9 ms·

Man, the board already looked reckless and incompetent, but this solidifies the appearance. You can do crazy ill-advised things, but if you unwaveringly commit,

Man, the board already looked reckless and incompetent, but this solidifies the appearance. You can do crazy ill-advised things, but if you unwaveringly commit, we’ll always wonder if you’re secretly a genius. But when you immediately backtrack, we’ll know you were a fool all along.

jstummbillig 3y ago
That seems a lot be better than doubling down on a bad mistake to save face, but we do care quite a bit about about looking strong, don't we.
- kmlevitt 3y ago
  Obviously it’s better to own up to a mistake right away. But the point is if they are willing to backtrack this quickly, it removes all doubt that it WAS a mistake, rather than us just not understanding their grand vision yet.
- caddemon 3y ago
  At longer timescales it is important to be able to recognize mistakes and reverse course, but this happened so fast I'm not sure that's the right characterization. There's no way they could already decide that firing Sam was a mistake based on the outcomes they claim to prioritize. Reversing course this quickly actually seems to me more like a reaction based directly on people's negative opinions, though it may be a specific pressure from Microsoft as well.
  - kelsey9876543 3y ago
    They got told they are getting every piece of hardware not on prem pulled and they can burn in legal hell trying to get it back if they dont fix it.
  - LightMachine 3y ago
    Based on reports of Microsoft's CEO being "furious", and the size of its legal team, I'd bet the people's reaction wasn't exactly the most relevant factor there...
- gkoberger 3y ago
  Not really. By reaching out to Sam this quickly, they're giving him significant leverage. I really like Sam, but everyone needs a counterbalance (especially given what's at stake). And if they were right to fire Sam, they're now reacting too quickly to negative backlash. 24 hours ago they thought this was the right move; the only change has been perception.
  - merpnderp 3y ago
    I’m sure Satya and his 10,000 Harvard lawyers with filed down shark teeth were just the first of many furious calls they took.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  24 hrs isn't enough time to get signals on whether this was a mistake
- wnevets 3y ago
  > That seems a lot be better than doubling down on a bad mistake to save face, but we do care quite a bit about about looking strong, don't we. IMO Its not about looking strong, its about looking competent. Competent people don't fire their CEO of multi-billion dollar unicorn without thinking it through first. Walking back the firing so soon suggest no thinking was involved.
- arisAlexis 3y ago
  How and why do you know it was a mistake without knowing the facts and reasoning? Hunch?
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Dude, everyone already thinks the board did a crazy ill-advised thing. They're about to be the board of like a 5 person or so company if they double down and commit. To be honest I hate takes like yours, where people think that acknowledging a mistake (even a giant mistake) is a sign of weakness. A bigger sign of weakness in my opinion is people who commit to a shitty idea just because they said it first, despite all evidence to the contrary.
- johnfn 3y ago
  > To be honest I hate takes like yours, where people think that acknowledging a mistake (even a giant mistake) is a sign of weakness. The weakness was the first decision; it’s already past the point of deciding if the board is a good steward of OpenAI or not. Sometimes backtracking can be a point of strength, yes, but in this case waffling just makes them look even dumber.
- skygazer 3y ago
  I’m not advocating people double down on stupid, or that correcting your mistakes is bad optics. I’m simply saying they’re “increasingly revealing” pre-existing unfitness at each ham-fisted step. I think our increase in knowledge of their foolishness is a good thing. And often correcting a situation isn’t the same as undoing it, because undoing is often not possible or has its own consequences. I do appreciate your willingness to let them grow into their responsibilities despite it all — that’s a rare charity extended to an incompetent board.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Yeah, I agree with that. I think the board has to have been genuinely surprised by the sheer blowback they're getting, i.e. not just Brockman quitting but lots of their other top engineering leaders. Regarding your last sentence, it's pretty obvious that if Altman comes back, the current board will effectively be neutered (it says as much in the article). So my guess is that they're more in "what do we do to save OpenAI as an organization" than saving their own roles.
- Aeolun 3y ago
eigenvalue 3y ago
They are already the dumbest board in history (even dumber than Apple’s board firing Steve Jobs). So it’s not out of keeping with anything. Besides, those 2 independent board members (who couldn’t do fizz-buzz if their lives depended on it) won’t be staying long if Sam returns— nor are they likely to ever serve on any board ever again after their shenanigans.
- spaceman_2020 3y ago
  Some of the board member choices are baffling. Like why is Joseph Gordon Levitt’s wife on the board? Her startup has under 10 employees and has a personal email address as the contact address on the homepage.
  - ivan_gammel 3y ago
    I guess you missed the part about Amal Clooney‘s husband at the Golden Globes. It’s 2023, why are we still referring people like that?
    - Taek 3y ago
      The insinuation is that her most notable accolade is the man she married and there are cases where that's an accurate insinuation. I have no idea who she is or what her accolades are, but I do know who JGL is and therefore referring to her like that is in fact useful to me, where using any other name is not.
      - ivan_gammel 3y ago
        Could you please elaborate how is this fact useful to you? Can it be that you just make certain stereotypical assumptions from it?
    - svnt 3y ago
      It was funny because with the Clooneys both of them have actually accomplished things in significant situations and it was clearly wrong. In this case this person seems to have primarily tried and failed to spin a robotics company out of Singularity “university” in 2012. This only sounds adjacent to AI if you work in Hollywood.
tbrownaw 3y ago
Option A: try to look good by hiding that you know you messed up Option B: try to fix mistakes as quickly as possible . This is that thing that somehow got the label "psychological safety" attached to it. Hiding mistakes is bad because it means they don't get fixed (and so systems that (do or appear to) set personal interest in favor of hiding mistakes are also bad).
- jaybrendansmith 3y ago
  It's funny, but option A is almost always best if you care about yourself, but option B is best if you care about the company or mission. Large organizations are chock-full of people who always choose option A. Small startups are better because option B is the only option as nothing can be easily hidden.
adrr 3y ago
If the board brings him back. They are done including the chief scientist. Can't stage a coup and just to bring the person back the next week
- pizzafeelsright 3y ago
  If you strike at the king, you must kill him. I am always curious how these conversations go in corporate America. I've seen them in the street and with blue collar jobs. Loads of feelings get hurt and people generally don't heal or forgive.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
asylteltine 3y ago
You don’t know the actual reasons for them firing Sam and I don’t either. Everyone has an opinion on something they don’t understand. For all you know, he covered up a massive security breach or lied about some skunkworks projects
- skygazer 3y ago
  If your “for all you know” supposition that he’s a criminal were correct, then it would be criminal to try to bring him back. In that unlikely case, I can assure you my opinion of the board is unlikely to improve. It may be a black box to us, but it does have outputs we can see and reason about.
lettergram 3y ago
How do you know they back tracked? This reporting, as far as I can see, doesn’t have a source from the board directly.
behnamoh 3y ago
> You can do crazy ill-advised things, but if you unwaveringly commit, we’ll always wonder if you’re secretly a genius. This. Some people even take it to the extreme and choose not to apologize for anything to look tough and smart.

jstummbillig 3y ago

That seems a lot be better than doubling down on a bad mistake to save face, but we do care quite a bit about about looking strong, don't we.

kmlevitt 3y ago
Obviously it’s better to own up to a mistake right away. But the point is if they are willing to backtrack this quickly, it removes all doubt that it WAS a mistake, rather than us just not understanding their grand vision yet.
caddemon 3y ago
At longer timescales it is important to be able to recognize mistakes and reverse course, but this happened so fast I'm not sure that's the right characterization. There's no way they could already decide that firing Sam was a mistake based on the outcomes they claim to prioritize. Reversing course this quickly actually seems to me more like a reaction based directly on people's negative opinions, though it may be a specific pressure from Microsoft as well.
- kelsey9876543 3y ago
  They got told they are getting every piece of hardware not on prem pulled and they can burn in legal hell trying to get it back if they dont fix it.
- LightMachine 3y ago
  Based on reports of Microsoft's CEO being "furious", and the size of its legal team, I'd bet the people's reaction wasn't exactly the most relevant factor there...
gkoberger 3y ago
Not really. By reaching out to Sam this quickly, they're giving him significant leverage. I really like Sam, but everyone needs a counterbalance (especially given what's at stake). And if they were right to fire Sam, they're now reacting too quickly to negative backlash. 24 hours ago they thought this was the right move; the only change has been perception.
- merpnderp 3y ago
  I’m sure Satya and his 10,000 Harvard lawyers with filed down shark teeth were just the first of many furious calls they took.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
24 hrs isn't enough time to get signals on whether this was a mistake
wnevets 3y ago
> That seems a lot be better than doubling down on a bad mistake to save face, but we do care quite a bit about about looking strong, don't we. IMO Its not about looking strong, its about looking competent. Competent people don't fire their CEO of multi-billion dollar unicorn without thinking it through first. Walking back the firing so soon suggest no thinking was involved.
arisAlexis 3y ago
How and why do you know it was a mistake without knowing the facts and reasoning? Hunch?

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

Dude, everyone already thinks the board did a crazy ill-advised thing. They're about to be the board of like a 5 person or so company if they double down and commit. To be honest I hate takes like yours, where people think that acknowledging a mistake (even a giant mistake) is a sign of weakness. A bigger sign of weakness in my opinion is people who commit to a shitty idea just because they said it first, despite all evidence to the contrary.

johnfn 3y ago
> To be honest I hate takes like yours, where people think that acknowledging a mistake (even a giant mistake) is a sign of weakness. The weakness was the first decision; it’s already past the point of deciding if the board is a good steward of OpenAI or not. Sometimes backtracking can be a point of strength, yes, but in this case waffling just makes them look even dumber.
skygazer 3y ago
I’m not advocating people double down on stupid, or that correcting your mistakes is bad optics. I’m simply saying they’re “increasingly revealing” pre-existing unfitness at each ham-fisted step. I think our increase in knowledge of their foolishness is a good thing. And often correcting a situation isn’t the same as undoing it, because undoing is often not possible or has its own consequences. I do appreciate your willingness to let them grow into their responsibilities despite it all — that’s a rare charity extended to an incompetent board.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Yeah, I agree with that. I think the board has to have been genuinely surprised by the sheer blowback they're getting, i.e. not just Brockman quitting but lots of their other top engineering leaders. Regarding your last sentence, it's pretty obvious that if Altman comes back, the current board will effectively be neutered (it says as much in the article). So my guess is that they're more in "what do we do to save OpenAI as an organization" than saving their own roles.
Aeolun 3y ago

eigenvalue 3y ago

They are already the dumbest board in history (even dumber than Apple’s board firing Steve Jobs). So it’s not out of keeping with anything. Besides, those 2 independent board members (who couldn’t do fizz-buzz if their lives depended on it) won’t be staying long if Sam returns— nor are they likely to ever serve on any board ever again after their shenanigans.

spaceman_2020 3y ago
Some of the board member choices are baffling. Like why is Joseph Gordon Levitt’s wife on the board? Her startup has under 10 employees and has a personal email address as the contact address on the homepage.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  I guess you missed the part about Amal Clooney‘s husband at the Golden Globes. It’s 2023, why are we still referring people like that?
  - Taek 3y ago
    The insinuation is that her most notable accolade is the man she married and there are cases where that's an accurate insinuation. I have no idea who she is or what her accolades are, but I do know who JGL is and therefore referring to her like that is in fact useful to me, where using any other name is not.
    - ivan_gammel 3y ago
      Could you please elaborate how is this fact useful to you? Can it be that you just make certain stereotypical assumptions from it?
  - svnt 3y ago
    It was funny because with the Clooneys both of them have actually accomplished things in significant situations and it was clearly wrong. In this case this person seems to have primarily tried and failed to spin a robotics company out of Singularity “university” in 2012. This only sounds adjacent to AI if you work in Hollywood.

tbrownaw 3y ago

Option A: try to look good by hiding that you know you messed up Option B: try to fix mistakes as quickly as possible . This is that thing that somehow got the label "psychological safety" attached to it. Hiding mistakes is bad because it means they don't get fixed (and so systems that (do or appear to) set personal interest in favor of hiding mistakes are also bad).

jaybrendansmith 3y ago
It's funny, but option A is almost always best if you care about yourself, but option B is best if you care about the company or mission. Large organizations are chock-full of people who always choose option A. Small startups are better because option B is the only option as nothing can be easily hidden.

adrr 3y ago

If the board brings him back. They are done including the chief scientist. Can't stage a coup and just to bring the person back the next week

pizzafeelsright 3y ago
If you strike at the king, you must kill him. I am always curious how these conversations go in corporate America. I've seen them in the street and with blue collar jobs. Loads of feelings get hurt and people generally don't heal or forgive.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

asylteltine 3y ago

You don’t know the actual reasons for them firing Sam and I don’t either. Everyone has an opinion on something they don’t understand. For all you know, he covered up a massive security breach or lied about some skunkworks projects

skygazer 3y ago
If your “for all you know” supposition that he’s a criminal were correct, then it would be criminal to try to bring him back. In that unlikely case, I can assure you my opinion of the board is unlikely to improve. It may be a black box to us, but it does have outputs we can see and reason about.

lettergram 3y ago

How do you know they back tracked? This reporting, as far as I can see, doesn’t have a source from the board directly.

behnamoh 3y ago

> You can do crazy ill-advised things, but if you unwaveringly commit, we’ll always wonder if you’re secretly a genius. This. Some people even take it to the extreme and choose not to apologize for anything to look tough and smart.