6 ms·

The tone used by OpenAI (their distrust of Sam Altman) tells me that they did not simply decide they need different leadership. The statement by the board serio

The tone used by OpenAI (their distrust of Sam Altman) tells me that they did not simply decide they need different leadership. The statement by the board seriously damages his career. Why else would they burn bridges and oppose themselves on ethical grounds? Or they are trying to blame and sac Altman.

tomcam 3y ago
> The statement by the board seriously damages his career. You misunderstand how these corporate situations work. He will fall upward to a better job someplace else if he chooses. Adam Neumann, who started then destroyed WeWork, already raised $350 million from Andreessen Horowitz for another real estate company called Flow.
- Sebb767 3y ago
  > Adam Neumann, who started then destroyed WeWork, already raised $350 million from Andreessen Horowitz for another real estate company called Flow. Well, he did get a few billion dollars of lesson on how to not run such a company, making him quite uniquely qualified for this position.
  - PopePompus 3y ago
    I assume he has trademarked the word "Flow" and is licensing it to the company for a few million dollars.
  - miohtama 3y ago
    Adam also managed to get almost half a billy worth of money out from Softbank as a corporate loan for himself https://finance.yahoo.com/news/softbank-takes-14b-hit-wework-230042522.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHrwp2w4ATK6j4_iREuJrh0jNB60I35cbLn-KlvxIxfGd9vHSEPT4_l0lmuyEMRkcHZw-GgBAhc652GB5lgsPECHLpOfkj4X_o9xFC9h5cPCOukZrLwCjTEouwfGe7tzZFDRYjI77w8thkFOm1OPCp4d8ogJFg9hPxKRYLc1OKgS https://finance.yahoo.com/news/softbank-takes-14b-hit-wework... Adam is good making people rich, but those people are not his investors.
  - notfromhere 3y ago
    I like how CEO performance has no null hypothesis
- Vegenoid 3y ago
  > upward to a better job Not a whole lot of up to go from CEO of OpenAI right now...
  - sumthingsumthng 3y ago
    except founding a new startup with a bunch of top level players who recently left top level companies.
- redeux 3y ago
  A better job than CEO of a company that has a chance to be the dominant company of our generation? I doubt that.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    His next CEO gig might come with equity...
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  With a16z's crypto ventures, scams on top scams is not surprising
- slibhb 3y ago
  Are you seriously comparing OpenAI to WeWork? I'm not particularly bullish on AI but you have to give OpenAI credit for what they've accomplished under Altman.
  - usea 3y ago
    Comparing two things is not the same as saying they're the same in all respects.
    - slibhb 3y ago
      He said they both involved failing upwards... OpenAI is not a failure.
      - usea 3y ago
        Nobody said that.
        slibhb 3y ago
        > He will fall upward to a better job someplace else if he chooses. I take "fall upward" to be a typo of "fail upward". The next sentence explicitly compares the situation to WeWork. My interpretation is correct, it's a bizarre post, I'm done with this thread, have a good day.
        squeaky-clean 3y ago
        The first word there, "he" will fall upward. Not OpenAI will fall upward. Sam Altman is not OpenAI, especially after this latest announcement. The next sentence compares him to the WeWork CEO. It's not OpenAI is like WeWork. It's the disgraced CEO of OpenAI is like the disgraced CEO of WeWork.
- sharkweek 3y ago
  There’s a famous NFL quote from a former general manager of the Arizona Cardinals that goes, “If Hannibal Lecter ran a 4.3 (40-yard dash) we'd probably diagnose it as an eating disorder.” I'll argue in this day and age, that any founder/C-level person who has "created" billions in value, no matter how much of a paper tiger it is, will almost always get another shot. If SBF or Elizabeth Holmes weren't physically in prison, I bet they'd be able to get investment for whatever their next idea is.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    This comparison makes no sense. Hannibal Lecter would be helping the team by being able to run fast. Neumann and Holmes and SBF lost their benefactors money.
    - tshaddox 3y ago
      The point of comparison in the analogy is "founder/C-level person who has "created" billions in value, no matter how much of a paper tiger it is." The claim is that investors are interested in executives who they perceive to have created billions in value, and that's analogous to how NFL teams are interested in people who run fast.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Investors are not interested in executives that “create” billions, they are interested in investors that create billions. NFL teams are interested in players that can actually run fast, not players that can say they do, but are found to be lying and it turns out they cannot run fast causing the team to lose.
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        > Investors are not interested in executives that “create” billions, they are interested in investors that create billions. Investors are interested in people they can use to make money. The latter are easier to use, but the former will suffice. It just depends on when you sell.
- sharkjacobs 3y ago
  Fall upwards to a better job than CEO of OpenAI circa 2023? What job is that?
- bananapub 3y ago
  > You misunderstand how these corporate situations work. He will fall upward to a better job someplace else if he chooses. I have no doubt that Altman is deeply embedded in the techbro good old boys network to get another job, but that doesn't change the fact his (now previous) employer released a blog post saying he LIED TO THE BOARD about something severe enough that they had to insta-sack him.
  - rsrsrs86 3y ago
    Lied to the board and they _rushed_ to oust him. No clear transition plan. In what situations world a board fire the ceo from the worlds greatest tech sensation since who knows when, in a matter of hours ?
w10-1 3y ago
> The statement by the board seriously damages his career Yes: suggesting he was not as candid as necessary is business libel unless true. And since Brockman was also booted, he may have been involved. It's not clear what the Board was trying to do that he interfered with. There is no clear legal standard on what a CEO must divulge, and CEO's often get to wait to tell board members bad news until the whole board meets and the issue has been investigated.

tomcam 3y ago

> The statement by the board seriously damages his career. You misunderstand how these corporate situations work. He will fall upward to a better job someplace else if he chooses. Adam Neumann, who started then destroyed WeWork, already raised $350 million from Andreessen Horowitz for another real estate company called Flow.

Sebb767 3y ago
> Adam Neumann, who started then destroyed WeWork, already raised $350 million from Andreessen Horowitz for another real estate company called Flow. Well, he did get a few billion dollars of lesson on how to not run such a company, making him quite uniquely qualified for this position.
- PopePompus 3y ago
  I assume he has trademarked the word "Flow" and is licensing it to the company for a few million dollars.
- miohtama 3y ago
  Adam also managed to get almost half a billy worth of money out from Softbank as a corporate loan for himself https://finance.yahoo.com/news/softbank-takes-14b-hit-wework-230042522.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHrwp2w4ATK6j4_iREuJrh0jNB60I35cbLn-KlvxIxfGd9vHSEPT4_l0lmuyEMRkcHZw-GgBAhc652GB5lgsPECHLpOfkj4X_o9xFC9h5cPCOukZrLwCjTEouwfGe7tzZFDRYjI77w8thkFOm1OPCp4d8ogJFg9hPxKRYLc1OKgS https://finance.yahoo.com/news/softbank-takes-14b-hit-wework... Adam is good making people rich, but those people are not his investors.
- notfromhere 3y ago
  I like how CEO performance has no null hypothesis
Vegenoid 3y ago
> upward to a better job Not a whole lot of up to go from CEO of OpenAI right now...
- sumthingsumthng 3y ago
  except founding a new startup with a bunch of top level players who recently left top level companies.
redeux 3y ago
A better job than CEO of a company that has a chance to be the dominant company of our generation? I doubt that.
- notahacker 3y ago
  His next CEO gig might come with equity...
gloryjulio 3y ago
With a16z's crypto ventures, scams on top scams is not surprising
slibhb 3y ago
Are you seriously comparing OpenAI to WeWork? I'm not particularly bullish on AI but you have to give OpenAI credit for what they've accomplished under Altman.
- usea 3y ago
  Comparing two things is not the same as saying they're the same in all respects.
  - slibhb 3y ago
    He said they both involved failing upwards... OpenAI is not a failure.
    - usea 3y ago
      Nobody said that.
      - slibhb 3y ago
        > He will fall upward to a better job someplace else if he chooses. I take "fall upward" to be a typo of "fail upward". The next sentence explicitly compares the situation to WeWork. My interpretation is correct, it's a bizarre post, I'm done with this thread, have a good day.
        squeaky-clean 3y ago
        The first word there, "he" will fall upward. Not OpenAI will fall upward. Sam Altman is not OpenAI, especially after this latest announcement. The next sentence compares him to the WeWork CEO. It's not OpenAI is like WeWork. It's the disgraced CEO of OpenAI is like the disgraced CEO of WeWork.
sharkweek 3y ago
There’s a famous NFL quote from a former general manager of the Arizona Cardinals that goes, “If Hannibal Lecter ran a 4.3 (40-yard dash) we'd probably diagnose it as an eating disorder.” I'll argue in this day and age, that any founder/C-level person who has "created" billions in value, no matter how much of a paper tiger it is, will almost always get another shot. If SBF or Elizabeth Holmes weren't physically in prison, I bet they'd be able to get investment for whatever their next idea is.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  This comparison makes no sense. Hannibal Lecter would be helping the team by being able to run fast. Neumann and Holmes and SBF lost their benefactors money.
  - tshaddox 3y ago
    The point of comparison in the analogy is "founder/C-level person who has "created" billions in value, no matter how much of a paper tiger it is." The claim is that investors are interested in executives who they perceive to have created billions in value, and that's analogous to how NFL teams are interested in people who run fast.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Investors are not interested in executives that “create” billions, they are interested in investors that create billions. NFL teams are interested in players that can actually run fast, not players that can say they do, but are found to be lying and it turns out they cannot run fast causing the team to lose.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        > Investors are not interested in executives that “create” billions, they are interested in investors that create billions. Investors are interested in people they can use to make money. The latter are easier to use, but the former will suffice. It just depends on when you sell.
sharkjacobs 3y ago
Fall upwards to a better job than CEO of OpenAI circa 2023? What job is that?
bananapub 3y ago
> You misunderstand how these corporate situations work. He will fall upward to a better job someplace else if he chooses. I have no doubt that Altman is deeply embedded in the techbro good old boys network to get another job, but that doesn't change the fact his (now previous) employer released a blog post saying he LIED TO THE BOARD about something severe enough that they had to insta-sack him.
- rsrsrs86 3y ago
  Lied to the board and they _rushed_ to oust him. No clear transition plan. In what situations world a board fire the ceo from the worlds greatest tech sensation since who knows when, in a matter of hours ?

w10-1 3y ago

> The statement by the board seriously damages his career Yes: suggesting he was not as candid as necessary is business libel unless true. And since Brockman was also booted, he may have been involved. It's not clear what the Board was trying to do that he interfered with. There is no clear legal standard on what a CEO must divulge, and CEO's often get to wait to tell board members bad news until the whole board meets and the issue has been investigated.