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

771–780 of 946 posts

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

#771

Post by [deleted] »

rightbyte wrote: post #625
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…

> 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?

[deleted]

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

#772

Post by margorczynski »

saagarjha wrote: post #589
VectorLock wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like Altman started the whole non-profit thing so he could attract top researchers with altruistic sentiment for sub-FANAAG wages. So the whole "Altman wasn't candid" thing seems to track.

Ok, but the wages were excellent (assuming that the equity panned out, which it seemed very likely it would until last week).

So it is possible a lot of those people against Altman being outed are like that because they know the equity they hold will take a dump?

I'm not saying they are hypocrites or bad people because of it, just wondering if that might be a factor also.

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

#773

Post by whelp_24 »

arrosenberg wrote: post #556
jelling wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What exactly is the problem here? Is a non-profit expected to exclusively help impoverished communities or something? Yes. Yes and more yes. That is why, at least in the U.S., we have given non-profits exemptions from taxation. Because they are supposed to be improving society, not profiting from it.

> 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)

The NFL also is a non-profit in charge of for-profits. Except they never pretended to be a charity, just an event organizer.

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

#774

Post by FartyMcFarter »

benterix wrote: post #692
mcv wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This certainly feels like the most likely true reason to me. Altman fundraising for this new investment, and taking money from people the board does not approve of, and Altman possible promised not to do business with. Of course it's all speculation, but this sounds a lot more plausible for such a sudden and dramatic decision than any of the other explanations I've heard.

Moreover, if this is true, he could reasonably well continue knowing that he has more power than the board. I could almost imagine the board saying, "You can't do that" and him replying "Watch me!" because he understood he is more powerful than them. And he proved he was right, and the board can either step down and lose completely or try to continue and destroy whatever is left of OpenAI.

> the board can either step down and lose completely or try to continue and destroy whatever is left of OpenAI.

From the board's perspective, destroying OpenAI might be the best possible outcome right now. If OpenAI can no longer fulfill its mission of doing AI work for the public good, it's better to stop pretending and let it all crumble.

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

#775

Post by ethanbond »

m_mueller wrote: post #680
motoxpro wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more I read into this story the more I can't help but to be a conspiracy theorist and say that it feels like the boards intent was to kill the company. No explanation beyond "he tried to give two people the same project the "Killing the company would be consistent with the companies mission" line in the boards statement Adam having a huge conflict of interest Emmet wanting to go from a "10" to a "1-2" I'm either…

Could it be that their research found more 'glimpses' of a dangerous AGI?

IMO this is increasingly the most likely answer, which would readily comport with "lack of candor" as well as the (allegedly) provided 2 explanations being so weak [1]: you certainly wouldn't want to come out and say that you fired the CEO because you think you might have (apparently) dangerous AI/AGI/ASI and your CEO was reckless with it. Neither of the two explanations seem even to be within the realm of a fireable offense.

It would also comport with Ilya's regret about the situation: perhaps he wanted to slow things down, board members convinced him Sam's ouster was the way to do it, but then it has actually unfolded such that development of dangerous AI/AGI/ASI might accelerate at Microsoft while weakening OpenAI's own ability to modulate the pace of development.

[1]: Given all the very public media brinkmanship, I'm not so quick to assume reports like these two explanations are true. E.g. the "Sama is returning with demands!" stories were obviously "planted" by people who were trying to exert pressure on the negotiations; would be interested to have more evidence that Ilya's explanations were actually this sloppy.

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

#777

Post by jacquesm »

tasuki wrote: post #544
aravindgp wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of a board member of OpenAI running a separate chatbot company, it would be important to consider these factors. The specifics of the situation, including the nature of both companies, the level of competition between them, and the actions taken by the board member and OpenAI to manage potential conflicts, would all play a role in determining if there is a conflict of interest. Definitely conflict of inte…

jacquesm was being sarcastic

My bad for not adding a /s. But I thought the second sentence would make it obvious.

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

#778

Post by voitvoder »

didip wrote: post #191

If I were OpenAI employee, I would have been uber pissed. Imagine your once-in-blue-moon, whatsapp-like, payout at $10m per employee evaporated over the weekend before Thanksgiving. I would have joined MSFT out of spite.

I really can't imagine. I am super pissed and only over something I love that I pay 20 bucks a month for. I can't imagine the feeling of losing this kind of payout over what looks like complete bullshit. Not just the payout but being part of a team doing something so interesting and high profile + the payout.

I just don't know how they put the pieces back together here.

What really gets me down is I know our government is a lost cause but I at least had hope our companies were inoculated against petty, self-sabotaging bullshit. Even beyond that I had hope the AI space was inoculated and beyond that of all companies OpenAI would of course be inoculated from petty, self-sabotaging bullshit.

These idiots worried about software eating us are incapable of seeing the gas they are pouring on the processes that are taking us to a new dark age.

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

#779

Post by whelp_24 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #753
aylmao wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> New rich people come along and some rich people get poor This is an overly simplistic look, and disregards a lot of history where, unsurprisingly, the reason there was wealth redistribution wasn't "innovation" but government policy

> This is an overly simplistic look, and disregards a lot of history where, unsurprisingly, the reason there was wealth redistribution wasn't "innovation" but government policy The point is that wealth and power aren't interchangeable. You're right that government bureaucrats have actual power, including that to take people's stuff. But you've not realised that that actual power means the rich people don't have power…

Wealth is control of resources, which is power. The way to change power is through force that's why you need swords to remove kings and to remove stacks of gold, see assinations, war, the U.S..
Post reply on HN