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

761–770 of 946 posts

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

#761

Post by bertil »

codeduck wrote: post #656
tsimionescu wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the new CEO has explicitly stated he and the board are very much still interested in commercialization. Plus, if the board had on this simple kind of disagreement, they had no reason to also accuse Sam of dishonesty and bring about this huge scandal. Granted, it's also possible the reasons are as you state and they were simply that incompetent at managing PR.

> Except that the new CEO has explicitly stated he and the board are very much still interested in commercialization This could be desperate, last-ditch efforts at damage control

There are multiple, publicly visible steps before firing the guy.

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

#762

Post by hatenberg »

sumedh wrote: post #751
nottheengineer wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right here: https://openai.com/charter

Which line specifically says they will keep AGI out of the hands of “big tech companies”.

I bet you could chatGPT to actually explain this to you, it's really not very hard

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

#763

Post by katastofik »

kmlevitt wrote: post #740
katastofik wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it be dissecting what the Kardashians ate for breakfast or understanding why the earth may or may not be flat, seeking to understand the world around us is just what we do as humans. And part of that process is "speculating sensational, justifiable reasons" for why things may be so. Of course, what is actually worth speculating over is up for debate. As is what actually constitutes a better theory. But, if pe…

Think you're still missing what I'm saying. Yes, I understand people will speculate. I'm doing it myself here in this very thread. The problem is people are beginning to speculate reasons for Altman's firing that have no bearing or connection to what the board members in question have actually said about why they fired him. And they don't appear to be even attempting to reconcile their ideas with that reality. There'…

Agreed. I think I understood you as being more dismissive of speculation per se.

As for the original question -- why are we not taking them at their word? -- the best I can offer is my initial comment. That is, the available facts (that is, what board members have said) don't really match anything most people can reconcile with their model of how the world works.

Throw this in together with a learned distrust of anything that's been fed through a company's PR machine, and are we really surprised people aren't attempting to reconcile the stated reality with their speculative theories?

Now sure, if we were to do things properly, we should at least address why we're just dismissing the 'facts' when formulating our theories. But, on the other hand, when most people's common sense understanding of reality is that such facts are usually little more than fodder for the PR spin machine, why bother?

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

#764

Post by bertil »

trhway wrote: post #552
hooande wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative theory: ChatGPT was a runaway hit product that sucked up a lot of the organization's resources and energy. Sam and Greg wanted to roll with it and others on the board did not. They voted on it and one side won. There isn't a bigger, more interesting story here. This is in fact a very common story that plays out at many software companies. The board of openai ended up making a decision that destroyed billi…

>Alternative theory: ChatGPT was a runaway hit product that sucked up a lot of the organization's resources and energy. Sam and Greg wanted to roll with it and others on the board did not. the article below basically says the same. Kind of reminds Friendster and the likes - striking a gold vein and just failing to scale efficient mining of that gold, i.e. the failure is at the execution/operationalization : https://w…

Then, the solution would be to separate the research arm from a product-driven organization that handles making money.

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

#765

Post by jacquesm »

mcv wrote: post #717
sigmoid10 wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, they could have just come out with that fact and everyone in the alignment camp and people who memed the whole super-commercialized "Open" AI thing would be on their side. But the fact that they haven't means that either there was no greater-good mission related reason for ousting Sam or the board is just completely incompetent at communication. Either way, they need to go and make room for people who c…

That is a very good point. Why wouldn't they come out and say it if the reason is Altman's dealings with Saudi Arabia? Why make up weak fake reasons? On the other hand, if it's really just about a power struggle, why not use Altman's dealings with Saudi Arabia as the fake reason? Why come up with some weak HR excuses?

Because anything they say that isn't in line with the rules governing how boards work may well open them up to - even more - liability.

So they're essentially hoping that nobody will sue them but if they are sued that their own words can't be used as evidence against them. That's why lawyers usually tell you to shut up, because even if the court of public opinion needs to be pacified somehow the price of that may well be that you end up losing in that other court, and that's the one that matters.

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

#766

Post by jacquesm »

twic wrote: post #737
rtpg wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "lying" line in the original announcement feels like where the good gossip is. The general idea of "Altman was signing a bunch of business deals without board approval, was told to stop by the board, he said he would, then proceeded to not stop and continue the behavior"... that feels like the juicy bit (if that is in fact what was happening, I know nothing). This is all court intrigue of course, but why else are…

> The "lying" line in the original announcement feels like where the good gossip is This is exactly it, and it's astounding that so many people are going in other directions. Either this is true, and Altman has been a naughty boy, or it's false, and the board are lying about him. Either would be the starting point for understanding the whole situation.

Or it is true but not to a degree that it warrants a firing and that firing just so happened to line up with the personal goals of some of the board members.

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

#767

Post by jacquesm »

edmundsauto wrote: post #734
johnnymorgan wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gotten SBF vibes from him for awhile now. Elon split was the warning

Telling statement. The Elon split for me cements Altman as the Lionheart in the story.

There are other options besides 'Elon is a jerk' or 'Sam is a jerk'.

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

#768

Post by jacquesm »

twic wrote: post #760
rightbyte wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a decision that destroyed billions of dollars worth of brand value and good will I mean, there seem to be this cult following around Sam Altman on HN and Twitter. But do the common user care like at all? What sane user would want a shitcoin CEO in charge of a product they depend on?

Altman is an interesting character in all of this. As far as i can tell, he has never done anything impressive, in technology or business. Got into Stanford, but dropped out, founded a startup in 2005 which threw easy money at a boring problem and after seven years, sold for a third more than it raised. Got hired into YC after it was already well-established, and then rapidly put in charge of it. I have no knowledge…

Altman has convinced PG that he's a pretty smart cookie and that alone would explain a lot of the red carpet treatment he's received. PG is pretty good at spotting talent.

http://www.paulgraham.com/5founders.html

Note the date on that.

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

#769

Post by polygamous_bat »

some1else wrote: post #712
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)

Starting OpenAI as a fork of Scientology from the get go would have saved everyone a great deal of hair splitting.

  :s/Xenu/AGI/g

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

#770

Post by Zolde »

mcv wrote: post #730
Zolde wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone assumes that the vote must have happened during the special meeting, but the decision to fire the CEO/or CEO stepping down may happen at any time. > if the vote happened in an illegitimate way, I'd expect Sam and Greg to immediately challenge it and ignore the decision, and that didn't happen. So perhaps the vote was legit? - Investigation concludes Sam has not been consistently candid. - Board realizes it h…

If the vote was made when no one was there to see it, did it really happen? There's a reason to make these votes in meetings, because then you've got a record that it happened. I don't see how the board as a whole can make a decision without having a board meeting.

Depending on jurisdiction and bylaws, the board may hold a pre-meeting, where informal consensus is reached, and potential for majority vote is gauged.

Since the bylaws state that the decision to fire the CEO may happen at any time (not required to be during a meeting), a plausible process for this would be to send a document to sign by e-mail (written consent), and have that formalize the board decision with a paper trail.

Of course, from an ethical, legal, collegial, and governance perspective that is an incredibly nasty thing to do. But if investigation shows signs of the CEO lacking candor, all transparency goes out of the window.

> But even then it's weird to not invite Greg.

After Sam was fired (with vote from Ilya "going along"), rest of the board did not need Ilya anymore for majority vote and removed Greg, demoting him to report to Mira. I suspect that board expected Greg to stay, since he was "invaluable" and that Mira would support their pick for next CEO, but things turned out differently.

Remember, Sam and Greg were blindsided, board had sufficient time to consult with legal counsel to make sure their moves were in the clear.

Post reply on HN