4 ms·

97% of OpenAI's employees? You can probably find dozens if not hundreds of active users on this site you are using, who have at some point crossed paths with Sa

97% of OpenAI's employees? You can probably find dozens if not hundreds of active users on this site you are using, who have at some point crossed paths with Sam, given his involvement in building YC. Haven't there already been data points relating their positive views of Altman? It is a datapoint. It's not the only datapoint.

corethree 3y ago
[flagged]
- ilikehurdles 3y ago
  I think if you truly believed you were as in the dark as you admit you are, you wouldn't have jumped to conclusions about this affair as early as you did.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Bro. Literally We do not have an honest statement about the details of WHY he's fired. We are all in the dark. The logical answer is to be neutral. But everyone is exploding and thinking the board is full of mentally retarded simpletons. Like seriously. Tell me which is more likely? That the board is mentally retarded or that there's some reasoning here that we don't know about? HN is a mob. And I like the mobs take: The entire board of several people is coincidentally ALL mentally retarded and we should make them all resign. That's clearly the most rational and most likely analysis of what happened here.
    - ilikehurdles 3y ago
      You're inferring a lot from my comment, a lot that isn't there and wouldn't be there. You're also straw-manning rationalize your position: that you've been right for 2+ days that Sam Altman is an evil "clout chasing" tech bro who was going to oust the board but thankfully the ethical good people got to him first, because the only alternative everyone else is proposing is that the board is... "ALL mentally retarded", and this is impossible (I agree there). There are other possibilities and I don't think some hn mob is taking the position you say they are. Again, my point is you admit to being in the dark but I don't think you consider the implications that being in the dark would have on making such lucid conclusions. My take comes from a background of not thinking boards are all that special compared to company leaders, and they're at their best when they don't interfere with extraordinary CEOs/Founders. Further, my general belief is that inexperienced boards are common, detrimental, and don't really understand this. I'm also biased against nonprofit boards, mostly from personal experience though obviously with smaller orgs. My current take on this situation is not so much that the board was mentally retarded, but that the org structure allowed people with strong competing interests and very little "skin in the game" in the org to serve on the board, creating stronger incentives for an activist board than incentives for long-term success, which (as I alluded to) leads to poor outcomes. Exhibit A: Adam D'Angelo at Quora/Poe. Exhibit B: Moskovitz's ties to the other board members. Strong incentives here to slow down OpenAI in favor of their own external, competing missions. which brings on Exhibit C: Installing Emmett Shear, a man who wanted to slow down OpenAI's pace by 90%.
      - corethree 3y ago
        >You're inferring a lot from my comment, a lot that isn't there and wouldn't be there. You're also straw-manning rationalize your position: that you've been right for 2+ days that Sam Altman is an evil "clout chasing" tech bro who was going to oust the board but thankfully the ethical good people got to him first First you say I'm inferring then you infer what my position is. I told you my position. I'm speculative on anything except for the board being mentally retarded. You agree with me but you proceed to say this: >My take comes from a background of not thinking boards are all that special compared to company leaders, and they're at their best when they don't interfere with extraordinary CEOs/Founders. Further, my general belief is that inexperienced boards are common, detrimental, and don't really understand this. I'm also biased against nonprofit boards, mostly from personal experience though obviously with smaller orgs. This up above is essentially YOU saying the board is mentally retarded but dressing it up in nicer clothes. Literally you don't even mention a reason here. You just say, inexperience and detrimental which is "stupid" but dressed up. >My current take on this situation is not so much that the board was mentally retarded, but that the org structure allowed people with strong competing interests and very little "skin in the game" in the org to serve on the board, creating stronger incentives for an activist board than incentives for long-term success, which (as I alluded to) leads to poor outcomes. An "activist" board? That's just another synonym for being a dumbass. When someone gets fired it's usually because of incompetence, hatred, dislike, public pressure or power. >Strong incentives here to slow down OpenAI in favor of their own external, competing missions. This is valid IF you have the evidence of the incentive. State the competing interests and Emmet Shears motive for slowing down OpenAI by 90%.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- fmajid 3y ago
  A VC gushing about a charismatic founder does not itself convey meaningful information. They did about Sam Bankman-Fried, after all. That an overwhelming majority of OpenAI staff threatened to quit unless he is reinstated is more informative, but that might just be because they trust in his ability to wheel and deal and are seeing their big payday go away.

corethree 3y ago

[flagged]

ilikehurdles 3y ago
I think if you truly believed you were as in the dark as you admit you are, you wouldn't have jumped to conclusions about this affair as early as you did.
- corethree 3y ago
  Bro. Literally We do not have an honest statement about the details of WHY he's fired. We are all in the dark. The logical answer is to be neutral. But everyone is exploding and thinking the board is full of mentally retarded simpletons. Like seriously. Tell me which is more likely? That the board is mentally retarded or that there's some reasoning here that we don't know about? HN is a mob. And I like the mobs take: The entire board of several people is coincidentally ALL mentally retarded and we should make them all resign. That's clearly the most rational and most likely analysis of what happened here.
  - ilikehurdles 3y ago
    You're inferring a lot from my comment, a lot that isn't there and wouldn't be there. You're also straw-manning rationalize your position: that you've been right for 2+ days that Sam Altman is an evil "clout chasing" tech bro who was going to oust the board but thankfully the ethical good people got to him first, because the only alternative everyone else is proposing is that the board is... "ALL mentally retarded", and this is impossible (I agree there). There are other possibilities and I don't think some hn mob is taking the position you say they are. Again, my point is you admit to being in the dark but I don't think you consider the implications that being in the dark would have on making such lucid conclusions. My take comes from a background of not thinking boards are all that special compared to company leaders, and they're at their best when they don't interfere with extraordinary CEOs/Founders. Further, my general belief is that inexperienced boards are common, detrimental, and don't really understand this. I'm also biased against nonprofit boards, mostly from personal experience though obviously with smaller orgs. My current take on this situation is not so much that the board was mentally retarded, but that the org structure allowed people with strong competing interests and very little "skin in the game" in the org to serve on the board, creating stronger incentives for an activist board than incentives for long-term success, which (as I alluded to) leads to poor outcomes. Exhibit A: Adam D'Angelo at Quora/Poe. Exhibit B: Moskovitz's ties to the other board members. Strong incentives here to slow down OpenAI in favor of their own external, competing missions. which brings on Exhibit C: Installing Emmett Shear, a man who wanted to slow down OpenAI's pace by 90%.
    - corethree 3y ago
      >You're inferring a lot from my comment, a lot that isn't there and wouldn't be there. You're also straw-manning rationalize your position: that you've been right for 2+ days that Sam Altman is an evil "clout chasing" tech bro who was going to oust the board but thankfully the ethical good people got to him first First you say I'm inferring then you infer what my position is. I told you my position. I'm speculative on anything except for the board being mentally retarded. You agree with me but you proceed to say this: >My take comes from a background of not thinking boards are all that special compared to company leaders, and they're at their best when they don't interfere with extraordinary CEOs/Founders. Further, my general belief is that inexperienced boards are common, detrimental, and don't really understand this. I'm also biased against nonprofit boards, mostly from personal experience though obviously with smaller orgs. This up above is essentially YOU saying the board is mentally retarded but dressing it up in nicer clothes. Literally you don't even mention a reason here. You just say, inexperience and detrimental which is "stupid" but dressed up. >My current take on this situation is not so much that the board was mentally retarded, but that the org structure allowed people with strong competing interests and very little "skin in the game" in the org to serve on the board, creating stronger incentives for an activist board than incentives for long-term success, which (as I alluded to) leads to poor outcomes. An "activist" board? That's just another synonym for being a dumbass. When someone gets fired it's usually because of incompetence, hatred, dislike, public pressure or power. >Strong incentives here to slow down OpenAI in favor of their own external, competing missions. This is valid IF you have the evidence of the incentive. State the competing interests and Emmet Shears motive for slowing down OpenAI by 90%.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
fmajid 3y ago
A VC gushing about a charismatic founder does not itself convey meaningful information. They did about Sam Bankman-Fried, after all. That an overwhelming majority of OpenAI staff threatened to quit unless he is reinstated is more informative, but that might just be because they trust in his ability to wheel and deal and are seeing their big payday go away.