3 ms·

One other thing (among very many) that makes no sense to me: 1. Ilya was on the board and deeply involved with the original decision to fire Sam - he in fact d

One other thing (among very many) that makes no sense to me: 1. Ilya was on the board and deeply involved with the original decision to fire Sam - he in fact delivered the news to Sam. 2. Ilya has since had a change of heart, saying he regrets his participation in Sam's firing, and even signing the employee letter demanding the board resign. 3. But obviously since Ilya went along in the first place, even if he wasn't the "ringleader" as many originally assumed, he must have had discussions/evidence presented to him that convinced him that Sam needed to go. While he obviously underestimated the chaos this would cause, he must have known this was a huge decision and not one he would have taken lightly. So my point is, why doesn't Ilya just spill the beans if he is now on "Team bring back Sam". Why doesn't Ilya just write a letter to Shear saying this is why he decided to fire Sam in the first place? God I'm having a hard time imagining how the Netflix version of this will be better than the real thing.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
I have a simpler theory. Board convinced Ilya that Sam would fire him if they don't fire him first. Remember the reason being two team doing the same project. Fear of getting fired from a company you started could lead anyone to be irrational. He is just too embarrassed to say it now that it lead to this big of havoc.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  I think he should just standby what he did. Plain and simple.
vkou 3y ago
> So my point is, why doesn't Ilya just spill the beans if he is now on "Team bring back Sam". Because there may be legal consequences, and it's best to not give Sam's lawyers any ammunition.
- bmitc 3y ago
  Are CEOs not at-will employees? I can't sue a company just because they fired me unless it violates certain rights.
  - macintux 3y ago
    I imagine the concerns are more around defamation.
  - t0mas88 3y ago
    The firing itself in an employer-employee sense is fine. But the board has a lot more responsibilities. Firing the CEO for reasons not in the interest of the organisation (e.g. to further some other personal interest) for example is reason for a lawsuit. And the former CEO and boardmember could be to one starting that lawsuit, but so could other parties that suffered damages from this such as shareholders or employees.
rawgabbit 3y ago
Ilya reminds me of Frank Pentangeli from Godfather II. 1) Frank becomes a witness for the Feds against the Coreleone. 2) Frank recants when his brother shows up at the hearing reminding him of the consequences of breaking the oath of silence. 3) Frank kills himself to ensure his children's safety. https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/59089/why-did-frank-pentangeli-kill-himself-in-godfather-2 https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/59089/why-did-fra...
- ilickpoolalgae 3y ago
  If I recall the plot properly, Frank was also testifying as he believed that Michael had betrayed him by siding with another local gang which turned out to be false.
  - yeahwhatever10 3y ago
    Yes that is why Frank agreed to betray Michael in the first place, same with Frank's right hand man Cicci.
nostromo 3y ago
Adam D’Angelo is looking worse and worse in all this, if only by process of elimination.
- GreedClarifies 3y ago
  So are the other two.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    It's an open question whether ChatGPT 4 would have handled this any less competently.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> So my point is, why doesn't Ilya just spill the beans if he is now on "Team bring back Sam". Because publicly spilling the beans on the reason would poison the negotiations and (and because it would) undermine Sam if he returned. Anything that even remotely justifiably undermined the board’s confidence, even if in the totality of the circumstances there is regret of the termination decision, would have this concern.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ethanbond 3y ago
Ilya wanted to slow down due to safety concerns, the board said getting rid of Sam is the way to do it, Ilya backed that method and it 1) hurt OAI more than expected and 2) doesn’t appear likely to slow down AGI development anyway, so now Ilya regrets it. Neither the board nor Ilya want to come out and say: “Sam downplayed the proximity or danger of the next breakthrough.” That would be begging the government to step in, for example. Yes the board said it’s not because their safety policies failed, but also firing the CEO is one of those safety policies. AFAICT Ilya and Sam seemed to have axiomatically different views on whether AGI/ASI is even possible via this route, which would not leave a ton of room for compromise as one (Ilya) felt the event horizon approaching, which based on recent reporting he seems to. Anyway, just my theorizing with no more information than anyone else here.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  How would this explain why they felt the need to fire Sam entirely out of the blue (unscheduled board meeting without the president of the board, public announcement 30 minutes before market closed on a Friday)? How does it explain why they claimed he had been lying to the board?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    My guess is that this is not a new tension but rather something that hit a boiling point, e.g. Sam hinting very recently about something huge with GPT-5, referring to “we pushed back the veil of ignorance (sic).” And if he had been downplaying the risks or proximity or otherwise overstating the safety/alignment success in order to push ahead with commercialization, that would obviously be grounds for pretty fast termination. I think this is also supported by the employees’ open letter which claims leadership later said it would be totally compliant with the mission to completely implode the company. What would qualify for that? What would even bring that severe a statement to mind? Nothing short of fairly imminent danger, IMO. And ya know, whatever, we can agree or disagree on whether that danger is real, but OAI itself was founded specifically under the belief that it will be eventually (and designed their whole org structure to mitigate it), so obviously they think it’s real.
drngdds 3y ago
Maybe Ilya realized he was acting emotionally and messed up massively by getting rid of Sam and a truthful explanation would make him look like an idiot Or alternately, he made a well-reasoned and principled decision by getting rid of Sam, but now everyone thinks he's awful for it and he's trying to save face and avoid ruining his own career Or a secret third thing, of course
- foobarqux 3y ago
  It turned out he potentially zeroed a bunch of peoples' stock so the knives came out.
- adastra22 3y ago
  There's enough out in the open to make a reasonable guess at the third thing. Sam was raising funds for a for-profit side gig uncontrolled by the OpenAI board which would develop TPU hardware to compete with NVIDIA. He was pitching autocratic regimes in the middle east, among others. If the board had just found out about this, it would totally check all the boxes. Making something that could be destabilizing for the ecosystem or compete with OAI's partners, something which is arguably within scope of OAI itself yet he's raising funds as a venture he wholly controls while using time and possibly resources of OAI in the process (self-dealing?), etc. It's enough of a gray area that all those things would be above board (hah!) if he had notified them and kept them in the loop, but a fireable offense if he hadn't.
laurels-marts 3y ago
I think the assumption that Ilya was the ringleader still holds and all the evidence still points in that direction. Adam represents the board NOW (after the signed letter and change of heart), but it doesn't mean that Ilya wasn't the key instigator at the start of this and all the way through Monday morning.
- svnt 3y ago
  If the key instigator flipped, why would a supposedly disinterested third party continue to hold the line to the point where talks break down? Doesn’t hold up.
  - bcherry 3y ago
    Maybe the other three weren't thrilled with Sam, and hadn't been for some time, but were just three of six so they didn't have the votes and weren't planning to press the issue until Ilya brought it up. With Sam and Greg gone, they are now three of four and even if they don't feel strongly that Sam was the wrong choice they may find it unappealing to vote to bring him back, and in fact it would take at least two of them changing their minds to vote with Ilya.
    - svnt 3y ago
      That’s possible, but I don’t think it’s an accident that coordinate with the firing of Sam they reduced the board to being outside-controlled, with only one actor who can be said to be seasoned in corporate politics. The other two board members have nothing in their history to suggest they have the stomach or experience exercising agency to be a significant part of this resistance. But they might be pretty inclined to make a useful ideological stand. I’ll reiterate a point I and others have made: the person most hurt by recent OpenAI events is D’Angelo. All he has to do is make the valid point that OpenAI’s charter is to make AI available to all and twist it a bit to his extreme personal advantage. The difference is that most people seasoned in corporate warfare can see he is not acting out of altruism but to his personal advantage, and apparently the other board members cannot. Inversely to the other board members not having a history of individual stands, D’Angelo does, and he also lacks indications in his work history that he is concerned with altruistic actions in general.
ajross 3y ago
> So my point is, why doesn't Ilya just spill the beans To avoid more chaos. There are essentially zero good faith negotiation processes that are improved by leaking all the details to the public in parallel.
ksherlock 3y ago
If Ilya convinced the board they need to fire Sam, then demanded the board resign because they listened to him, well, he needs a wheelbarrow to carry around that massive pair of balls.
ransom1538 3y ago
Boards fire CEOs all the time. It is literally their only job. BUT, the curve ball was all the employees wanting to leave (most likely to msft). So, THEN, Ilya has a change of heart, since, openai will no longer exist. But just like all relationship "breaks" - its fucked.
QuantumGood 3y ago
I think Ilya is in the same boat as everyone else: Waiting to see how the process plays out. It's not like nothing is happening, it's simply that things haven't resolved yet. If results end up feeling sideways (z-axis?) to Ilya, he might consider what he has to say.
- babberman 3y ago
  It is entirely possible that a 90B$ company will be completely destroyed. Then there will be lawsuits, lots of lawsuits. Best not to say anything.
borg16 3y ago
imo Ilya has his own reasons and benefits that he thought he would gain from ousting Sam. However, it caused the wildfire backfire we are all watching now insert popcorn
dehrmann 3y ago
> why doesn't Ilya just spill the beans if he is now on "Team bring back Sam" Ilya is on team TIFU and is (poorly) trying to save face.
paulddraper 3y ago
> I'm having a hard time imagining how the Netflix version of this will be better than the real thing The Netflix version will probably be more believable than the real thing.
libria 3y ago
> the Netflix version of this will be better than the real thing. On that note, Ilya's about-face is easily explained by him being suddenly "recruited" into the Traveller program over the weekend and begging for Sam to return because Altman's leadership of Open AI seeds the beginning of what will one day become The Director. The mission comes first.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

I have a simpler theory. Board convinced Ilya that Sam would fire him if they don't fire him first. Remember the reason being two team doing the same project. Fear of getting fired from a company you started could lead anyone to be irrational. He is just too embarrassed to say it now that it lead to this big of havoc.

ChatGTP 3y ago
I think he should just standby what he did. Plain and simple.

vkou 3y ago

> So my point is, why doesn't Ilya just spill the beans if he is now on "Team bring back Sam". Because there may be legal consequences, and it's best to not give Sam's lawyers any ammunition.

bmitc 3y ago
Are CEOs not at-will employees? I can't sue a company just because they fired me unless it violates certain rights.
- macintux 3y ago
  I imagine the concerns are more around defamation.
- t0mas88 3y ago
  The firing itself in an employer-employee sense is fine. But the board has a lot more responsibilities. Firing the CEO for reasons not in the interest of the organisation (e.g. to further some other personal interest) for example is reason for a lawsuit. And the former CEO and boardmember could be to one starting that lawsuit, but so could other parties that suffered damages from this such as shareholders or employees.

rawgabbit 3y ago

Ilya reminds me of Frank Pentangeli from Godfather II. 1) Frank becomes a witness for the Feds against the Coreleone. 2) Frank recants when his brother shows up at the hearing reminding him of the consequences of breaking the oath of silence. 3) Frank kills himself to ensure his children's safety. https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/59089/why-did-frank-pentangeli-kill-himself-in-godfather-2 https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/59089/why-did-fra...

ilickpoolalgae 3y ago
If I recall the plot properly, Frank was also testifying as he believed that Michael had betrayed him by siding with another local gang which turned out to be false.
- yeahwhatever10 3y ago
  Yes that is why Frank agreed to betray Michael in the first place, same with Frank's right hand man Cicci.

nostromo 3y ago

Adam D’Angelo is looking worse and worse in all this, if only by process of elimination.

GreedClarifies 3y ago
So are the other two.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  It's an open question whether ChatGPT 4 would have handled this any less competently.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> So my point is, why doesn't Ilya just spill the beans if he is now on "Team bring back Sam". Because publicly spilling the beans on the reason would poison the negotiations and (and because it would) undermine Sam if he returned. Anything that even remotely justifiably undermined the board’s confidence, even if in the totality of the circumstances there is regret of the termination decision, would have this concern.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ethanbond 3y ago

Ilya wanted to slow down due to safety concerns, the board said getting rid of Sam is the way to do it, Ilya backed that method and it 1) hurt OAI more than expected and 2) doesn’t appear likely to slow down AGI development anyway, so now Ilya regrets it. Neither the board nor Ilya want to come out and say: “Sam downplayed the proximity or danger of the next breakthrough.” That would be begging the government to step in, for example. Yes the board said it’s not because their safety policies failed, but also firing the CEO is one of those safety policies. AFAICT Ilya and Sam seemed to have axiomatically different views on whether AGI/ASI is even possible via this route, which would not leave a ton of room for compromise as one (Ilya) felt the event horizon approaching, which based on recent reporting he seems to. Anyway, just my theorizing with no more information than anyone else here.

tsimionescu 3y ago
How would this explain why they felt the need to fire Sam entirely out of the blue (unscheduled board meeting without the president of the board, public announcement 30 minutes before market closed on a Friday)? How does it explain why they claimed he had been lying to the board?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  My guess is that this is not a new tension but rather something that hit a boiling point, e.g. Sam hinting very recently about something huge with GPT-5, referring to “we pushed back the veil of ignorance (sic).” And if he had been downplaying the risks or proximity or otherwise overstating the safety/alignment success in order to push ahead with commercialization, that would obviously be grounds for pretty fast termination. I think this is also supported by the employees’ open letter which claims leadership later said it would be totally compliant with the mission to completely implode the company. What would qualify for that? What would even bring that severe a statement to mind? Nothing short of fairly imminent danger, IMO. And ya know, whatever, we can agree or disagree on whether that danger is real, but OAI itself was founded specifically under the belief that it will be eventually (and designed their whole org structure to mitigate it), so obviously they think it’s real.

drngdds 3y ago

Maybe Ilya realized he was acting emotionally and messed up massively by getting rid of Sam and a truthful explanation would make him look like an idiot Or alternately, he made a well-reasoned and principled decision by getting rid of Sam, but now everyone thinks he's awful for it and he's trying to save face and avoid ruining his own career Or a secret third thing, of course

foobarqux 3y ago
It turned out he potentially zeroed a bunch of peoples' stock so the knives came out.
adastra22 3y ago
There's enough out in the open to make a reasonable guess at the third thing. Sam was raising funds for a for-profit side gig uncontrolled by the OpenAI board which would develop TPU hardware to compete with NVIDIA. He was pitching autocratic regimes in the middle east, among others. If the board had just found out about this, it would totally check all the boxes. Making something that could be destabilizing for the ecosystem or compete with OAI's partners, something which is arguably within scope of OAI itself yet he's raising funds as a venture he wholly controls while using time and possibly resources of OAI in the process (self-dealing?), etc. It's enough of a gray area that all those things would be above board (hah!) if he had notified them and kept them in the loop, but a fireable offense if he hadn't.

laurels-marts 3y ago

I think the assumption that Ilya was the ringleader still holds and all the evidence still points in that direction. Adam represents the board NOW (after the signed letter and change of heart), but it doesn't mean that Ilya wasn't the key instigator at the start of this and all the way through Monday morning.

svnt 3y ago
If the key instigator flipped, why would a supposedly disinterested third party continue to hold the line to the point where talks break down? Doesn’t hold up.
- bcherry 3y ago
  Maybe the other three weren't thrilled with Sam, and hadn't been for some time, but were just three of six so they didn't have the votes and weren't planning to press the issue until Ilya brought it up. With Sam and Greg gone, they are now three of four and even if they don't feel strongly that Sam was the wrong choice they may find it unappealing to vote to bring him back, and in fact it would take at least two of them changing their minds to vote with Ilya.
  - svnt 3y ago
    That’s possible, but I don’t think it’s an accident that coordinate with the firing of Sam they reduced the board to being outside-controlled, with only one actor who can be said to be seasoned in corporate politics. The other two board members have nothing in their history to suggest they have the stomach or experience exercising agency to be a significant part of this resistance. But they might be pretty inclined to make a useful ideological stand. I’ll reiterate a point I and others have made: the person most hurt by recent OpenAI events is D’Angelo. All he has to do is make the valid point that OpenAI’s charter is to make AI available to all and twist it a bit to his extreme personal advantage. The difference is that most people seasoned in corporate warfare can see he is not acting out of altruism but to his personal advantage, and apparently the other board members cannot. Inversely to the other board members not having a history of individual stands, D’Angelo does, and he also lacks indications in his work history that he is concerned with altruistic actions in general.

ajross 3y ago

> So my point is, why doesn't Ilya just spill the beans To avoid more chaos. There are essentially zero good faith negotiation processes that are improved by leaking all the details to the public in parallel.

ksherlock 3y ago

If Ilya convinced the board they need to fire Sam, then demanded the board resign because they listened to him, well, he needs a wheelbarrow to carry around that massive pair of balls.

ransom1538 3y ago

Boards fire CEOs all the time. It is literally their only job. BUT, the curve ball was all the employees wanting to leave (most likely to msft). So, THEN, Ilya has a change of heart, since, openai will no longer exist. But just like all relationship "breaks" - its fucked.

QuantumGood 3y ago

I think Ilya is in the same boat as everyone else: Waiting to see how the process plays out. It's not like nothing is happening, it's simply that things haven't resolved yet. If results end up feeling sideways (z-axis?) to Ilya, he might consider what he has to say.

babberman 3y ago
It is entirely possible that a 90B$ company will be completely destroyed. Then there will be lawsuits, lots of lawsuits. Best not to say anything.

borg16 3y ago

imo Ilya has his own reasons and benefits that he thought he would gain from ousting Sam. However, it caused the wildfire backfire we are all watching now insert popcorn

dehrmann 3y ago

> why doesn't Ilya just spill the beans if he is now on "Team bring back Sam" Ilya is on team TIFU and is (poorly) trying to save face.

paulddraper 3y ago

> I'm having a hard time imagining how the Netflix version of this will be better than the real thing The Netflix version will probably be more believable than the real thing.

libria 3y ago

> the Netflix version of this will be better than the real thing. On that note, Ilya's about-face is easily explained by him being suddenly "recruited" into the Traveller program over the weekend and begging for Sam to return because Altman's leadership of Open AI seeds the beginning of what will one day become The Director. The mission comes first.