Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 854 posts

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#81

Post by jongjong »

Well I think there are mostly bad people at the top of all these big companies. Lying to bad people is good so I support Sam Altman.

I'm tired of the elite trusting each other and the negative externalities of that so I support elites lying to their hearts' content. Nothing wrong with a little lie here or there. It keeps things interesting.

Anyway, it's not like the currency economic reality is grounded in truth... Is lying actually lying if the underlying social reality itself is built on lies? I think they cancel out.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#82

Post by wyldfire »

navigate8310 wrote: post #63
snowwrestler wrote: post #52

Kind of ironic that people are jumping in here to defend Sam Altman on the message board of Y Combinator, which also fired him from an executive leadership role for similar reasons.

Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI while others all they did was to either lecture or publish papers.

> Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI

I guess there's no way to know this but how much better than the "Null CEO" did he actually do? What if he happened to preside over a successful company that would've performed as well or better without him?

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#83

Post by xyzzy4747 »

pdonis wrote: post #78
xyzzy4747 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment didn’t say ends always justify means. In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. Meanwhile they also launched some revolutionary products that also didn’t hurt anyone. So what’s the big deal?

> In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. No, he lied to other board members, multiple times.

Sounds like he outsmarted them and they were holding back the organization.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#84

Post by FireBeyond »

Havoc wrote: post #10
mmastrac wrote: post #2

I don't think there's anything new here: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-running-openais-start... FTA: > "Sam didn't inform the board that he owned the OpenAI startup fund, even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company," she said. Previously: > "Jacob Vespers does not exist to our knowledge," Madhav Dutt, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said. When…

Once again he was GP of the startup fund, not an LP. (At least not to my knowledge) Unless there was some sort of carry or other compensation I’d say it’s pretty fair to describe that as not owned. A bit like a trustee wouldn’t claim to own the trust fund. The beneficiaries do

> I’d say it’s pretty fair to describe that as not owned.

I'd agree with that. But you also ignored the very next statement.

> even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company

Are you going to claim that a GP of a fund has no financial interest in the fund, too?

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#85

Post by threeseed »

xyzzy4747 wrote: post #70
sho_hn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ends don't always justify means.

The parent comment didn’t say ends always justify means. In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. Meanwhile they also launched some revolutionary products that also didn’t hurt anyone. So what’s the big deal?

> that also didn’t hurt anyone

There has been industrial scale copyright infringement.

You can argue it's for the greater good but to say that no one was hurt is a lie.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#86

Post by bmitc »

What is still bizarre is how the board brought him back. I just don't understand that from any angle. It is very clear that he lied and schemed. So why was there any issue? He had no power once fired. If another company wants to hire him, fine. If he wants to make platitudes on Twitter, who cares? Employees threatened to leave? Let them. I imagine many of them wouldn't, and if they did, you could just rehire and find a proper CEO. It's likely that the employees who would have stayed would have been the ones you want to keep anyway.

So why would you rehire him and then resign? Why not leave him fired and resign?

Why did Microsoft care so much about Altman? They didn't have a board seat, so too bad so sad. They should have had no sway. If they want OpenAI, then they can buy it. Why would they even want Altman to come to their company? What possible value could Altman bring to Microsoft?

Just none of it makes any sense. In fact, the most clear thing is Altman's negative behavior and mode of operation. I remember his very loud, awshucks pronouncements of having no shares in OpenAI. Yea, right. A career VC setup a new company structure or structures where he wouldn't benefit at all financially.

In another timeline, OpenAI firing him, naming an interim CEO, ignoring all else, and then hiring a new CEO would have all gone just fine. I don't know why Microsoft and others made a huge kerfuffle over it. And I also don't know why the board released such a cryptic press release when they could have provided details.

I just can't wrap my head around any of it, even letting in conspiracy theory lines. Lol. It just makes no sense and gives me a feeling that no one involved has any clue about anything, including Satya Nadella.

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#87

Post by dylan604 »

pdonis wrote: post #79
Aunche wrote: post #75

I think there is a very good chance this is true, but it also paints the picture of the board being incompetent and incapable of confrontation. They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action. Instead, they attempted a secret coup, which of course makes Sam look like the underdog

> it also paints the picture of the board being incompetent and incapable of confrontation Yes. Nobody involved in this comes out looking very good IMO.

Rarely does anyone in situations like this have no fault. It's all degrees of wrong really

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#88

Post by akozak »

Aunche wrote: post #75

I think there is a very good chance this is true, but it also paints the picture of the board being incompetent and incapable of confrontation. They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action. Instead, they attempted a secret coup, which of course makes Sam look like the underdog

I've seen the "coup" framing a lot I just don't see how that's justified. They're the board of directors! Hiring and firing the CEO is core to the job (as is maintaining mission alignment, in the nonprofit world).

Re: Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting

#90

Post by stubish »

AlbertCory wrote: post #51
hipadev23 wrote: post #34

I’m gonna side with sama here. Toner and others who voted to fire are type of people who spend their entire career in meetings and political maneuvering and not a single day actually delivering results.

[flagged]

Nobody except governments (plural) has the authority to regulate things. If you think regulation is required, there is no choice except governments to do it. Industries can only regulate themselves if given the power to do so by a government. Otherwise it is just a cartel agreeing to not push to hard under threat of actual regulation (and when one party thinks they can push harder, it falls apart).

As a real example, fully autonomous weapons will be developed and used. And if you don't want them to exist outside of black markets and pariah states, governments need to agree that development, manufacture and sale of them is a crime, like chemical weapons and land mines. Yes, I didn't say it would work well, but it is still the best tool we have.

Post reply on HN