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

Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 854 posts

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#211

Post by mewpmewp2 »

jjulius wrote: post #192
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. You think it's not a great idea, because it might cause a lot of deaths. You are not seeing a way to convince them in other ways, however you do see a way where you can lie to them, to keep them from that idea and therefore saving many lives and possibly the World from assured mutual destruction. Would that be unethical? Would that be psychopathy?

Do you think that OpenAI is somehow on the same level of importance as "the survival of the entire universe" or "[detonating] a nuclear bomb"? I'm trying to understand why you're comparing this scenario to things of that magnitude. Seems like one hell of a gigantic stretch.

Not talking about OpenAI, but in general. I wouldn't know what is happening in the OpenAI's case, I just don't have the information.

I just don't like the idea of some group of people having superior power of not being questioned about their ethics (the board in this case). Just sounds a bit cultish to imagine boards to always wield these kind intentions.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#212

Post by strunz »

mark212 wrote: post #175
HDThoreaun wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vince Mcmahon literally owns WWE but the board fired him. Of course he voted in a new board at the next election but I dont think it's unheard of boards to vote against their founders. Sam is a founder of openAI even if he never controlled the board, and they tried to take control from him.

Bad analogy. Sam has no stock in OpenAI or any sort of formal controlling interest. His power is solely informal: his own talents and abilities and the loyalty of the other employees. Regardless of the truth of the matters, the episode is a perfect example of the limits of formal authority and how informal or "soft" power can be even more effective in shaping events

Did you read the article which points out specifically that he is financially incentivized?

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#214

Post by z7 »

slg wrote: post #174
z7 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no logical equivalence between being skeptical and jumping to a conclusion based on possibly biased statements from involved parties.

Defending him is just as much "jumping to a conclusion" as criticizing him. If anything, it is a more active decision because he hasn't even offered a defense yet to this latest round of accusations meaning a defender must create a defense for him. Meanwhile, a criticism of him requires nothing new since it can just be a summary of the existing allegations against him.

Being skeptical about various possibly biased stories from involved parties would mean not accepting any as true. Where is the conclusion? The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. In contrast, the assumption of guilt based on the statement of an ex-board member is a conclusion.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#215

Post by [deleted] »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #211
jjulius wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that OpenAI is somehow on the same level of importance as "the survival of the entire universe" or "[detonating] a nuclear bomb"? I'm trying to understand why you're comparing this scenario to things of that magnitude. Seems like one hell of a gigantic stretch.

Not talking about OpenAI, but in general. I wouldn't know what is happening in the OpenAI's case, I just don't have the information. I just don't like the idea of some group of people having superior power of not being questioned about their ethics (the board in this case). Just sounds a bit cultish to imagine boards to always wield these kind intentions.

[deleted]

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#217

Post by fallingfrog »

jononomo wrote: post #145

Paul Graham has said that one of the things he likes best about Sam Altman is that he figures out ways to "hack" things, and specified that he didn't mean programming, but rather systems, institutions, people, etc. As for me, I'd prefer to see Paul Graham running Open AI.

There’s a word for being adept at “hacking” people and institutions, and it’s called being manipulative. It’s a dark triad sociopathic trait.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#218

Post by brandon272 »

stale2002 wrote: post #150
bmitc wrote: post #86

What is still bizarre is how the board brought him back. I just don't understand that from any angle. It is very clear that he lied and schemed. So why was there any issue? He had no power once fired. If another company wants to hire him, fine. If he wants to make platitudes on Twitter, who cares? Employees threatened to leave? Let them. I imagine many of them wouldn't, and if they did, you could just rehire and find…

Employees are not replacable like that. Almost the entire company was threatening to quit. If it was possible to simply replace all of openAI, then you could just do that now, as an outside party. So the boards choice was to either bring back Sam or watch the entire company go under.

> Almost the entire company was threatening to quit.

This is the part that perplexes me. A CEO being fired is not an unusual occurrence. What about Sam Altman led such a huge number of employees to threaten to follow him out the door? Was it that the board's actions were viewed as internally unjust? Was it Altman's power of persuasion? Was/is Altman viewed by the staff as bringing something irreplaceable to the table in terms of talent, skill or ability?

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#219

Post by throwcon »

jononomo wrote: post #145

Paul Graham has said that one of the things he likes best about Sam Altman is that he figures out ways to "hack" things, and specified that he didn't mean programming, but rather systems, institutions, people, etc. As for me, I'd prefer to see Paul Graham running Open AI.

Is that a good thing?

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#220

Post by disqard »

threeseed wrote: post #110
stubish wrote: post #62

Now I'm curious as to the reasoning Sam got back in. The board is there for a purpose and has legal duties. Did they have some duty to cave in when the company was threatened, overriding their oversight duties that caused them to sack Sam in the first place? Did they decide they just got it wrong? It seems pretty wobbly, and makes me question if boards are useful at all for many companies in today's world (and what o…

It's because of Satya. He offered to move Sam and whoever supported him under the Microsoft wing with an independent for-profit company with the same access to unlimited compute that they needed to train their models. With this looming over their heads the employees/shareholders ultimately had to choose between (a) staying at OpenAI without Sam, having the company lose their deal with Microsoft and likely folding, (b…

It looks like he made a bunch of people dance, not just Google...
Post reply on HN