvesting scheme?

It might be one of the cover stories for a Bond villain, but they have lots of mundane cover stories. Which isn't to say you're wrong, I've learned not to trust my gut in the category (rich business leaders) to which he belongs. I'd be more worried about the guy who tweeted “If this works, I’m treating myself to a volcano lair. It’s time.” and more recently wore a custom T-shirt that implies he's like Vito Corleone.

> I'd be more worried about the guy

Or you could realize what those guys all have in common and be worried about the systems that enable them because the problem isn't a guy but a system enabling those guys to become everyone's problem.

I don't mind "Vito Corleone" joking about a volcano lair. I mind him interfering in my country's elections and politics. I shouldn't have to worry about the antics of a guy building rockets that explode and cars that can chop off your fingers because I live in a country that can protect me from those things becoming my problem, but because we have the same underlying systems I do have to worry about him because his political power is easily transferrable to any other country including mine.

This would still be true if it were a different guy. Heck, Thiel is landing contracts with his surveillance tech in my country despite the foreign politics of the US making it an obvious national and economic security risk and don't get me started on Bezos - there's plenty of "guys" already.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#337

Post by ethbr1 »

jajko wrote: post #316
teiferer wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way to go to keep the boring chores of the first months with the partner and join the fun when the little one starts to be more fun after a year. With all that cash, I'm sure they could buy a bunch of help for the partner too.

There is some parenting, then there is good parenting. Most people don't have this option due to finances, but those that do and still avoid it to pick up just easy and nice parts - I don't have much sympathy nor respect for them. Then later they even have the balls to complain how kids these days are unruly, never acknowledging massive gaps in their own care. Plus it certainly helps the kid with bonding, emotional s…

> Then later they even have the balls to complain how kids these days are unruly, never acknowledging massive gaps in their own care.

My favorite is ‘I can’t understand why my kid didn’t turn into a responsible adult!’

Cue look back on what opportunities the parent put them in to learn and practice those skills, over the last 20 years.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#338

Post by xandrius »

47282847 wrote: post #330
teiferer wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way to go to keep the boring chores of the first months with the partner and join the fun when the little one starts to be more fun after a year. With all that cash, I'm sure they could buy a bunch of help for the partner too.

You do know that early bonding experiences of newborns are crucial for their lifelong development? It reads like satire, or, if serious, plain child maltreatment.

Pushing it a bit there, aren't we?

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#339

Post by mhog_hn »

samultio wrote: post #335
darkoob12 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in this structure people only think locally and they are not concerned with the overall mission of the company and do not actively think about morality of the mission or if they are following it.

Kind of sounds like a traditional public company is a constitutional monarchy, not always the best but at least there's a balance of interests. While a private company could either be an autocracy or oligarchy where sucking up and playing tribal politics is the only way to survive.

Anyone tried setting up a modestly sized tech company where employees are randomly placed into various seniority roles at the start of each year? Of course considering capabilities and some business continuity concerns…

Could work with a bunch of similarly skilled people in a narrow niche

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#340

Post by harmonic18374 »

lucianbr wrote: post #309
gneray wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i know calvin, and he's one of the most authentic people i've worked with in tech. this could not be more off the mark

This reflection seems very unlikely to be authentic because it is full of superlatives and not a single bad thing (or at least not great) is mentioned. Real organizations made of real humans simply are not like this. The fact that several commenters know the author personally goes some way to explain why the entire comment section seems to have missed the utterly unbalanced nature of the article.

People come out to defend their bosses a lot on this site, convincing themselves they know the powerful people best, that they’re “friends”. How can someone be so confident that a founder is authentic, when a large part of their job is to make you believe so (regardless of whether they are), and the employee’s own self image push them to believe it too?
Post reply on HN