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

OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 946 posts

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#591

Post by crucialfelix »

mvdtnz wrote: post #374
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite hypothesis: Ilya et al suspected emergent AGI ( e.g. saw the software doing things unprompted or dangerous and unexpected) and realized the Worldcoin shill is probably not the one you want calling the shots on it. For the record, I don't think it's true. I think it was a power play, and a failed coup at that. But it's about as substantiated as the "serious" hypotheses being mooted in the media. And it's m…

Absolutely wild to me that people are drawing a straight line between a text completion algorithm and AGI. The term "AI" has truly lost all meaning.

There has been debate for centuries regarding determinism and free will in humans.

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#592

Post by robocat »

dang wrote: post #76
ajb wrote: post #32

Should we start flagging these -what do people think? This is what, the 12th front page story today about the openAI drama? Also wondering why the mods don't consolidate them

We've merged quite a few! but not all, because (1) to some extent there are distinct ongoing subplots, and (2) it's too big a mess to control. If you or anyone want to know how we handle this, here you go... Once or twice a year, a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) hits HN that isn't just one big story, but an entire sequence of big stories. A saga, even! This is one. With these we can't do what we usually do, which is have…

> avalanched by sneelessness

sp.: senselessness (I guess since it appears to be a Googlewhack).

But I'll be honest I think the word sneelessness covers this whole FUBAR better!

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#593

Post by onimishra »

kmlevitt wrote: post #313
hal009 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned by another person in this thread [0], it is likely that it was Ilya's work that was getting replicated by another "secret" team, and the "different opinions on the same person" was Sam's opinions of Ilya. Perhaps Sam saw him as an unstable element and a single point of failure in the company, and wanted to make sure that OpenAI would be able to continue without Ilya? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/repl…

Firing Sam as a way of sticking up for Ilya would make more sense if Ilya wasn’t currently in support of Sam getting his job back.

I’m not sure Ilya was anticipating this to more or less break OpenAI as a company. Ilya is all about the work they do, and might not have anticipated that this would turn the entire company against him and the rest of the board. And so, he is in support of Sam coming back, if that means that they can get back to the work at hand.

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#594

Post by Zolde »

havercosine wrote: post #573
dwd wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we even have an idea of how the vote went? Greg was not invited (losing Sam one vote), and Sam may have been asked to sit out the vote, so the 3 had a majority. Ilya who is at least on "Team Sam" now; may have voted no. Or simply went along thinking he could be next out the door at that point; we just don't know. It's probably fair to say not letting Greg know the board was getting together (and letting it proceed…

Naive question. In my part of the world, board meetings for such consequential decisions can never be called out on such short notice. Board meeting has to be called ahead of time by days, all the board members must be given written agenda. They have to acknowledge in writing that they've got this agenda. If the procedures such as these aren't followed, the firing cannot stand in court of law. The number of days are…

No. Apparently they had to give 48 hours notice for calling special teleconference meetings, and only Mira was notified (not a board member) and Greg was not even invited.

> at least four days before any such meeting if given by first-class mail or forty-eight hours before any such meeting if given personally, [] or by electronic transmission.

But the bylaws also state that a board member may be fired (or resign) at any time, not necessarily during a special meeting. So, technically (not a lawyer): Board gets majority to fire Sam and executes this decision, notifying Mira in advance of calling the special meeting. During the special meeting, Sam is merely informed that he has been let go already (is not a board member since yesterday). All board members were informed timely, since Sam was not a board member during the meeting.

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#595

Post by quickthrower2 »

gardenhedge wrote: post #587
arrosenberg wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is why, at least in the U.S., we have given non-profits exemptions from taxation. That's your belief . The NFL, Heritage Foundation and Scientology are all non-profits and none of them improve society; they all profit from it. (For what its' worth, I wish the law was more aligned with your worldview)

An argument could be made that sports - and a sports organization - helps society

As does a peer to peer taxi company.

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#596

Post by passion__desire »

gardenhedge wrote: post #587
arrosenberg wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is why, at least in the U.S., we have given non-profits exemptions from taxation. That's your belief . The NFL, Heritage Foundation and Scientology are all non-profits and none of them improve society; they all profit from it. (For what its' worth, I wish the law was more aligned with your worldview)

An argument could be made that sports - and a sports organization - helps society

Fast fashion and fashion industry in general is useless to society. But rich jobless people need a place to hangout so they create an activity to justify.

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#597

Post by quickthrower2 »

foota wrote: post #578
ascv wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seemed to me the entire point of the legal structure was to raise private capital. It's a lot easier to cut a check when you might get up to 100x your principal versus just a tax write off. This culminated in the MS deal: lots of money and lots of hardware to train their models.

What's confusing is that... open AI wouldn't ever be controlled by those that invested, and the owners (e.g., the board) aren't necessarily profit seeking. At least when you take a minority investment in a normal startup you are generally assuming that the owners are in it to have a successful business. It's just a little weird all around to me.

Microsoft get to act as a sole distributor for the enterprise. That is quite valuable. Plus they are still in at the poker table and a few raises from winning the pot (maybe they just did!) but even without this chaos they are likely setting themselves up to be the for-profit investor if it ever transitioned to that. For a small amount of money (for MS) they get a lot of upside.

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#598

Post by bobba27 »

TBH, I think those reasons are BS, and in fact what they claim he did is normal in any tech company. Start multiple projects with different approaches in parallel and pick the best at the end. That is how you innovate and test stuff fast, and this is now a reason to fire a CEO?

BS. I feel the board insulted my intelligence by pushing this obviously fake reason. I feel insulted that these people would even think I would consider this.

What I think happened is that Sam went on Joe Rogan and he talked smack about cancel and woke culture. Later he went to talk about how this culture is destructive and hinders the progress of innovation and startups. People got big mad and kicked him out of the company. Reaction was stronger than they expected and they try to make up reasons why he is bad, untrustworthy and had to be fired.

Flame on. I got the asbestost underwear on.

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#599

Post by khazhoux »

tw1984 wrote: post #472
upupupandaway wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it absolutely fascinating that Emmett accepted this position. He can game all scenarios and there is no way that he can come out ahead on any of them. One would expect an experienced Silicon Valley CEO to make this calculus and realize it's a lost cause. The fact he accepted to me shows he's not a particularly good leader.

He made it pretty clear that he consider it as a once in a life time chance. I think he is correct, being the CEO twitch is a position known by no one in many places, e.g. how many developers/users in China even heard of Twitch? Being the CEO of OpenAI is a completely different story, it is a whole new level he can leverage in the years to come.

> he consider it as a once in a life time chance.

Like taking a sword to the gut.

Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

#600

Post by YetAnotherNick »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #585
kmlevitt wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now I think that’s the most plausible explanation simply because none of the other explanations that have been floating around make any sense when you consider all the facts. We know enough now to know that the “safety-focused nonprofit entity versus reckless profit entity“ narrative doesn’t hold up. And if it’s wrong, D’Angelo and the rest of the board could help themselves out by explaining the real reason in…

> "We know enough now to know that the “safety-focused nonprofit entity versus reckless profit entity“ narrative doesn’t hold up." Why do you think that? It still strikes me as the most plausible explanation.

Greg and Sam were the creator of this current non profit structure. And when similar thing happened before with Elon offering to buy the company, Sam declined. And that was when where for OpenAI getting funding on their terms were much harder than it is now, whereas now they could much more easily dictate terms to investors.

Not saying he couldn't change now but at least this is enough for him to give clear benefit of doubt unless board accuses him.

Post reply on HN