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

OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#421

Post by prng2021 »

ilaksh wrote: post #237

I am not sure it really makes sense for the investors to continue with OpenAI. It seems like this incident proved that the constitution of the company wasn't really compatible with a profit focus. It was a split from the beginning, and obviously a questionable arrangement. It just came to a head to make it obvious. The business and investment people want to make money. Many of the researchers want to take their time…

There are still plenty of long investors out there. Amazon barely made a profit for many years and Bezos made it very clear that a quick profit wasn’t his focus.

https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4217794/jeff-bezos-letter...

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#422

Post by kmeisthax »

gkoberger wrote: post #137
px43 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satya drove the removal of Sam, or drove the board to get him back? From Greg's tweet, it seems like the chaos was largely driven Ilya, who has also been very outspoken against open source and sharing research, which makes me think his motivations are more aligned with those of Microsoft/Satya. I still can't tell if Sam got ousted because he was getting in the way of a Microsoft takeover, or if Sam was trying to set…

The latter. Microsoft didn't know about the firing until literally a minute before we did, and despite a calm response externally, there's reports Satya is furious. Source: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/11/repor...

Also, there's no real evidence of Microsoft being philosophically opposed to releasing model weights. That's entirely come from the AI safety people who want models with reactively updated alignment controls. If anything having model weights would mean being able to walk away from OpenAI and keep the thing that makes them valuable.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#423

Post by insanitybit »

no_wizard wrote: post #397
ilaksh wrote: post #237

I am not sure it really makes sense for the investors to continue with OpenAI. It seems like this incident proved that the constitution of the company wasn't really compatible with a profit focus. It was a split from the beginning, and obviously a questionable arrangement. It just came to a head to make it obvious. The business and investment people want to make money. Many of the researchers want to take their time…

Maybe. Or maybe they can profit differently going forward. Sam is not the reason OpenAI is gangbusters, its tech is. What I’m not hearing in any of this reporting is how Sam Altman is somehow the secret sauce. And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included. You know, like how they include employees i…

> And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included.

The fact that they're openly considering bringing him back should tell you that he's not just some random person whose job anyone can do. He's extremely well connected and was the face of the company - the face of deals that the company made. And you have to consider whether internally the employees are supporting this - if I were at OpenAI I would be pissed that the board decided to fuck around when we were doing so well.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#424

Post by bnralt »

no_wizard wrote: post #382
woeirua wrote: post #319

If the reports are true, and Ilya led the coup, then either him or Sam can be at OpenAI going forward but not both. The rest of the board members who sided with him are gone either way. Regardless of who ends up at the helm, OpenAI is going to be a different place on Monday than it was on Thursday, and not for the better.

Not for the better why? Obviously Sam wasn’t the best fit for OpenAI and investors aren’t even saying what the problem is. Clearly the board feels he was the wrong person for the job. I think it’s ridiculous that everything thinks that Sam being outed means OpenAI is in trouble. Let this play out and see how it evolves

> Obviously Sam wasn’t the best fit for OpenAI

It's quite possible that he wasn't the best fit, and that the board is an even worse fit. Judging by the behavior of the board, it's hard to see them being a good fit for the company.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#425

Post by no_wizard »

mupuff1234 wrote: post #404
no_wizard wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for the better why? Obviously Sam wasn’t the best fit for OpenAI and investors aren’t even saying what the problem is. Clearly the board feels he was the wrong person for the job. I think it’s ridiculous that everything thinks that Sam being outed means OpenAI is in trouble. Let this play out and see how it evolves

It's not only Sam, also Greg and a few other engineers have already resigned (and one can assume more to follow)

Maybe, or maybe he was in fact unpopular among the majority and you are seeing Altman supporters leave. It happens.

There is nothing to indicate that this bleeds OpenAI more generally. The rank and file aren’t as fire as I’m aware aren’t resigning en masse.

Executives come and go. Show me why these people matter so much that OpenAI has no future then we can talk. It’s in fighting that became public and I’m certain people are pulling whatever strings they have on this, but I don’t see objective evidence that these people make OpenAI successful.

This needs to play out

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#426

Post by gumballindie »

gkoberger wrote: post #380
gumballindie wrote: post #283

Why would investors trust this person? Is it because he’s a little bit sociopathic just like then?

You can dislike Sam or disagree with his decisions, but he's not a sociopath.

Based on his public statements and his pattern of behaviour he is. Probably even worse. (as a ceo, i dont know the person)

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#427

Post by refulgentis »

insanitybit wrote: post #423
no_wizard wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. Or maybe they can profit differently going forward. Sam is not the reason OpenAI is gangbusters, its tech is. What I’m not hearing in any of this reporting is how Sam Altman is somehow the secret sauce. And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included. You know, like how they include employees i…

> And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included. The fact that they're openly considering bringing him back should tell you that he's not just some random person whose job anyone can do. He's extremely well connected and was the face of the company - the face of deals that the company made. And you…

If I were at OpenAI I'd be pissed strangers concern-trolled for me, all while my position was obvious given the company I joined: Open AI.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#428

Post by peyton »

015a wrote: post #384
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, everyone already thinks the board did a crazy ill-advised thing. They're about to be the board of like a 5 person or so company if they double down and commit. To be honest I hate takes like yours, where people think that acknowledging a mistake (even a giant mistake) is a sign of weakness. A bigger sign of weakness in my opinion is people who commit to a shitty idea just because they said it first, despite all…

Bad take. Not "everyone" feels that what they did was wrong. We don't have insight into what's going on internally. Optics matter; the division over their decision means that its definitionally non-obvious what the correct path forward is; or, that there isn't one correct path, but multiple reasonable paths. To admit a mistake of this magnitude is to admit that you're either so unprincipled that your mind can be chan…

Satya is “furious.” What’s reasonable about pissing off a guy who can pull the plug? I don’t think it’s definitionally non-obvious whether to take that risk.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#429

Post by jacquesm »

airstrike wrote: post #57

This makes sense. The board thinks they're calling the shots, but the reality is the people with the money are the ones calling the shots, always. Boards are just appointed by shareholders aka investors aka capital holders to do their bidding. The capped-profit / non-profit structure muddles that a little bit, but the reality is that entity can't survive without the funding that goes into the for-profit piece And if…

This is wildly incorrect. But a non-profit does have stakeholders, donors, beneficiaries and employees. All of those can apply pressure on a board.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#430

Post by WillPostForFood »

Dudester230602 wrote: post #369

>> “He doesn’t want to see lives destroyed” As in, people staying millionaires instead of becoming multimillionaires? Could such life-destruction be brought to EU, please?

Maybe it means, I'll release the AGI and destroy all life unless you rehire me.
Post reply on HN