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

781–790 of 946 posts

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

#781

Post by whelp_24 »

xinayder wrote: post #606
LarsDu88 wrote: post #487

There has to be a bigger story to this. Altman took a non-profit and vacuumed up a bunch of donor money only to flip Open AI into the hottest TC style startup in the world. Then put a gas pedal to commercialization. It takes a certain type of politicking and deception to make something like that happen. Then in the past week, he's going and taking money from the Saudis on the order of billions of dollars to make AI a…

So they actually kicked him out because he transformed a non-profit into a money printing machine?

You that like it's a bad thing for them to do? You wouldn't donate to the Coca-cola company.

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

#782

Post by nmfisher »

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”.

“Big tech companies” was in quotation marks because it’s a journalistic term, not a direct quotation from their charter.

But the intention was precisely that - just read the charter. Or if you want it directly from the founders, read this interview and count how many times they refer to Google https://medium.com/backchannel/how-elon-musk-and-y-combinato...

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

#784

Post by GuyFromNorway »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #774
benterix wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not sure if it would be commendable or out-right stupid though for the remaining board members to be that altruistic, and actually let the whole thing crash and burn. Who in their right mind would let these people near any sort of decision-making role if they let this golden goose just crash to the ground, even if would "benefit the greater good" - cannot see that this is in the self-interest of anyone

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

#785

Post by depr »

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)

So what is your belief about why they exist?

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

#786

Post by sevagh »

osrec wrote: post #687
LarsDu88 wrote: post #487

There has to be a bigger story to this. Altman took a non-profit and vacuumed up a bunch of donor money only to flip Open AI into the hottest TC style startup in the world. Then put a gas pedal to commercialization. It takes a certain type of politicking and deception to make something like that happen. Then in the past week, he's going and taking money from the Saudis on the order of billions of dollars to make AI a…

What does TC style mean?

Total Compensation

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

#787

Post by [deleted] »

matkoniecz wrote: post #732
adrianN wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was Marx wrong?

> Was Marx wrong? Not sure, but attempts to treat him seriously (or pretend to do this) ended horribly wrong, with basically no benefits. Is there any good reason to care what he thought? Looking at history of Poland (before, during and after PRL) gave me no interest whatsoever to look into his writings.

[deleted]

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

#788

Post by wilde »

mcv wrote: post #659
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…

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.

If this is true why not say it though? They didn’t even have lawyers telling them to be quiet until Monday.

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

#789

Post by depr »

robertlagrant wrote: post #749
danans wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> New rich people come along and some rich people get poor. Absent massive redistribution that is usually a result of major political change (i.e. the New Deal), rich people tend to stay rich during their lifetimes and frequently their families remain so for generations after. > That might indicate that money isn't a great proxy for power. Due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth for day to day existence, it…

> Absent massive redistribution that is usually a result of major political change (i.e. the New Deal), rich people tend to stay rich during their lifetimes and frequently their families remain so for generations after. The rule of thumb is it lasts up to three generations, and only for very very few people. They are also, for everything they buy, and everyone they employ, paying tax. Redistribution isn't the goal; h…

What is your rule of thumb based on?

In, for example, the Netherlands the richest people pay less tax [0]. Do you think this is not the case in many other countries?

> They are also, for [..] they employ, paying tax

Is that a benefit of having rich people? If companies were employee-owned that tax would still be paid.

[0]: https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/wealthie...

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

#790

Post by koolba »

That headline is bad, not sure if it's deliberate.

The way it's phrased, it sounds like they were given two different explanations. Such as when the first explanation is not good enough, a second weaker one is then provided.

But the article itself says:

> OpenAI's current independent board has offered two examples of the alleged lack of candor that led them to fire co-founder and CEO Sam Altman, sending the company into chaos.

Changing the two "examples" to "explanations" grossly changes the meaning of that sentence. Two examples is the first steps of "multiple examples". And that sounds much different than "multiple explanations".

Post reply on HN