4 ms·

I think this will ultimately be good for everyone, however I can imagine there’s a huge populace of OpenAI employees hoping this was a get rich quick route and

I think this will ultimately be good for everyone, however I can imagine there’s a huge populace of OpenAI employees hoping this was a get rich quick route and are rethinking that. I know OpenAI has a different structure for reward than typical equity, but there had to be the thought this was going to be bigger than Apple and Google combined and there would be legions of billionaires in the making. If I were one of them, I would be seriously thinking about how to value my future at OpenAI.

almost_usual 3y ago
Brought this up in another thread and was downvoted. But yes the 900k compensation package was probably more than 600k PPU equity which is worth who knows what now. https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html Only a few days ago there was a post here about them poaching researchers with “10M” equity compensation packages.. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38258406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38258406
- lumost 3y ago
  This could yield a lawsuit at some point if those PPUs are worthless due to the board refusing to allow profits…
  - almost_usual 3y ago
    Right, PPUs are worthless until profitability but the board doesn’t want to be profitable?
    - lumost 3y ago
      I don’t believe offering PPUs as compensation when you intend never to be profitable is entirely legal
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        For a salaried position where the base salary is above the legal minimum salary for wage & hour exemption, I don't see what the legal problem would be.
        junofan 3y ago
        Tortious interference? It’s pretty textbook right?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Tortious interference? How? > It’s pretty textbook right? No? Offering a compensation package can't be tortious interference, tortious interference requires an existing contract, and action by a third party that (along with a whole bunch of other conditions) causes a breach of that contract.
        junofan 3y ago
        Well, you have to specify a jurisdiction. Let’s go with California since that’s where a lot of OpenAI’s employees are. Here’s what you need: 1. an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to plaintiff; 2. the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship; 3. the defendant was negligent; 4. and such negligence caused damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship It’s pretty open and shut, no?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Yes, its open and shut that offering a compensation package doesn't mean that, starting with #1. And you can't make that case with the later decision by the nonprofit board (even if one assumes that an entity that has complete control of a party can even count as a "third party" for tortious interference rather than just being a source of breach of contract if it actually induces a breach), because the OpenAI Global LLC operating agreement expressly sets this out as normal, so there is no reasonable expected benefit of the relationship that is being interfered with. If OpenAI Global LLC offered its employees the PIU/PPU as compensation but did not disclose (or, a fortiori, actively concealed), you could make a case for fairly simple fraud. But tortious interference is just not a tort that works here.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > This could yield a lawsuit at some point if those PPUs are worthless due to the board refusing to allow profits… A lawsuit based on what? The OpenAI Global LLC operating agreement has a prominent notice... https://images.openai.com/blob/142770fb-3df2-45d9-9ee3-7aa069acada1/image1.png https://images.openai.com/blob/142770fb-3df2-45d9-9ee3-7aa06... from https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure
    - almost_usual 3y ago
      OpenAI recruits employees based on equity packages that will not amount to anything based on their operating agreement. Live and learn I guess.
shinryuu 3y ago
I'm sure they are pretty well paid either way. It's not like they would easily be able to go to another company and get better paid?
rbera 3y ago
Good. Considering they’re already getting millions in comp, I’d rather have people working on AGI that aren’t in it solely for the money. And it’s not like Cohere or Sam’s next company won’t be trying to poach researchers anyway, but at least one company (OpenAI) isn’t going for profit for sure now.
realce 3y ago
I hear Cyberdyne is hiring if that's your attitude about creating AGI.
zeven7 3y ago
And now Sam is free to start another company which is incentivized by profit, giving him the ability to easily gobble up the part of the talent at OpenAI that was hoping for that.
- cmcaleer 3y ago
  Or he gets to return to OpenAI and have a Steve Jobs style cull of the board. Either way as someone who enjoys the drama I’m stoked.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  Why do so many people buy into this belief that Sam Altman was the special sauce in OpenAI?
  - cmcaleer 3y ago
    Is there a compelling narrative to think that he wasn’t useful?
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      His title: CEO
  - zeven7 3y ago
    He’s not the only one. But at least 4 top people have already left because of him leaving. He can clearly take people with him. That’s the comment you’re responding to. His power isn’t him alone. It’s everyone he brings with him.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ChildOfChaos 3y ago
Really? I'd be way more inclined to be pessimistic about it. OpenAI is massively ahead of anyone else in the AI space, anything that shows problems in the organisation seems like it could set us back massively in the development of AI. Several key people at OpenAI have also resigned, including Greg Brockman who was removed from the board but told he was too important so would remain in his other roles, he also tweeted not to worry bigger things are coming. If Sam breaks away and does something else in this space, I can see others joining him and although competition is deathly, I feel like it is just going to fracture our AI developments, everyone is trying to catch up with OpenAI, any new company would be starting from scratch and be years away from anything useful while also leaving OpenAI a shell of it's former self. Hopefully not the start of bigger issues at openAI.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  A flip side, AI development fragmentation will mean many more techniques are tried and know how diffuses into a much broader market. This has the likelihood of greatly accelerating everything. Further, by lopping off the top of OpenAI you create space for new people to grow and learn and lead. In the very short term it’s disruptive. In the medium and long term it’s probably a wonderful thing to soften the ground a bit and let competition take hold.

almost_usual 3y ago

Brought this up in another thread and was downvoted. But yes the 900k compensation package was probably more than 600k PPU equity which is worth who knows what now. https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html Only a few days ago there was a post here about them poaching researchers with “10M” equity compensation packages.. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38258406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38258406

lumost 3y ago
This could yield a lawsuit at some point if those PPUs are worthless due to the board refusing to allow profits…
- almost_usual 3y ago
  Right, PPUs are worthless until profitability but the board doesn’t want to be profitable?
  - lumost 3y ago
    I don’t believe offering PPUs as compensation when you intend never to be profitable is entirely legal
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      For a salaried position where the base salary is above the legal minimum salary for wage & hour exemption, I don't see what the legal problem would be.
      - junofan 3y ago
        Tortious interference? It’s pretty textbook right?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Tortious interference? How? > It’s pretty textbook right? No? Offering a compensation package can't be tortious interference, tortious interference requires an existing contract, and action by a third party that (along with a whole bunch of other conditions) causes a breach of that contract.
        junofan 3y ago
        Well, you have to specify a jurisdiction. Let’s go with California since that’s where a lot of OpenAI’s employees are. Here’s what you need: 1. an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to plaintiff; 2. the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship; 3. the defendant was negligent; 4. and such negligence caused damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship It’s pretty open and shut, no?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Yes, its open and shut that offering a compensation package doesn't mean that, starting with #1. And you can't make that case with the later decision by the nonprofit board (even if one assumes that an entity that has complete control of a party can even count as a "third party" for tortious interference rather than just being a source of breach of contract if it actually induces a breach), because the OpenAI Global LLC operating agreement expressly sets this out as normal, so there is no reasonable expected benefit of the relationship that is being interfered with. If OpenAI Global LLC offered its employees the PIU/PPU as compensation but did not disclose (or, a fortiori, actively concealed), you could make a case for fairly simple fraud. But tortious interference is just not a tort that works here.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > This could yield a lawsuit at some point if those PPUs are worthless due to the board refusing to allow profits… A lawsuit based on what? The OpenAI Global LLC operating agreement has a prominent notice... https://images.openai.com/blob/142770fb-3df2-45d9-9ee3-7aa069acada1/image1.png https://images.openai.com/blob/142770fb-3df2-45d9-9ee3-7aa06... from https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure
  - almost_usual 3y ago
    OpenAI recruits employees based on equity packages that will not amount to anything based on their operating agreement. Live and learn I guess.

shinryuu 3y ago

I'm sure they are pretty well paid either way. It's not like they would easily be able to go to another company and get better paid?

rbera 3y ago

Good. Considering they’re already getting millions in comp, I’d rather have people working on AGI that aren’t in it solely for the money. And it’s not like Cohere or Sam’s next company won’t be trying to poach researchers anyway, but at least one company (OpenAI) isn’t going for profit for sure now.

realce 3y ago

I hear Cyberdyne is hiring if that's your attitude about creating AGI.

zeven7 3y ago

And now Sam is free to start another company which is incentivized by profit, giving him the ability to easily gobble up the part of the talent at OpenAI that was hoping for that.

cmcaleer 3y ago
Or he gets to return to OpenAI and have a Steve Jobs style cull of the board. Either way as someone who enjoys the drama I’m stoked.
p_j_w 3y ago
Why do so many people buy into this belief that Sam Altman was the special sauce in OpenAI?
- cmcaleer 3y ago
  Is there a compelling narrative to think that he wasn’t useful?
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    His title: CEO
- zeven7 3y ago
  He’s not the only one. But at least 4 top people have already left because of him leaving. He can clearly take people with him. That’s the comment you’re responding to. His power isn’t him alone. It’s everyone he brings with him.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ChildOfChaos 3y ago

Really? I'd be way more inclined to be pessimistic about it. OpenAI is massively ahead of anyone else in the AI space, anything that shows problems in the organisation seems like it could set us back massively in the development of AI. Several key people at OpenAI have also resigned, including Greg Brockman who was removed from the board but told he was too important so would remain in his other roles, he also tweeted not to worry bigger things are coming. If Sam breaks away and does something else in this space, I can see others joining him and although competition is deathly, I feel like it is just going to fracture our AI developments, everyone is trying to catch up with OpenAI, any new company would be starting from scratch and be years away from anything useful while also leaving OpenAI a shell of it's former self. Hopefully not the start of bigger issues at openAI.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
A flip side, AI development fragmentation will mean many more techniques are tried and know how diffuses into a much broader market. This has the likelihood of greatly accelerating everything. Further, by lopping off the top of OpenAI you create space for new people to grow and learn and lead. In the very short term it’s disruptive. In the medium and long term it’s probably a wonderful thing to soften the ground a bit and let competition take hold.