Sam Altman Slams Meta’s AI Talent Poaching: 'Missionaries Will Beat Mercenaries'

It's false that execs are never ICs. Anyone who's worked in the upper-echelon of corporate America knows that. Not every exec is simply responsible 1:1 for a business line. Many are in transformation or functional roles with very complex responsibilities across many interacting areas. Even when an exec is responsible for a business line in a 1:1 way, they are often only responsible for one aspect of it (e.g., leading one function); sometimes that is true all the way up to the C-suite, with the company having literally only a single exception (e.g., Apple). In those cases, exec performance is not 1:1 tied to the business they are 1:1 attached to. High-performing execs in those roles are routinely "saved" and banked for other roles rather than being laid off / fired in the event their BU doesn't work out. Low-performing execs in those roles are of course very quickly fired / re-orged out.

If execs really were so replaceable and it's just a matter of putting the right number in a spreadsheet, companies wouldn't be paying so much money for them. Your claims do not pass even the most basic sanity check. By all means, work your way up to the level we're talking about here and then report back on what you've learned about it.

Re: performance management and "everyone knowing that", you're right of course -- that's why it's not an interesting point at all. :) I disagree that established techniques are not valid -- they work well and have worked for decades with essentially no major structural issues, scaling up to companies with 200k+ employees.

I said they are accountable to their business line -- they own a portfolio and are accountable for that portfolio's performance. If the portfolio does badly, it means nearly by definition that the executive is doing badly. Like an athlete, that doesn't mean they're immediately put to the streets, but it also is not ambiguous whether they are performing well or not.

Which also points to why performance management methods are not valid, i.e. a high-sensitivity, high-specificity measure of an individual executive's actual personal performance: there are obviously countless external variables that bear on the outcome of a portfolio. But nonetheless, for the business's purpose, it doesn't matter. Because the real purpose of performance management methods is to have a quasi-objective rationalization for personnel decisions that are actually made elsewhere.

Perhaps you can mention which performance management methods you believe are valid (high-specificity and high-sensitivity measures of an individual's personal performance) in AI R&D?

"Pretty much every top-tier executive at top-tier companies is making seven or eight figures as table stakes". In this group, what percentage are ICs? Sure there are aberrational celebrity hires, of course, but what you are pointing to is the norm, which is not celebrity hires doing IC work.

> If execs really were so replaceable... companies wouldn't be paying so much money for them

High-level executives within the same tier are largely substitutable - any qualified member of this cohort can perform the role adequately. However, this is still a very small group of people ultimately responsible for huge amounts of capital and thus collectively can maintain market power on compensation. The high salaries don't reflect individual differential value. Obviously there are some remarkable executives and they tend to concentrate in remarkable companies, by definition, and also by definition, the vast majority of companies and their executives are totally unremarkable but earn high salaries nonetheless.

Capitalists always hate capitalism when it comes to employees getting paid what they are worth. If the market will bear it, he should embrace it and stop whining.