5 ms·

Ask HN: How much of OpenAI narrative is Team Altman driving?

16 points by xivzgrev 3y ago

Looking at how the narrative is playing out, it’s playing perfectly for Sam -make the board look incompetent (going fourth string for interim CEO, attempting a merger with competitor, flimsy reasons given for firing) -get a viable alternative (Microsoft offering to hire everyone) -get open AI to unify (employees signing petition, including ilya eating crow in front of the world) It’s playing beautifully for him and I’m just left wondering how much of this is him / his team effectiveness at controlling narrative vs people acting relatively independently and in their own self interest As someone else pointed out there’s huge opps the board is missing -new CEO grabbing bull by the balls, reassuring employees and partners and leading away from the path of Sam -board reassuring the same -sharing real reasons why Sam was let go -anti Sam campaign (if he deserved this surely there are credible people to testify to it) They lost the initiative and now I don’t see how the board gets out of this pickle

beeyaw 3y ago
> I don’t see how the board gets out of this pickle They just hold steady. Nothing to gain by backing down. OpenAI employees were calling people at 1am and forcing them to sign the letter. Classic peer pressure, it doesn't mean support, it means keeping your options open, and they won't all leave. Nobody knows what's gonna happen but they might attract new talent which isn't aligned with Sam and would lose a lot by being public right now. It's been less than 48 hours, Sam and allies are running wild with their playbook, but I will wait a bit longer to see if the board has anything to say.
- minimaxir 3y ago
  >90% support is more than "peer pressure."
  - beeyaw 3y ago
    I think most people would sign when so many are doing it already. Lots to lose by not doing it.
    - brookst 3y ago
      So if 10% sign it’s meaningless, and if 90% sign it’s meaningless?
      - beeyaw 3y ago
        You can choose the meaning for yourself. As for me, anything less than 100% is very surprising. Anyone who does not sign now is choosing to be brave and stand against all of their coworkers. Just like if 0 people post public angry messages on Twitter about the CEO, it is meaningless. But if 5 people post, it is meaningful. Even if 100% sign this letter, it is meaningless. But if 5 people do not sign, it is meaningful.
        brookst 3y ago
        I think you're overestimating pressure and desire for conformity in a startup like OpenAI. People are working hard and largely committed to the project. There are no black-clad priests going cube to cube ensuring ideological compliance. Nobody is compiling lists of who failed to sign. If that's what you're thinking, it may be a sign of your own biases and how you'd act in a similar situation.
- recovery_mode 3y ago
  Yea, this is a good take. The letter is truly nothing more than a bluff, and an embarassing one at that. For one, all it promises is that the undersigned 'may' resign. Why wouldn't someone sign it, especially if they fear retaliation? Meanwhile, apparently most of OpenAI cares more about following Sam, even if it leads into the arms of the beast itself, than their original mission of ensuring AI would benefit all of humanity.
  - gardenhedge 3y ago
    Yeah, it probably feels like you need to sign it if you want a job at MS. Otherwise you might end up with no job and your mortgage still needs to be paid.
  - nopromisessir 3y ago
    [dead]
- nopromisessir 3y ago
  [dead]
user_named 3y ago
99%
recovery_mode 3y ago
To answer your question, basically all of the current narrative has been driven by Sam and his followers, and whatever else happens, it's been a sickening confirmation of the fears the board had when they fired Sam to begin with. Sam Altman is not capable of honoring the original mission of OpenAI; to ensure AI benefits all of humanity. Sam Altman is only concerned with benefitting himself, and those that are loyal to him. We all saw it, the false deadlines, the endless media pressure outside the company, the pressure inside the company to make everyone sign some worthless letter before all the facts had time to come out. Still, the board still has a winning move; just wait it out. In time, cooler heads will prevail. Look, we still don't know where this is all going, but even what we do know is concerning. This article captures some of the nuance in this situation: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-20/column-openais-board-had-safety-concerns-big-tech-obliterated-them-in-48-hours https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-20... Specifically, the shady dealings with Saudi Arabia, and Sam's pattern of lying and manipulation(See https://www.newcomer.co/p/give-openais-board-some-time-the https://www.newcomer.co/p/give-openais-board-some-time-the for more details). And I think this is why the board's job is so tough. There isn't a smoking gun here. Rather, Sam's vision for OpenAI is much different from the board's. The board believes in their mission, to ensure AI benefits all of humanity. Meanwhile, Sam has been treating OpenAI like yet another startup, the exact thing OpenAI was founded to counter. We'll get the full details in time, but my guess is we're going to hear about a gradual breakdown in communication, sleight lies, omissions, and half truths, all of which impeded the boards ability to oversee the for-profit company, and thus caused them to lose trust in Sam's ability to lead. I guess the alternative is to believe that 4 rational human beings colluded, risking their lives and integrity to oust Sam from OpenAI. Maybe that is what happened? Ilya certainly didn't mind backtracking when he saw the cost of the cure, but he's a smart guy, he didn't just side with the board because they tricked him. Based on everything I've read about Sam, I think it's just as likely he played fast and loose, and got burned in the process.
- nopromisessir 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - 3y ago
android521 3y ago
look, it is simple. Adam was not happy when poe AI was killed on dev day. He manipulated Ilya on his vulnerable ideology and then possibly secretly paid some good money to other board members to buy them in(they didn't get any shares from being on the board and it is a lot of money at stake). Now Adam is king.
- nopromisessir 3y ago
  [dead]
dangerface 3y ago
> new CEO grabbing bull by the balls, reassuring employees and partners and leading away from the path of Sam I mean they did that and then fired her like 24 hours later. I think the board just looks massively incompetent because they are. Even if them firing Sam was fair, they handled it and the aftermath with a complete lack of communication or a plan. It demonstrates on its own that they are not up to the task of ensuring public transparency and accountability. I wouldn't want them overseeing a piss up at a brewery never mind skynet.

nopromisessir 3y ago
'Sam Altman is only concerned with benefitting himself, and those that are loyal to him.' The comment I responded to is in agregious breach of the rules. Altman has a well established reputation as a person with a deep commitment to mission and concern for the wellbeing of his team. I acknowledge your reminder about the site guidelines. However, the comment I responded to was so egregiously unfair and baseless that it called for a strong response to counter an unsubstantiated and harmful accusation. In cases like this, a firm rebuke can be a vital part of healthy community discourse, serving to discourage baseless character attacks and uphold a standard of integrity. While parts of my comment certainly strayed well outside of the guidelines, the specific line you mentioned was, in my view, not a violation but a necessary response to uphold community values against unwarranted defamation. Pointing out that a person should be ashamed for a baseless attack on character does not discredit a broad argument. It demonstrates conviction. I think many would agree this is.warranted in many cases. If character attacks are not going to be moderated, it's hard to reasonably expect to not see this kind of response surface. I believe there's a long tradition in most societies that when a person's character is attacked in a public forum, a response should be expected and is fair discourse within certain bounds.
- dang 3y ago
  Users here (you, me, and everyone else!) need to follow the rules regardless of how badly someone else has broken them. Everyone always feels like the other person started it and did worse—this is a human feeling—but acting on that feeling guarantees a downward spiral and we need to avoid that at all costs (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=downward%20spiral%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). I often put it this way: "Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse." https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Please%20don%27t%20respond%20to%20a%20bad%20comment%20by%20breaking%20the%20site%20guidelines%20yourself&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - nopromisessir 3y ago
    I stand by my position with respect to the necessity for character assassination to be confronted forcefully. I also intend to better respect the sites rules going forward. I never offered excuse for my behavior. Only context.

Adrig 3y ago

This makes sense, but why can I only find this opinion in a HN comment? Why isn't the board explicit and owning this position? Why the "research faction" was radio silent? It would shift the debate around 2 opposing views for the future of AI, not who's incompetent.

0xEF 3y ago
I was wondering this, myself. I think there's a two-fold reason for this, but please take the following opinion as just an opinion from where I'm standing. 1. We don't usually side with The Board™ in these types of stories. Company boards are typically, from an outside perspective, in place to protect the interests of shareholders, which in turn are typically viewed as profit-seeking puppet masters. This is such a meme that it makes it into our tv shows and movies regularly, further reinforcing the belief that The Board™ = Evil. A story where the board is actually trying to uphold some ethical stance as a core value is foreign to the accepted and collective understand of how things work. 2. Sam Altman, much like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, has an army of sycophants at his disposal, and understands how to use them. We forget that people get swept up in the magic and promise of someone else's perceived "genius" regardless of our intelligence. Being human, we want a savior or role model of sorts to stand behind, and further being human, we're willing to gaslight ourselves about such a person, ignore their questionable aspects, and get pretty irrational about our devotion to their cause. This is not exclusive to people with less education or whatever, but something we all do to some degree, and people like Sam understand this. So, his narrative gets a much much louder shout while also appearing to evade any real scrutiny. In the end, we may have become so negative in our worldview that we are collectively subject to these kinds of cognitive traps, which is disturbing in and of itself. Again, just my opinion as to why the audience seems to not be on the "The board is the good guy!" train.
MaxHoppersGhost 3y ago
I think the board is so in over their head they don't know what to do and are running scared. The whole reason they got into this mess is because they didn't know what they were doing, so they definitely won't be able to dig out of it without some help.