Live data from Hacker News

Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

arstechnica.com

231–240 of 754 posts

Re: Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

#232

Jeremy Howard (of fast.ai): https://x.com/jeremyphoward/status/1725712220955586899 He is not exactly an insider, but seems broadly aligned/sympathetic/well-connected with the Ilya/researchers faction, his tweet/perspective was a useful proxy into what that split may have felt like internally.

Such a bad take. Developers (me included) loved Dev Day.

I think you are missing the point, this is offered for perspective, not as a “take”.

I find this tweet insightful because it offered a perspective that I (and it seems like you also) don’t have which is helpful in comprehending the situation.

As a developer, I am not particularly invested nor excited by the announcements but I thought they were fine. I think things may be a bit overhyped but I also enjoyed their products for what they are as a consumer and subscriber.

With that said, to me, from the outside, things seemed to be going fine, maybe even great, over there. So while I understand the words in the reporting (“it’s a disagreement in direction”), I think I lack the perspective to actually understand what that entails, and I thought this was an insightful viewpoint to fill in the perspectives that I didn’t have.

The way this was handled still felt iffy to me but with the perspective I can at least imagine what may have drove people to want to take such drastic actions in the first place.

Re: Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

#233
post #58
post #9

What are the odds Sam can work the phones this weekend and have $10B lined up by Monday for a new AI company which will take all of the good talent from OpenAI?

And then? Training data is more restricted now, hardware is hard to get, fine tuning needs time.

First two problems are easily solved with money

Re: Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have something in writing or you have enough ownership to say no, I don’t see how you’d be able to stop it.

They have something in writing. OpenAI created a for-profit joint venture company with microsoft, and gave it license to its technology.

Exclusive license?

Re: Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

#235
post #119

If the firing was because of a difference in "vision", then it doesn't really matter if Altman was key to making OpenAI so successful. Sutskever and co, don't want it to be successful (by market standards at least). If they get their way (past MSFT and others) then OpenAI will no longer be the cutting edge. Buy GOOGL?

It seems you are saying that anything that doesn’t put profit first can’t be successful.

OpenAI's median salary of engineers is $900k. So yeah AI companies need money to be successful. Now if there is any way to generate billions of dollars per year long term without any profit objective, I will be happy to know.

Re: Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

#236

> Angel investor Ron Conway wrote, "What happened at OpenAI today is a Board coup that we have not seen the likes of since 1985 when the then-Apple board pushed out Steve Jobs. It is shocking; it is irresponsible; and it does not do right by Sam & Greg or all the builders in OpenAI." With all sympathy and empathy for Sam and Greg, whose dreams took a blow, I want to say something about investors [edit: not Ron Conway…

> The board's job is not to do right There is why you do something. And there is how you do something. OpenAI is well within its rights to change strategy even as bold as from a profit-seeking behemoth to a smaller research focused team. But how they went about this is appalling, unprofessional and a blight on corporate governance. They have blind-sided partners (e.g. Satya is furious), split the company into two cam…

Keep in mind that the rest of the board members have ties to US intelligence. Something isn't right here.

Re: Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, aren't they self appointed because they got there first?

No. Knew the right people, had the right funds, and said and did and thought the things compatible with getting investment from people with even more influence than them. Unless you're saying my only option is to pick and choose between different sets of people like that?

There is a political economy as well as a technical aspect to this that present inherent issues. Even if we can address the former by say regime change, the latter issue remains: the domain is technical and cognitively demanding. Thus the practitioners will generally sound sane and rational (they are smart people but that is no guarantee of anything other than technical abilities) and non-technical policy types (like most of the remaining board members at openAI) are practically compelled to take policy positions based either on ‘abstract models’ (which may be incorrect) or as after the fact reaction to observation of the mechanisms (which may be too late).

The thought occurs that it is quite possible that just like humanity is really not ready (we remain concerned) to live with WMD technologies, it is possible that we have again stumbled on another technology that taxes our ethical, moral, educational, political, and economic understanding. We would be far less concerned if we were part of a civilization of generally thoughtful and responsible specimens but we’re not. This is a cynical appraisal of the situation, I realize, but tldr is “it is a systemic problem”.

Re: Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

#238
post #86

I know everybody is going nuts about this, but just from my personal perspective I’ve worked at a variety of companies with “important” CEOs, and in every single one of those cases had the CEO left I would not have cared at all. The CEO always gets way too much credit externally for what the company is doing, it does not mean the CEO is that important. OpenAI might be different, I don’t have any personal experience,…

Yeah this cult of CEOs is weird. It's such a small cohort that when someone doesn't completely blow it, they're immediately deemed as geniuses. Give someone billions of dollars and hundreds of brilliant engineers, researchers and many will make it work. But only a few ever get the chance, so this happens. They don't do any of the work. They just take the credit.

A sizable portion of the HN bubble is wannabe grifters. They look up to successful grifters.

Re: Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a bad take. Developers (me included) loved Dev Day.

Yeah - I think this is the schism. Sam is clearly a product person, these are AI people. Dev day didn’t meaningfully move the needle on AI, but for people building products it sure did.

Thinking you can develop AGI - if such a thing actually can exist - in an academic vacuum, and not by having your AI rubber meet the road through a plethora of real world business use cases strikes me as extreme hubris.

… I guess that makes me a product person?

Re: Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI

#240
I've seen some discussion on HN in which people claimed that even really important engineers aren't -too- important and that Ilya is actually replaceable, using Apple's growth after Woz' departure as an example. But I don't think that's the best situation to compare this to. I think a much better one is John Carmack firing Romero from id Software after the release of Quake.

Some background: During a period of about 10 years, Carmack kept making massive graphics advances by pushing cutting-edge technology to the limit in ways nobody else had figured out, starting with smooth horizontal scrolling in Commander Keen, through Doom's pseudo-3D, through Quake's full 3D, to advances in the Quake sequels, Doom 3, etc. It's really no exaggeration to say that every new id game engine from 1991 to 1996 created a new gaming genre, and the engines after that pushed forward the state of the art. I don't think anybody who knows this history could argue that John Carmack was replaceable.

At the time, the rest of id knew this, which gave Carmack a lot of clout and eventually allowed him to fire co-founder John Romero. Romero was considered the kinda flamboyant, and omnipresent, public face of id -- he regularly went to cons, worked the press, played deathmatch tournaments, and so on (to be clear, he was a really talented level designer and programmer, among other things, I only want to point out that he was synonymous with id in the public eye). And what happened after the firing? Romero was given a ton of money and absurd publicity for new games ... and a few years later, it all went up in smoke and his new company folded, as he didn't end up making anything nearly as big as Doom or Quake. Meanwhile, id under Carmack kept cranking out hit after hit for years, essentially shrugging off Romero's firing like nothing happened.

The moral of the story to me is that, when your revenue massively grows for every bit of extra performance you extract from bleeding-edge technology, engineer expertise REALLY matters. In the '90s, every minor improvement in PC graphics quality translated to a giant bump in sales, and the same is true of LLM output quality today. So, just like Carmack ultimately turned out to be the absolute key driver behind id's growth, I think there's a pretty good chance it's going to turn out that Ilya plays the same role at OpenAI.

Post reply on HN