Can someone explain to me why this drama is such a big deal? Why do openai employees care who the CEO is? Do they think they were working for him instead of the board or that it was his vision and leadership that let them succeed so far? And why does the public care including major news sites covering it more than the gaza war.
OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
841–850 of 946 posts
Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
#842Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we even have an idea of how the vote went? Greg was not invited (losing Sam one vote), and Sam may have been asked to sit out the vote, so the 3 had a majority. Ilya who is at least on "Team Sam" now; may have voted no. Or simply went along thinking he could be next out the door at that point; we just don't know. It's probably fair to say not letting Greg know the board was getting together (and letting it proceed…
I don't understand how you only need 4 people for quorum on a 6-person board.
It depends on the corporate bylaws, but the most common quorum requirement is a simple majority of the board members. So 4 is not atypical for quorum on a 6 person board.
Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
#843Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m confused how the board is still keeping their radio silence 100%. Where I’m from, with a shitstorm this big raging, and the board doing nothing, they might very easily be personally held responsible for all kinds of utterly nasty legal action. Is it just different because they’re a nonprofit? Or how on earth the board is thinking they can get away with this anymore?
What specific legal action could be pursued against them where you're from? Who would have a cause for action? (I'm genuinely curious—in the US I'm not aware of any action that could be taken here by anyone besides possibly Sam Altman for libel.)
I'm guessing that unless the board caves to everything that the counterparties ask of it, MSFT lawyers will very soon reveal to the board the full range of possible legal actions against the board. The public will probably not see many of these actions until months or years later, but it's super hard to imagine that such random jumping of destruction and conflicts will go unpunished.
Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
#844Earlier quoted context omitted.
As mentioned by another person in this thread [0], it is likely that it was Ilya's work that was getting replicated by another "secret" team, and the "different opinions on the same person" was Sam's opinions of Ilya. Perhaps Sam saw him as an unstable element and a single point of failure in the company, and wanted to make sure that OpenAI would be able to continue without Ilya? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/repl…
This is an interesting theory when combined with this tweet from Google DeepMind's team lead of Scalable Alignment [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/geoffreyirving/status/172675427761849141... The "Sam is actually a psychopath that has managed to swindle his way into everyone liking him, and Ilya has grave ethical concerns about that kind of person leading a company seeking AGI, but he can't out him publicly because so ma…
That guy is another AI doomer though, and those people all seem to be quite slippery themselves. Supposedly Sam lied to him about other people, but there's no further detail provided and nobody seems willing to get concrete about any time Altman has been specifically dishonest. When the doomer board made similar allegations it seemed serious for a day, and then evaporated.
Meanwhile the Google AI folks have a long track record of making very misleading statements in public. I remember before Altman came along and made their models available to all, Google was fond of responding to any OpenAI blog post by claiming they had the same tech but way better, they just weren't releasing it because it was so amazing it just wasn't "safe" enough to do so yet. Then ChatGPT called their bluff and we discovered that in reality they were way behind and apparently unable to catch up, also, there were no actual safety problems and it was fine to let everyone use even relatively unconditioned models.
So this Geoffrey guy might be right but if Altman was really such a systematic liar, why would his employees be so loyal? And why is it only AI doomers who make this allegation? Maybe Altman "lied" to them by claiming key people were just as doomerist as those guys, and when they found out it wasn't true they wailed?
Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
#845Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that all people will do irresponsible things unless specifically advised not to by lawyers?
The irresponsible thing is to not explain yourself and assume everyone around you has no agency.
I don't follow. If the irresponsible thing is to not explain themselves, why would the lawyers tell them to be quiet?
Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
#846Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happens all the time. Teams of people at Google work on the same features, only to find out near launch that they lost to another team who had been working on the same thing without their knowledge.
How does that work? Do they have the same the same PM, requirements? Is it just different tech / achitectures adopted by different teams. Fascinating
It is fascinating, very wasteful and also often devastating for the teams involved who worked very hard who then have their work thrown away.
PMs/TPMs/POs may not know as they're on different teams. Often it's just a VP game and decided on preference or a power play and not on work quality/outcome.
Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
#847Little tip for the younger folks reading this: if you are given two contradictory explanations for something, the correct explanation is probably the third one.
Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
#848Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Spoken like a true modern. What could be more important than money? Makes you wonder if aristocracy was really that bad when this is the best we get with democracy!111
Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
#849Another source besides the trash at Business Insider?
Re: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired
#850Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
> What is your rule of thumb based on?
E.g. [0]
> In, for example, the Netherlands the richest people pay less tax [0]. Do you think this is not the case in many other countries?
That's a non sequitur from the previous point. However, on the "who pays taxes?" point, that article is careful to only talk about income tax in absolute terms, and indirect taxes in relative terms. It doesn't appear to be trying to make an objective analysis.
> Is that a benefit of having rich people?
I don't share the assumption that people should only exist if they're a benefit.
> If companies were employee-owned that tax would still be paid.
Some companies are employee-owned, but you have to think how that works for every type of business. Assuming that it's easy to make a business, and the hard bit is the ownership structure is a mistake.
[0] https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/08/01/why-so-many-wealthy-...