5 ms·

Here's my preferred theory, it's a tale as old as time. Sam Altman, like Icarus, flew too close to Microsoft's giant pot of money. He pivoted the company away f

Here's my preferred theory, it's a tale as old as time. Sam Altman, like Icarus, flew too close to Microsoft's giant pot of money. He pivoted the company away from it's founding mission, unleashing the very djinn they originally set out to harness. Turns out there were people at OpenAI who really believed in the original vision.

dwd 3y ago
Nicely put. The original vision is pretty clear, and a compelling reason to not screw around and get sidetracked, even if that has massive commercialisation upside. Thankfully M$ didn't have control of the board.
- two_in_one 3y ago
  > Thankfully M$ didn't have control of the board You never know. Remember Nokia?
  - smilespray 3y ago
    That still pisses me off.
    - fsloth 3y ago
      The downfall of Nokia phones was seeded in it’s management culture. After one message from their CEO Elop Osbourned the market for Nokia phones faster than you can say ”burning raft”, the house of cards built on top of strong early brand history and increasingly commodotized radio technology, Micrsoft basically paid billions for an offering that would have required a heroic&legendary pivot (would have been possible with the talent and tech still in house). Really really. You have two so-frigging-stereotypical samples of management ineptitude in running a strong commercial brand AND leadership (Osbourne:’guys our phones suck’ ; ’change management 101’: burning raft is literally the most commmon and mundane turn of phraze meant to imply you need to act fast. Using this specific phraze is a clear beacon you are out of way out of your depth by paraphrazing 101 material to your company). If the phones had been a strong product, none of this would have mattered. But they weren’t and this was as clear way to signal ”emperor has no clothes” as possible.
      - mlajtos 3y ago
        N9 was a work of art. Fuck Elop.
        fsloth 3y ago
        In general software seems to be really hard for hardware companies. This was the main reason for the downfall IMO. The things that make you succeed in hardware do not suffice, and are partly wrong in software. The N9 etc demonstrated there was enough talent for a plausible pivot. Was it business wise obvious this would have been the only and right choice?
        scrubs 3y ago
        Agree: Japanese and German manufacturing and materials know how? Lengendary. Software? Hmmmm.
        inglor_cz 3y ago
        I programmed for Symbian OS. The dialect of C++ was pure hell, and the wanton diversity of products meant that there was no chance to get consistent UI over a chock-full of models whose selling potential was unknown in advance. Theoretically, there were standards such as Series 60. Practically, those were full of compatibility breaks and just weird idiosyncrasies. Screen dimensions, available APIs, everything varied as if designed by a team of competing drunk sailors, and you could always plunge a week of work into fine-tuning your app for a platform that flopped. Unlike Apple, there just wasn't any software consistency. Some of the products were great, some were terrible, and all were subtly incompatible with one another.
        justsomehnguy 3y ago
        > Fuck Elop It wasn't Elop who drove Nokia to the state it was in 2009. "Burning Platform" is from 2011. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35030334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35030334
      - meyum33 3y ago
        When the iPhone 14 Pro came out, I was reminded of Nokia's supersampling 41MP camera, along with wireless charging, OIS, night mode, and other things Nokia shipped very early with Windows Phone. Now looking back, there was no guarantee that adopting Android would've given Nokia any enduring advantage. Where's HTC now? Does anybody even remember it? With Windows at least there's another chance of being bailed out by Microsoft. It's probably the better choice for shareholders.
edgyquant 3y ago
I hope this is the truth, it would give me a little more faith in humanity than I currently have
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  The 4 board members still there are all pro-safety and alignment, so it seems likely.
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
Or was it that he's been seen trying to raise money for an AI chip startup to compete with Nvidia or was courting SoftBank for a multibillion-dollar investment in a new company to make AI-oriented hardware with Jony Ive? A lot of his current external activities could worry the board - and if he wasn't candid about future plans I can see why they might sack him.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  What's always incredible to me is how much "outside activity" is tolerated of tech CEOs. I get it, they are at the top, they make the rules, but wow. Even a lowly new grad engineer has to sign a lot of stuff when they take a job that forces essentially exclusivity to your work there. I cannot dabble in outside businesses within the same industry or adjacent industries. CEOs argue that their job is tough and many hours and life consuming and that's why they get the pay, and yet there is a whole genre of tech CEOs who try to CEO 5 companies at a time..
  - fragmede 3y ago
    It's critical to know: where are you located? lowly new grad engineers, as well as senior architects, can't be covered in non-competes in California, as long as it's done on non-company hardewre. it's a large part of why California is so big for tech, and subject of a current front page discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38316870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38316870
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Employers can make provisions that you’re not allowed to moonlight in other positions. That’s distinct from non-competes, which are for your ability to change jobs entirely. The parent’s point is that tech CEOs are often permitted to work at multiple companies and engage in self-dealing in a way that’s prohibited for almost everyone else, including CEOs in other industries.
      - 3y ago
mi_lk 3y ago
This. VCs/tech bros are framing this as a coup except when you approach from this angle it all makes sense
mclightning 3y ago
PR move is in motion guys. Regulatory capture will be justified only through this new persona/identity the OpenAI will be dressed up in. I am not buying none of it. Only money and profit makes the mountains move. Not moral stature. I don't believe that optimistic take for a second. None with a moral stance to take such action stays quiet so long, without alternate motives.

dwd 3y ago

Nicely put. The original vision is pretty clear, and a compelling reason to not screw around and get sidetracked, even if that has massive commercialisation upside. Thankfully M$ didn't have control of the board.

two_in_one 3y ago
> Thankfully M$ didn't have control of the board You never know. Remember Nokia?
- smilespray 3y ago
  That still pisses me off.
  - fsloth 3y ago
    The downfall of Nokia phones was seeded in it’s management culture. After one message from their CEO Elop Osbourned the market for Nokia phones faster than you can say ”burning raft”, the house of cards built on top of strong early brand history and increasingly commodotized radio technology, Micrsoft basically paid billions for an offering that would have required a heroic&legendary pivot (would have been possible with the talent and tech still in house). Really really. You have two so-frigging-stereotypical samples of management ineptitude in running a strong commercial brand AND leadership (Osbourne:’guys our phones suck’ ; ’change management 101’: burning raft is literally the most commmon and mundane turn of phraze meant to imply you need to act fast. Using this specific phraze is a clear beacon you are out of way out of your depth by paraphrazing 101 material to your company). If the phones had been a strong product, none of this would have mattered. But they weren’t and this was as clear way to signal ”emperor has no clothes” as possible.
    - mlajtos 3y ago
      N9 was a work of art. Fuck Elop.
      - fsloth 3y ago
        In general software seems to be really hard for hardware companies. This was the main reason for the downfall IMO. The things that make you succeed in hardware do not suffice, and are partly wrong in software. The N9 etc demonstrated there was enough talent for a plausible pivot. Was it business wise obvious this would have been the only and right choice?
        scrubs 3y ago
        Agree: Japanese and German manufacturing and materials know how? Lengendary. Software? Hmmmm.
        inglor_cz 3y ago
        I programmed for Symbian OS. The dialect of C++ was pure hell, and the wanton diversity of products meant that there was no chance to get consistent UI over a chock-full of models whose selling potential was unknown in advance. Theoretically, there were standards such as Series 60. Practically, those were full of compatibility breaks and just weird idiosyncrasies. Screen dimensions, available APIs, everything varied as if designed by a team of competing drunk sailors, and you could always plunge a week of work into fine-tuning your app for a platform that flopped. Unlike Apple, there just wasn't any software consistency. Some of the products were great, some were terrible, and all were subtly incompatible with one another.
      - justsomehnguy 3y ago
        > Fuck Elop It wasn't Elop who drove Nokia to the state it was in 2009. "Burning Platform" is from 2011. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35030334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35030334
    - meyum33 3y ago
      When the iPhone 14 Pro came out, I was reminded of Nokia's supersampling 41MP camera, along with wireless charging, OIS, night mode, and other things Nokia shipped very early with Windows Phone. Now looking back, there was no guarantee that adopting Android would've given Nokia any enduring advantage. Where's HTC now? Does anybody even remember it? With Windows at least there's another chance of being bailed out by Microsoft. It's probably the better choice for shareholders.

edgyquant 3y ago

I hope this is the truth, it would give me a little more faith in humanity than I currently have

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
The 4 board members still there are all pro-safety and alignment, so it seems likely.

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

Or was it that he's been seen trying to raise money for an AI chip startup to compete with Nvidia or was courting SoftBank for a multibillion-dollar investment in a new company to make AI-oriented hardware with Jony Ive? A lot of his current external activities could worry the board - and if he wasn't candid about future plans I can see why they might sack him.

steveBK123 3y ago
What's always incredible to me is how much "outside activity" is tolerated of tech CEOs. I get it, they are at the top, they make the rules, but wow. Even a lowly new grad engineer has to sign a lot of stuff when they take a job that forces essentially exclusivity to your work there. I cannot dabble in outside businesses within the same industry or adjacent industries. CEOs argue that their job is tough and many hours and life consuming and that's why they get the pay, and yet there is a whole genre of tech CEOs who try to CEO 5 companies at a time..
- fragmede 3y ago
  It's critical to know: where are you located? lowly new grad engineers, as well as senior architects, can't be covered in non-competes in California, as long as it's done on non-company hardewre. it's a large part of why California is so big for tech, and subject of a current front page discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38316870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38316870
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Employers can make provisions that you’re not allowed to moonlight in other positions. That’s distinct from non-competes, which are for your ability to change jobs entirely. The parent’s point is that tech CEOs are often permitted to work at multiple companies and engage in self-dealing in a way that’s prohibited for almost everyone else, including CEOs in other industries.
    - 3y ago

mi_lk 3y ago

This. VCs/tech bros are framing this as a coup except when you approach from this angle it all makes sense

mclightning 3y ago

PR move is in motion guys. Regulatory capture will be justified only through this new persona/identity the OpenAI will be dressed up in. I am not buying none of it. Only money and profit makes the mountains move. Not moral stature. I don't believe that optimistic take for a second. None with a moral stance to take such action stays quiet so long, without alternate motives.