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

231–240 of 854 posts

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

#231

Post by jjulius »

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.

One can do a great job of questioning and, if need be, challenging the intentions/ethics of a board without being unethical.

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

#232

Post by tibbar »

mr_toad wrote: post #204
stale2002 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dishonesty regarding the ChatGPT release sounds like the best decision that Sam or anyone could have made in the history of the company. The ChatGPT release is what made the AI movement go mainstream. It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. By Gods am I glad that the board wasn't able to stop ChatGPT from being released.

> It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. Worth to who?

Well, that was the valuation of their last fund raising round, which included a tender offer to employees. So it was worth that much to investors and to its current employees.

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

#233

Post by dkarras »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #206

This account is quite believable. It follows a pattern of unethical behavior from Altman. In his latest unethical binge, he illegally used Scarlett Johansson's voice and likeliness for the latest ChatGPT version with speech output. [1] His timed-announcement tweet, "Her", is quite self-incriminating. [2] Remember: inductive logic is a valuable tool for discovering truth. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/20/2416125…

not eager to defend Sam as I think he is shady (maybe necessary for a successful CEO? don't know) but the Scarlett Johansson story was just speculation because she knew that she was asked to act, then the news spun it in a way favorable to clicks. I don't think the voice resembles her at all, and it turns out that they auditioned multiple voice actors and used a real voice actor for the voice. IIRC OpenAI also says that the selection of the voice actress was done before any correspondence with Scarlett Johansson, which can easily be corroborated. Sure, had she accepted the voice acting role it would be an additional news-worthy push for the tech, but given what we know and what was revealed I don't think there was any foul play in that regard.

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

#234

Post by Terr_ »

pdonis wrote: post #96
xyzzy4747 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like he outsmarted them and they were holding back the organization.

Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying. As for "holding back the organization", if we're talking about existential risk, I want them to be held back. These people have no business being stewards of any technology that might be an existential risk.

> Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying.

In addition, the attempt to rebrand it is victim-blaming.

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

#235

Post by kaliqt »

cvalka wrote: post #203
tibbar wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had the answer there before you dismissed it -- the board agreed to bring Sam Altman back before resigning because of massive pressure campaign that involved 90%+ of employees threatening to resign, and Microsoft (which has OpenAI's IP rights) offering to hire them all immediately. This included the company's key leadership. The organization was unraveling overnight. This was far past the tipping point of "a few…

They should have called their bluff.

There's not many who have the balls to do that left in the country, let alone California or SF.

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

#236

Post by hnfong »

mateus1 wrote: post #149
zooq_ai wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam Altman made openAI possible. A true CEO like Satya knows without Sam, the rate of progress at OpenAI will be determined by decels like Helen/Jan aka ZERO. It's a disaster for product development, especially when you have openly invited Google to dance. I know HN leans engineering/safety/reliability/labor/pedantic (like chasing the absolute truth), but at the end of the day, company scales from the likes of Jobs/M…

This is the literal definition of a slippery slope. Letting billionaires, who already wield extreme power, break laws and skirt regulations is the opposite of a free market.

The "free market" literally means free of government interference and regulation...

So it actually implies allowing capitalists to wield extreme power, skirt laws and regulations.

I understand the term has gone through some kind of whitewashing to mean "this is the good system (unlike the bad system)", so one might be inclined to think it means something more equitable, but seriously, that was the original meaning.

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

#237

Post by Centigonal »

tsunamifury wrote: post #127
threeseed wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And now it looks like they will fold under Sam and Microsoft still will be able to scoop up the talent and tech.

The Matt Levine column on "Who Controls OpenAI?" becomes more and more relevant each day.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/matt-...

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

#238

Post by selcuka »

juped wrote: post #112
wyldfire wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI I guess there's no way to know this but how much better than the "Null CEO" did he actually do? What if he happened to preside over a successful company that would've performed as well or better without him?

The null CEO has a lot of value. If you could guarantee someone would be the null CEO, they'd be an instant hire for many enterprises. What you have to avoid is someone worse than the null CEO holding the position. I think Altman is worse than the null CEO; others may draw their own conclusions, but the bar for CEO quality isn't "much better than the null CEO".

> If you could guarantee someone would be the null CEO, they'd be an instant hire for many enterprises.

That sounds like an easy bar for an LLM. I, for one, welcome our new LLM CEOs.

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

#239

Post by jcranmer »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #157
pdonis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you tell them so, in a meeting with all board members present, and argue your position in good faith. You don't lie to them. You certainly don't scheme behind the back of a board member you don't agree with to try to get them fired.

And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?

If you are a CEO, and you are unable to convince your board that you are correct, then the proper thing to do is resign, for you have failed to do your job. The main job of a CEO is to be leader, and part of the job of a leader is to sell people your vision. And if you can't sell the vision to the people who cut your paycheck, well, either you aren't good at your job, or the people in that position are incompatible with you, and given that the board outranks the CEO, that means you should go.

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

#240

Post by Centigonal »

breck wrote: post #97

> "telling us they had no belief that he could or would change, no point in giving him feedback" This is awful behavior. Never ever stop talking. Never ever stop giving feedback. When someone says something along the lines of "the other person wasn't listening so I had to take action against them", they are almost always lying. (They are probably lying to themselves most of all). The other person usually is listening…

I agree that you should never stop giving feedback, but if you have an advisory or managerial duty toward someone, and you don't take action when your feedback is being consistently ignored by that person, then when do you take action (if ever)?
Post reply on HN