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

Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

bizjournals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 192 posts

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#91

Post by lotsofpulp »

abeppu wrote: post #85
lotsofpulp wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From entering a hot labor market with rising wages and investing? The alternative is entering a cool labor market with stagnant or decreasing wages. Obviously, people who already had assets made out better, but that is not a possibility for 99% of high school/college graduates, so useless to consider.

I think people really over-estimate the wage growth differences between good and bad labor markets. Median usual weekly earnings are (in 1982 Dollars) Q1 2024: 365 Q1 2013: 331 So over 9 years, including the largest bump in wages in generation during the pandemic, wages grew by 1% From the early 80s until now, wage growth was like 0.4% https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1pagn

I restricted my claim to those who:

> obtained in demand credentials or skills

From plumbers to programmers, there probably was not a better time in history to get paid. That is the nature of a decade of 0% interest rates, unprecedented in US history.

If you did not get paid, it was because you were not shopping around for a buyer willing to pay more (not ascribing blame).

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#92

Post by dylan604 »

gexla wrote: post #48
PretzelPirate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real problem is that Altman has legitimately destroyed public trust. This might seem true in our technical buble, but most of the public probably has no idea who he is. They try ChatGPT for a work task and think it's amazing and love it. I've seen this happen many times, and once one person in a small team/company tries it, everyone else starts using it and they also love it. These people don't know what OpenAI…

Apple just gave the company under his leadership a huge vote of confidence.

And? That's the company and not him as far as what iDevice users will care about. Again, even if they bother to learn the name of the company that makes chatgpt. Hell, they might even think that is the name of the company and not the product. I don't really understand your point

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#93

Post by s1artibartfast »

fsckboy wrote: post #83
blindriver wrote: post #72

This is really dumb, and I'm not even a fan of sama, I think he's a snake. Sam Altman was CEO and President. The fact he was not Chairman is not material. There's a thousand different explanations how that misstatement could have occurred. Maybe someone wrote that up, and sama didn't review every single line, and other people just assumed it was right. But it's not material. Being being the CEO and President of YC is…

> But it's not material. the corporation President, VP, Secretary, Treasurer, and Board of Directors and Chairman are legally defined titles, they are material titles, they imply fiduciary duty, loyalty, etc. (CEO isn't really a thing, it was made up to point out whether the President or Chairman wielded the ultimate power in situations where the largest shareholder might be more active than passive)

Materiality depend on the question at hand.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#94

Post by pbiggar »

resoluteteeth wrote: post #90

I'm not a Sam Altman fan but this really seems like nothing. If he was personally going around telling people he was YC's chairman that would be quite different, but this is just a few documents that he obviously didn't write himself.

Lying in an SEC filing is not "just a few documents".

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#95

Post by dylan604 »

gigatree wrote: post #61
bamboozled wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I get the sentiment, things have a way of working out. Maybe he is actually the best person to do it...no one knows who the best person for an undefined situation will be.

Is the best person for any position (especially one with tremendous implications for the future of humanity) someone with his character?

Does it matter if the person is the best or if people think they are? Even our government is led by people that think the person is the best for the role even if they really are not. Why would anyone care about this particular company when that's their view on the gov't?

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#96

Post by insane_dreamer »

gexla wrote: post #48
PretzelPirate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real problem is that Altman has legitimately destroyed public trust. This might seem true in our technical buble, but most of the public probably has no idea who he is. They try ChatGPT for a work task and think it's amazing and love it. I've seen this happen many times, and once one person in a small team/company tries it, everyone else starts using it and they also love it. These people don't know what OpenAI…

Apple just gave the company under his leadership a huge vote of confidence.

Apple is pragmatic; they know ChatGPT has the mindshare of the public (90% of whom have never heard of Claude, etc.). But make no mistake, they will switch to their own similar offering once it's up to par.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#97

Post by ghufran_syed »

smt88 wrote: post #84
bamboozled wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I get the sentiment, things have a way of working out. Maybe he is actually the best person to do it...no one knows who the best person for an undefined situation will be.

> things have a way of working out The definition of survivorship bias because you literally are alive to say this. Tens of millions have been killed by CEOs of tobacco companies, and that's just one industry. Energy companies will likely cause the death of billions. We got rid of many dangerous American oligarchs in the Gilded Age by using govt to break them up. Things don't "just work out," people sacrifice huge am…

didn‘t the “tens of millions” of humans who died have any agency? And by definition, aren’t “energy companies” helping fix the problem of “energy poverty” which increases human welfare?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_poverty

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#98

Post by tiahura »

dylan604 wrote: post #92
gexla wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple just gave the company under his leadership a huge vote of confidence.

And? That's the company and not him as far as what iDevice users will care about. Again, even if they bother to learn the name of the company that makes chatgpt. Hell, they might even think that is the name of the company and not the product. I don't really understand your point

That's what they thought with Qualcomm.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#99

Post by blast »

pbiggar wrote: post #94
resoluteteeth wrote: post #90

I'm not a Sam Altman fan but this really seems like nothing. If he was personally going around telling people he was YC's chairman that would be quite different, but this is just a few documents that he obviously didn't write himself.

Lying in an SEC filing is not "just a few documents".

You don't think people make clerical errors in SEC filings? What was Sam supposed to have gained by this?

The document was signed by Michael Klein and Jay Taragin (whoever they are), not Sam. But that wouldn't make much of a story, so Sam it is.

Re: Sam Altman is not on YC's board. So why claim to be its chair?

#100

Post by dylan604 »

tiahura wrote: post #98
dylan604 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? That's the company and not him as far as what iDevice users will care about. Again, even if they bother to learn the name of the company that makes chatgpt. Hell, they might even think that is the name of the company and not the product. I don't really understand your point

That's what they thought with Qualcomm.

i don't get the reference
Post reply on HN