Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

601–610 of 754 posts

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

#601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you still hireable? If I knew you orchestrated two coups at previous companies and I was responsible for hiring, you would be radioactive to me. Especially knowing that all that effort went into putting together a successful coup over other work. Coups, in general, are the domain of the petty. One need only look at Ilya and D'Angelo to see this in action. D'Angelo neutered Quora by pushing out its co-founder,…

Max Levchin was an organizer of two coups while at PayPal. Both times, he believed it was necessary for the success of the company. Whether that was correct or not, they eventually succeeded and I don’t think the coups really hurt his later career.

This example seems to be survivorship bias. Personally, if someone approached me to suggest backstabbing someone else, I wouldn't trust that they wouldn't eventually backstab me as well. @bear141 said "People should oppose openly or leave." [1] and I agree completely. That said, don't take vacations! (when Elon Musk was ousted from PayPal in the parent example, etc.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38326443

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

#602

In the past, many on HN complained that OpenAI had abandoned its public good mission and had morphed into a psuedo-private for-profit. If that was your feeling before, what do you think now? Are you relieved or excited? Are you the dog who caught the car? At this point, on day 2, I am heartened that their mission was most important, even at the heart of the most important technology maybe ever or since nuclear power…

If the rumors are correct and ideological disagreement was at the core of this, OpenAI is not going to be open anyway, as Sutskever wants more safety, which implies being as closed as possible. Whether it's "public good" is in the eye of the beholder, as there are multiple mutually incompatible concerns about AI safety, all of which have merit. The future balance between those will be determined by unpredictable even…

A company named openai choosing safety is bad because safety means as closed as possible, is a very questionable linguistic contortion. Most unsafe things happen behind closed doors.

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

#603
post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CEOs mainly sit in meetings with people reporting things to them and then the CEO providing very high-level guidance. Isn’t that essentially the job of a film producer? You do see a lot of productions where there’s a ton of executive producer titles given out as almost a vanity position.

A producer, yes, but not the film's director.

Out of genuine curiosity , and I mean no disrespect , have you worked in film production? Because directors sit in many meetings directing the people on the project.

It kind of feels to me like you’re describing the way the industry works from an outsiders view since it doesn’t match the actual workings of any of the productions I’ve worked on.

the shoots are only a portion of production. You have significant pre production and post production time.

A producer is closer in role to a CFO or investor , depending on the production since it’s a relatively vague term.

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

#604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this is spot on. The key to it all is 'if you strike at the king, you best not miss'.

Going off on a big tangent, but Jiang Zemin had made several failed assassination attempts on Xi Jinping, but he was still able to die of old age.

You can safely assume he still had sufficient power to be well protected.

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

#605

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 1…

> Meanwhile, id under Carmack kept cranking out hit after hit for years, essentially shrugging off Romero's firing like nothing happened. I don't think that is accurate... The output of id Software after Romero left (post Quake 1) was a clear step down. The technology was fantastic but the games were boring and uninspired, at best "good" but never "great". It took a full 20 years for them to make something interestin…

Romero had basically no involvement in Deus Ex.

Daikatana was a commercial and critical failure. Quake 2 and Quake III were commercial and critical successes.

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

#607

> 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…

> e.g. Satya is furious

Oh! So, now you got him furious? when just yesterday he made a rushed statement to standby Mira.

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/11/17/a-statement-from...

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

#608

> 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…

I think almost everyone at OpenAI would be ok if there were layoffs there though

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

#609
post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And the stupid thing is, they could have just used the allegations his sister made against him as the reason for the firing and ridden off into the sunset, Scott-free.

I'm glad they didn't. She has enough troubles without a target like that on her back.

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

#610

Many compare Altman to 1985 Jobs, but if we believe what's said about the conflict of mission, shouldn't he be the sugar water guy for money?

But that's actually what Jobs turned out to be? Woz and others were the engineering genius at Apple, and Jobs turned out to be really good at finding and identifying really good sales and branding hooks. See-through colourful boxes, "lickable" UIs, neat-o minimalistic portable music players, flick-flick-flick touch screens, and "One More Thing" presentations. Jobs didn't invent the Lisa and Macintosh. Bill Atkinson,…

It seems like people these days can’t even accurately describe what Steve Jobs was, he was a leader. He was a genius at managing people to work for him. Steve Wozniak was not, which was why Jobs could make Pixar, Next and of course Apple. Just because he didn’t have a hard skill of engineering, doesn’t mean he was useless. Rarely is anything impressive made by a single person, everything is almost always made by teams and generally large teams. Large teams especially can only function under a great leader and jobs was a great leader for a myriad of reasons which was why he achieved success at many multiples of magnitude compared to Steve Wozniak
Post reply on HN