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

321–330 of 854 posts

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

#321

Post by tivert »

akozak wrote: post #88
Aunche wrote: post #75

I think there is a very good chance this is true, but it also paints the picture of the board being incompetent and incapable of confrontation. They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action. Instead, they attempted a secret coup, which of course makes Sam look like the underdog

I've seen the "coup" framing a lot I just don't see how that's justified. They're the board of directors! Hiring and firing the CEO is core to the job (as is maintaining mission alignment, in the nonprofit world).

> I've seen the "coup" framing a lot I just don't see how that's justified. They're the board of directors! Hiring and firing the CEO is core to the job (as is maintaining mission alignment, in the nonprofit world).

It isn't justified, it's just misleading propaganda. Unfortunately through repetition and the enthusiasms of various fandoms, it's gotten lodged in the public mind.

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

#322

Post by avarun »

komali2 wrote: post #255
bayareabadboy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putin, a former officer in the KGB, is a product of the planned Soviet economy. Read red state by bill browder, the Russian economy was never a free market even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I always think I've found the limit of people's ability to blame communism for every problem on earth, and I'm always surprised. Was the current genocide in Palestine the fault of Communism also? Was 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, communism?

For anybody to take your comment seriously, you'd first have to actually explain how you get to your assumptions. Because most serious people reject your assumption that there's a genocide going on in Palestine right now.

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

#323

Post by tptacek »

pdonis wrote: post #304
tptacek wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all just business, right? If you're holding the nut flush and you think the board's got rags, you play it out. Whatever reasons the board had to be done with Altman, they did not have the cards, and he did: the team, as I understand it, believed itself to be dependent on Altman (or at least, on not-the-board) for their stakes to be worth anything. I see how it'd be really dicey for a CEO to pitch a fit on the…

> This is all just business, right? Not according to Sam Altman, or for that matter the other OpenAI board members who have been involved in this whole kerfluffle. They all say AI is an existential risk, and OpenAI is necessary to mitigate that risk. In other words, they themselves have told us to judge them by a much higher ethical standard than "just business". And all of them (not just Altman) have failed when jud…

OK. Sure. But if you're disinclined to hold businesses to higher standards than the norms of business, is there some other argument that would be persuasive about Altman's obligation during the board ouster debacle?

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

#324

Post by Larrikin »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #176
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of it is only as ironic as Alanis Morissette

[flagged]

Up voting joke post because they are jokes, destroys conversation.

Up voting cutting commentary against a post that happens to be humorous, I am personally fine with. Especially when the original comment isn't well argued or at least thoughtfully made. Parody and the like is protected speech for a reason.

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

#325

Post by unholiness »

neilv wrote: post #276

> Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting Critiquing an oops in the headline, on principle, not defending anyone... In the headline, they say "reveals", but I think journalism convention is to be clear that this is only an uncorroborated claim. The body of the article, OTOH, does a good job of attributing claims. Though it looks like the one person was their only source, and the article…

I read "what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting" as "What the board was thinking". It's been pretty ambiguous where the motivations of the board's sudden actions were coming from, and this Helen Toner saying more than she's said before.

It's not a trial of Sam, it's an autopsy of the board.

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

#326

Post by makeitdouble »

gorgoiler wrote: post #284
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…

When the board fires you for wrongdoing it is like being deported from a foreign country for breaking that country’s laws. You can’t just go against that decision. It would be like telling the government that no, in fact they are the ones who are wrong and no, I didn’t break the law it is in fact their laws which are broken. When you have irreconcilable differences with the board you could theoretically jump ship and…

> It would be like telling the government that no, in fact they are the ones who are wrong and no, I didn’t break the law it is in fact their laws which are broken.

You know a number of people are in that position though.

My first thought went to Samsung's chairman who will break the law and go to prison, but the country will have him back, bending over backwards to somewhat have it make sense.

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

#327

Post by ddingus »

jjulius wrote: post #231
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And when one does so, remain ethical, should that discussion get ugly, holding to those ethics does a world of good when it comes down to others having to trust your intent was as just and true as you could manage.

That means a lot.

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

#328

Post by jdminhbg »

light_triad wrote: post #191

The whole saga is an interesting case study for theoretical versus real power. On paper the board has the power and it’s their job to monitor and hire/fire the execs. But they’re dependent on the execs for info. Also having one investor own half, plus the founders guiding the roadmap and having sway over key hires leaving is where the real power is…

> On paper the board has the power and it’s their job to monitor and hire/fire the execs. But they’re dependent on the execs for info.

It's way worse for the OpenAI board position in this case, because the company is basically just an assemblage of researchers, engineers, and Microsoft Azure credits. They can replace the CEO if they want, but all the value of the company can walk away if they don't like it.

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

#329

Post by jdminhbg »

mikeryan wrote: post #299
jfoster wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the board had shared something equivalent to this article at the time, perhaps there wouldn't have been such an intense internal pressure campaign. Instead, they did not even attempt to communicate any rationale behind their actions.

It’s not good form to bad mouth someone you’ve fired. They did, in fact, release a statement which aligns (in PR speak) with what Toner is claiming now. Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his abil…

What they didn't realize is that they were going to have to convince the rank-and-file employees of that. Without a communication strategy to do that, they had basically no leverage.

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

#330

Post by elefanten »

komali2 wrote: post #255
bayareabadboy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putin, a former officer in the KGB, is a product of the planned Soviet economy. Read red state by bill browder, the Russian economy was never a free market even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I always think I've found the limit of people's ability to blame communism for every problem on earth, and I'm always surprised. Was the current genocide in Palestine the fault of Communism also? Was 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, communism?

That's a strawman caricature of the argument. States that are driven by free market allocation rather than central planning (because there's no _pure_ model of either/or) are much less likely to initiate major wars of conquest, such as the ongoing Ukraine war or a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan. That's just empirical fact at this point. There are counterexamples, but the propensity goes strongly in one direction.

Also, "current genocide in Palestine" is a provocative / activist assertion, not a correct consensus use of terminology. It would at least open to debate, for example, that the situation started with a "genocide in Israel". Clarity won't be achievable for a while on that one -- but you can certainly signal that you've pre-judged the situation or can't be objective about it, with phrasing like yours.

Post reply on HN