15 ms·

> I cannot think of a single facet of their day-to-day operations, product roadmap, competitive position, etc. that would be improved by this decision. This is

by CPLX 3y ago

> I cannot think of a single facet of their day-to-day operations, product roadmap, competitive position, etc. that would be improved by this decision. This is a genuine question, can anyone explain to me what the actual value of San Altman is? I don’t know anything about the guy except the core public outline of his career but I find his timeline confusing. He founded Loopt which by all accounts was unremarkable. Then he ran YC during a period where at best you can say it didn’t get wrecked, though it seems to have lost focus and influence. He left YC in a situation that seems similarly abrupt minus the PR drama which was kept completely under wraps. Then OpenAI which is a genuinely impressive organization but by now he’s been in personal conflict with basically everyone involved and doesn’t seem to have been a driver of the actual technology. Other than that there’s world coin which is a total grift at best and dystopian at worst. And stuff like Bohemian Grove or whatever. With all that said I don’t have a personal opinion just observing the broad strokes and trying to figure out how exactly he ended up some kind of kingpin.

jacquesm 3y ago
> can anyone explain to me what the actual value of San Altman is Weird as it may seem: that's not all that important. What is important is that the rest of the world sees OpenAI as a mature and stable organization and that image has now been seriously damaged. Even if they wanted to fire Sam there must have been a dozen ways in which that could have been done more effectively and without this much damage to the OpenAI brand. It's almost comical, they were on track to outrun Google and Facebook combined and now they're on track to be an also-ran. You can expect a large number of resignations because no matter what you think of Sam Altman you want to work for a company that is mature and stable, not one where execs are replaced on a moments notice on a clear and sunny day without a direct and clear cause.
- CPLX 3y ago
  > they were on track to outrun Google and Facebook combined But what if they don’t want that. Those are rapacious and malevolent organizations. Regardless, even if that is the goal what’s the evidence Altman is the right guy for that? It’s not like he’s done that before. The relationship between his stature and his track record is the part that’s confusing me.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    They are. But who is 'they'? The board? The shareholders of the for-profit? The rest of the people working there? And if the board wanted the company to be a pure research organization they should have acted much, much earlier, and the company probably should not have hired Sam Altman in the first place but someone like Geoffrey Hinton or another respected name from academia, provided they would be available in the first place.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      > And if the board wanted the company to be a pure research organization they should have acted much, much earlier I mean sure. But if true that’s hardly an argument for why they shouldn’t do it now as the stakes grow increasingly higher.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Agreed, but then they did it in the worst possible way. You don't create a crisis around your brand like this on purpose. Much better to get everybody to play along and make it look as if Sam really wanted to spend more time with his family. Short of a cold body in his freezer this was done carelessly. But let's wait and see how it all develops because it is more than just a little strange to see it play out like this without a good enough reason for the haste, if it turns out there wasn't I expect the board to be axed.
        CPLX 3y ago
        > I expect the board to be axed By whom?
        jacquesm 3y ago
        It could be as simple as using the bylaws as the chair of the board to point out a violation of the bylaws. It all depends, but at the end of the day board members that try to cling to their seats usually fail to do so. Ultimately their position could be challenged in court but most board members of non-profits are not that anxious to see their reputation destroyed that they'll let that be the deciding factor. Either way, normally you'd have a pre-written resignation letter drafted where the only thing missing is their signature, and you'd confront them in a meeting: resign voluntarily or we'll put your continued presence up for a vote at the next board meeting. Of course the board could try to eternally vote itself back in but that usually doesn't work because a board has to be able to serve in its oversight role and one part of that is that the board has to have broad support, both legally and from within the organization. For instance: the board might no longer be able to find a CEO that is acceptable to the rest of the C-level. That would be a major problem. Corporate governance is hard, non-profits have a bunch more twists but in the end nobody's position is carved in stone. Note that even non-profits have bylaws and these usually detail clearly how board members are to be proposed and what the procedure is to get them to become established as well as how they can be removed. If it can be proven that a board member has acted against the interests of the legal entity they represent then they usually can be removed even easier because that's a clear conflict with the statues of the non-profit, then there are potential conflicts of interest (for instance sitting on the board of another entity that has goals that are not compatible with those of the non-profit).
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > this much damage to the OpenAI brand Can you quantify and specify the brand damage? I only see some possible damage to current and possible future employee morale (in that some of them are quitting and others may be less inclined to take a job there). Do you see this as seriously affecting relationships with companies such as Microsoft? With end-users?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > Do you see this as seriously affecting relationships with companies such as Microsoft? With end-users? Absolutely. If there isn't a very good reason why they did this in this way then I fully expect the board to be replaced.
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      Who is going to be replacing the board? Who has that authority?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Depending on how the bylaws are put together: the donors, the beneficiaries, the employees of the non-profit and any other stakeholders. Any of those acting alone or in concert could petition a court if the board doesn't voluntarily resign. And if the board split on this issue is a close one then that might happen easier.
        bbor 3y ago
        I find the idea that some random court filing would succeed in recalling the board of the most high profile technology company in the world, based on “we felt that they were brusque and unprofessional”, to be very unlikely. I mean, MAYBE if some of them started going to prison, but otherwise… this seems like the realm of politics more than court proceedings. But maybe I’m missing some precedents?
        3y ago
karmasimida 3y ago
Being leader himself is the value, first and foremost. It is like saying Jobs doesn’t make iPhone, so he is not useful either. I don’t like the Sam is the new Jobs narrative but here it fits. OpenAI is no small company now, it needs a head to pull itself in a single string. In real world, power or trust goes to the person people who actually trusts. A manager isn’t a manager just by calling oneself manager. Without trust, people will find or form other decision centers around them. The result is execution became watered down or outright not being executed. That is how I see the value those high level executives really offer. They are the center of trust and accountability. If people trust them, people beneath him will make sure things happen fast and hold themselves accountable. On the other hand, you just end up with an ineffective company
- CPLX 3y ago
  Yeah I get the concept. But this guy didn’t launch the first viable personal computer from a garage he made Loopt and then has been aggressively promoted ever since. He’s run exactly two impressive organizations, wasn’t the rainmaker at either, and left both somewhat abruptly. I don’t quite get it.

by CPLX 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago

> can anyone explain to me what the actual value of San Altman is Weird as it may seem: that's not all that important. What is important is that the rest of the world sees OpenAI as a mature and stable organization and that image has now been seriously damaged. Even if they wanted to fire Sam there must have been a dozen ways in which that could have been done more effectively and without this much damage to the OpenAI brand. It's almost comical, they were on track to outrun Google and Facebook combined and now they're on track to be an also-ran. You can expect a large number of resignations because no matter what you think of Sam Altman you want to work for a company that is mature and stable, not one where execs are replaced on a moments notice on a clear and sunny day without a direct and clear cause.

CPLX 3y ago
> they were on track to outrun Google and Facebook combined But what if they don’t want that. Those are rapacious and malevolent organizations. Regardless, even if that is the goal what’s the evidence Altman is the right guy for that? It’s not like he’s done that before. The relationship between his stature and his track record is the part that’s confusing me.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  They are. But who is 'they'? The board? The shareholders of the for-profit? The rest of the people working there? And if the board wanted the company to be a pure research organization they should have acted much, much earlier, and the company probably should not have hired Sam Altman in the first place but someone like Geoffrey Hinton or another respected name from academia, provided they would be available in the first place.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    > And if the board wanted the company to be a pure research organization they should have acted much, much earlier I mean sure. But if true that’s hardly an argument for why they shouldn’t do it now as the stakes grow increasingly higher.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Agreed, but then they did it in the worst possible way. You don't create a crisis around your brand like this on purpose. Much better to get everybody to play along and make it look as if Sam really wanted to spend more time with his family. Short of a cold body in his freezer this was done carelessly. But let's wait and see how it all develops because it is more than just a little strange to see it play out like this without a good enough reason for the haste, if it turns out there wasn't I expect the board to be axed.
      - CPLX 3y ago
        > I expect the board to be axed By whom?
        jacquesm 3y ago
        It could be as simple as using the bylaws as the chair of the board to point out a violation of the bylaws. It all depends, but at the end of the day board members that try to cling to their seats usually fail to do so. Ultimately their position could be challenged in court but most board members of non-profits are not that anxious to see their reputation destroyed that they'll let that be the deciding factor. Either way, normally you'd have a pre-written resignation letter drafted where the only thing missing is their signature, and you'd confront them in a meeting: resign voluntarily or we'll put your continued presence up for a vote at the next board meeting. Of course the board could try to eternally vote itself back in but that usually doesn't work because a board has to be able to serve in its oversight role and one part of that is that the board has to have broad support, both legally and from within the organization. For instance: the board might no longer be able to find a CEO that is acceptable to the rest of the C-level. That would be a major problem. Corporate governance is hard, non-profits have a bunch more twists but in the end nobody's position is carved in stone. Note that even non-profits have bylaws and these usually detail clearly how board members are to be proposed and what the procedure is to get them to become established as well as how they can be removed. If it can be proven that a board member has acted against the interests of the legal entity they represent then they usually can be removed even easier because that's a clear conflict with the statues of the non-profit, then there are potential conflicts of interest (for instance sitting on the board of another entity that has goals that are not compatible with those of the non-profit).
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> this much damage to the OpenAI brand Can you quantify and specify the brand damage? I only see some possible damage to current and possible future employee morale (in that some of them are quitting and others may be less inclined to take a job there). Do you see this as seriously affecting relationships with companies such as Microsoft? With end-users?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > Do you see this as seriously affecting relationships with companies such as Microsoft? With end-users? Absolutely. If there isn't a very good reason why they did this in this way then I fully expect the board to be replaced.
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    Who is going to be replacing the board? Who has that authority?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Depending on how the bylaws are put together: the donors, the beneficiaries, the employees of the non-profit and any other stakeholders. Any of those acting alone or in concert could petition a court if the board doesn't voluntarily resign. And if the board split on this issue is a close one then that might happen easier.
      - bbor 3y ago
        I find the idea that some random court filing would succeed in recalling the board of the most high profile technology company in the world, based on “we felt that they were brusque and unprofessional”, to be very unlikely. I mean, MAYBE if some of them started going to prison, but otherwise… this seems like the realm of politics more than court proceedings. But maybe I’m missing some precedents?
        3y ago

karmasimida 3y ago

Being leader himself is the value, first and foremost. It is like saying Jobs doesn’t make iPhone, so he is not useful either. I don’t like the Sam is the new Jobs narrative but here it fits. OpenAI is no small company now, it needs a head to pull itself in a single string. In real world, power or trust goes to the person people who actually trusts. A manager isn’t a manager just by calling oneself manager. Without trust, people will find or form other decision centers around them. The result is execution became watered down or outright not being executed. That is how I see the value those high level executives really offer. They are the center of trust and accountability. If people trust them, people beneath him will make sure things happen fast and hold themselves accountable. On the other hand, you just end up with an ineffective company

CPLX 3y ago
Yeah I get the concept. But this guy didn’t launch the first viable personal computer from a garage he made Loopt and then has been aggressively promoted ever since. He’s run exactly two impressive organizations, wasn’t the rainmaker at either, and left both somewhat abruptly. I don’t quite get it.