10 ms·

i'm still not clear what the accusation against Altman was... something about being cavalier about safety? if that was the claim and it has merit, i don't under

by bedobi 3y ago

i'm still not clear what the accusation against Altman was... something about being cavalier about safety? if that was the claim and it has merit, i don't understand why it wasn't right to oust him, and why the employees are clamoring for him back

b59831 3y ago
[dead]
nsxwolf 3y ago
I wonder how many of the OpenAI employees are part of the "Effective Accelerationism" movement (often styled e/acc on X/Twitter). These people seem to think safety concerns get in the way of progress toward a utopian AGI future.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  like everything we have seen in America, whatever philosophy papers over "greed is good" will move technology and profits forward. might as well just call it "line goes up"
- ergocoder 3y ago
  The employees earn when OpenAI has more profit. No matter how idealistic you are, you won't be happy when your compensation is reduced from 600k to 200k.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
gapchuboy 3y ago
Employees care about their share value$. That worked well with Altman raising big rounds.
Blackthorn 3y ago
> why the employees are clamoring for him back Because he's the one who's promising to make them all rich.
paulddraper 3y ago
> i'm still not clear It isn't clear to anyone else either.
sanderjd 3y ago
Well, their big mistake was being unwilling to be clear and explicit about this, but as I read it, the board's problem with him was that he wasn't actually acting as the executive of the non-profit that he was meant to be the executive of, but rather was acting entirely in the interests of a for-profit subsidiary of it (and in his own interests), which were in conflict with the non-profit's charter. I think where they really screwed up was in being unwilling or unable to argue this case.
- Reptur 3y ago
  Makes me curious if the reason behind that is just an NDA.
- drooby 3y ago
  It's just so strange. This is such a clearly justifiable reason that the fact that they didn't argue it... or argue.. anything, makes me very suspicious that it is correct.
  - 7e 3y ago
    They were either scared of being sued for defamation or unwilling to divulge existential company secrets. Or both.
    - fastball 3y ago
      Doesn't really make sense to be unwilling to divulge company secrets if you're willing to gut the company for this hill.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
        They weren't willing to gut the company. That's why Sam is back as CEO.
        jxi 3y ago
        It sounded like they would if they could (for instance trying to sell to Anthropic or instating a "slow it way down" CEO), but they even failed at that. Not an effective board at all.
tayo42 3y ago
Maybe the safety concerns are from a vocal minority and most are quiet and don't think much about or don't actually think ai is really that close. It could just be hysterical people or people who get traffic from outrageous things
- gopher_space 3y ago
  Either it’s a world changing paradigm shift or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
  - mikeg8 3y ago
    World changing does not mean world destroying.
7e 3y ago
My pet theory is that Altman found out about Q* and planned to start a hardware company to make chips accelerating it, all without telling the board. Which is both dangerous to humanity and self-serving. It’s also almost baseless speculation; I’m interpolating on very, very few scraps of information.
- int_19h 3y ago
  How is that dangerous to humanity?
solardev 3y ago
Even if -- and that's a big if -- it really was just a dispute over alignment (nonprofit vs for-profit, safety, etc.), the board executed it really poorly and completely misjudged their employees' response. They saw the limits of their power / persuasiveness compared to [Altman/the allure of profit/the simple stability and clarity of day-to-day work without a secretive activist board/etc] Or maybe they already knew the employees weren't on their side, saw no other way to do it, and hoped a sudden and dramatic ouster of the CEO would make the others fall in line? Who knows. I'd be pretty concerned too if my CEO was doing what I considered a great job and he was suddenly removed for no clear reason. If the board had explained its rationale and provided evidence, maybe some of the employees would've listened. But they didn't... to this day we have no idea what the actual accusation was. It looks like a failed coup from the outside, and we have no explanations from the people who tried to instigate it.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Let's also keep in mind that if the AI doomers are right and spicy autocomplete is just a few more layers away from taking over the world, OpenAI has completely failed at building anything that could keep it under control. Because they can't even keep Sam Altman under control. ...actually, now that I think of it... Any creative work - even a computer program - tends to be a reflection of the organizational hierarchies and people who made it. If OpenAI is a bunch of mad scientists with a thin veneer of "safety" coating, then so is ChatGPT.
  - chrismartin 3y ago
    Not sure if I agree with the conclusion, but the phenomenon you're referring to is Conway's Law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law)
- UberFly 3y ago
  I think it's wild that with all the 700+ employees involved, there haven't been more details leaked.
bmitc 3y ago
It also isn't clear why Altman couldn't have been replaced by someone else with literally no change in operations and progress. It is just really confusing why people acted as if they fired Michael Jordan from the Bulls.
- mikeg8 3y ago
  He is obviously a great leader and those that work there wanted to work with him. It’s very clear in this thread how undervalued exceptional leadership actually is, as evidence by comments thinking the top role in the most innovative company could be just plug-and-play.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    This comment made me look for a recent article about Paul Graham firing him from Ycombinator for being exactly not a great leader or trustworthy person. The article was just days ago but it’s eluding my search.
    - mikeg8 3y ago
      Would love to see it. Everything I’ve read/seen from PG regarding Sama has been nothing but high praise. My understand is Sam chose to leave YC president role to pursue other interests/ventures which eventually turned into OpenAI
      - jjtheblunt 3y ago
        Washington Post and Hacker News https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I think PG is very, very subtle when it comes to his writings about Sam and what you think is high praise may well be faint damnation.
    - sumedh 3y ago
MallocVoidstar 3y ago
They apparently refused to tell even their CEO, Shear. I don't think anyone other than the board knows.
blackoil 3y ago
Occam’s razor. It is a fight of egos and power masked around AI Safety and Q*. Equivalent of politician's "Think about the children".
jefftk 3y ago
The best explanation I've read is https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXHMCH7wCxrvKsJyn/openai-facts-from-a-weekend?commentId=E7rEuPdmsSKSYWnPz https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXHMCH7wCxrvKsJyn/openai-fac... and https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXHMCH7wCxrvKsJyn/openai-facts-from-a-weekend?commentId=3cj6qhSRt4HoBLpC7 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXHMCH7wCxrvKsJyn/openai-fac... along with Zvi's overview in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sGpBPAPq2QttY4M2H/openai-the-battle-of-the-board https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sGpBPAPq2QttY4M2H/openai-the...
- danbmil99 3y ago
  Or, just go to the source: "The Prince", Machiavelli
  - diamondfist25 3y ago
    I’m reading the Prince now as bed time read. It’s not going into my head
shrimpx 3y ago
I’m with you. The (apparently, very highly coordinated) employees should sign a public letter explaining why they wanted Altman back so badly.
GreedClarifies 3y ago
They clearly had nothing. They had a couple of people on the board who had no right being there. Sam wanted them gone and they struck first by somehow getting Ilya on their side. They smeared Sam in hopes that he would slink away, but he had build so much goodwill with his employees that they wouldn't let it stand. They probably had smeared people before and it had worked. I'm thrilled it didn't work for them this time and they got ousted.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  This sounds like a lot of conjecture. Those people definitely had a right to be there: they were invited to and accepted board positions, in some cases it was Sam himself who asked them to join. But an oversight board can be established easier than that it can be disbanded and that's for very good reasons. The only reason that it worked is not because the board made any decisions they shouldn't have made (though that may well be the case) but because they critically misjudged the balance of power. They could and maybe should have made their move, but they could not make it stick. As for the last line of your comment: I think that explains your motivation of interpreting things creatively but that doesn't make it true.
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
>To be clear: our decision was about the board's ability to effectively supervise the company, which was our role and responsibility. Though there has been speculation, we were not motivated by a desire to slow down OpenAI’s work https://nitter.net/hlntnr/status/1730034022737125782#m https://nitter.net/hlntnr/status/1730034022737125782#m Here's some interesting background which is suggestive of what's going on: https://nitter.net/labenz/status/1727327424244023482#m https://nitter.net/labenz/status/1727327424244023482#m
IshKebab 3y ago
It's pretty clear from what multiple people have said that he's a charismatic bullshitter, and they got fed up with being lied to.
irthomasthomas 3y ago
Cannot but think it's related to that performance he gave the night before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38471651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38471651
nsajko 3y ago
There was this document, no idea how trustworthy it is: https://web.archive.org/web/20231121225252/https://gist.github.com/Xe/32d7bc436e401f3323ae77e7e242f858 https://web.archive.org/web/20231121225252/https://gist.gith... > Sam directing IT and Operations staff to conduct investigations into employees, including Ilya, without the knowledge or consent of management. > Sam's discreet, yet routine exploitation of OpenAI's non-profit resources to advance his personal goals, particularly motivated by his grudge against Elon following their falling out. > Brad Lightcap's unfulfilled promise to make public the documents detailing OpenAI's capped-profit structure and the profit cap for each investor. > Sam's incongruent promises to research projects for compute quotas, causing internal distrust and infighting.
wellthisisgreat 3y ago
> why the employees are clamoring for him back what will happen with their VC-backed valuations without a VC-oriented CEO

by bedobi 3y ago

b59831 3y ago

[dead]

nsxwolf 3y ago

I wonder how many of the OpenAI employees are part of the "Effective Accelerationism" movement (often styled e/acc on X/Twitter). These people seem to think safety concerns get in the way of progress toward a utopian AGI future.

cyanydeez 3y ago
like everything we have seen in America, whatever philosophy papers over "greed is good" will move technology and profits forward. might as well just call it "line goes up"
ergocoder 3y ago
The employees earn when OpenAI has more profit. No matter how idealistic you are, you won't be happy when your compensation is reduced from 600k to 200k.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

gapchuboy 3y ago

Employees care about their share value$. That worked well with Altman raising big rounds.

Blackthorn 3y ago

> why the employees are clamoring for him back Because he's the one who's promising to make them all rich.

paulddraper 3y ago

> i'm still not clear It isn't clear to anyone else either.

sanderjd 3y ago

Well, their big mistake was being unwilling to be clear and explicit about this, but as I read it, the board's problem with him was that he wasn't actually acting as the executive of the non-profit that he was meant to be the executive of, but rather was acting entirely in the interests of a for-profit subsidiary of it (and in his own interests), which were in conflict with the non-profit's charter. I think where they really screwed up was in being unwilling or unable to argue this case.

Reptur 3y ago
Makes me curious if the reason behind that is just an NDA.
drooby 3y ago
It's just so strange. This is such a clearly justifiable reason that the fact that they didn't argue it... or argue.. anything, makes me very suspicious that it is correct.
- 7e 3y ago
  They were either scared of being sued for defamation or unwilling to divulge existential company secrets. Or both.
  - fastball 3y ago
    Doesn't really make sense to be unwilling to divulge company secrets if you're willing to gut the company for this hill.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      They weren't willing to gut the company. That's why Sam is back as CEO.
      - jxi 3y ago
        It sounded like they would if they could (for instance trying to sell to Anthropic or instating a "slow it way down" CEO), but they even failed at that. Not an effective board at all.

tayo42 3y ago

Maybe the safety concerns are from a vocal minority and most are quiet and don't think much about or don't actually think ai is really that close. It could just be hysterical people or people who get traffic from outrageous things

gopher_space 3y ago
Either it’s a world changing paradigm shift or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
- mikeg8 3y ago
  World changing does not mean world destroying.

7e 3y ago

My pet theory is that Altman found out about Q* and planned to start a hardware company to make chips accelerating it, all without telling the board. Which is both dangerous to humanity and self-serving. It’s also almost baseless speculation; I’m interpolating on very, very few scraps of information.

int_19h 3y ago
How is that dangerous to humanity?

solardev 3y ago

Even if -- and that's a big if -- it really was just a dispute over alignment (nonprofit vs for-profit, safety, etc.), the board executed it really poorly and completely misjudged their employees' response. They saw the limits of their power / persuasiveness compared to [Altman/the allure of profit/the simple stability and clarity of day-to-day work without a secretive activist board/etc] Or maybe they already knew the employees weren't on their side, saw no other way to do it, and hoped a sudden and dramatic ouster of the CEO would make the others fall in line? Who knows. I'd be pretty concerned too if my CEO was doing what I considered a great job and he was suddenly removed for no clear reason. If the board had explained its rationale and provided evidence, maybe some of the employees would've listened. But they didn't... to this day we have no idea what the actual accusation was. It looks like a failed coup from the outside, and we have no explanations from the people who tried to instigate it.

kmeisthax 3y ago
Let's also keep in mind that if the AI doomers are right and spicy autocomplete is just a few more layers away from taking over the world, OpenAI has completely failed at building anything that could keep it under control. Because they can't even keep Sam Altman under control. ...actually, now that I think of it... Any creative work - even a computer program - tends to be a reflection of the organizational hierarchies and people who made it. If OpenAI is a bunch of mad scientists with a thin veneer of "safety" coating, then so is ChatGPT.
- chrismartin 3y ago
  Not sure if I agree with the conclusion, but the phenomenon you're referring to is Conway's Law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law)
UberFly 3y ago
I think it's wild that with all the 700+ employees involved, there haven't been more details leaked.

bmitc 3y ago

It also isn't clear why Altman couldn't have been replaced by someone else with literally no change in operations and progress. It is just really confusing why people acted as if they fired Michael Jordan from the Bulls.

mikeg8 3y ago
He is obviously a great leader and those that work there wanted to work with him. It’s very clear in this thread how undervalued exceptional leadership actually is, as evidence by comments thinking the top role in the most innovative company could be just plug-and-play.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  This comment made me look for a recent article about Paul Graham firing him from Ycombinator for being exactly not a great leader or trustworthy person. The article was just days ago but it’s eluding my search.
  - mikeg8 3y ago
    Would love to see it. Everything I’ve read/seen from PG regarding Sama has been nothing but high praise. My understand is Sam chose to leave YC president role to pursue other interests/ventures which eventually turned into OpenAI
    - jjtheblunt 3y ago
      Washington Post and Hacker News https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      I think PG is very, very subtle when it comes to his writings about Sam and what you think is high praise may well be faint damnation.
  - sumedh 3y ago

MallocVoidstar 3y ago

They apparently refused to tell even their CEO, Shear. I don't think anyone other than the board knows.

blackoil 3y ago

Occam’s razor. It is a fight of egos and power masked around AI Safety and Q*. Equivalent of politician's "Think about the children".

jefftk 3y ago

The best explanation I've read is https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXHMCH7wCxrvKsJyn/openai-facts-from-a-weekend?commentId=E7rEuPdmsSKSYWnPz https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXHMCH7wCxrvKsJyn/openai-fac... and https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXHMCH7wCxrvKsJyn/openai-facts-from-a-weekend?commentId=3cj6qhSRt4HoBLpC7 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXHMCH7wCxrvKsJyn/openai-fac... along with Zvi's overview in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sGpBPAPq2QttY4M2H/openai-the-battle-of-the-board https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sGpBPAPq2QttY4M2H/openai-the...

danbmil99 3y ago
Or, just go to the source: "The Prince", Machiavelli
- diamondfist25 3y ago
  I’m reading the Prince now as bed time read. It’s not going into my head

shrimpx 3y ago

I’m with you. The (apparently, very highly coordinated) employees should sign a public letter explaining why they wanted Altman back so badly.

GreedClarifies 3y ago

They clearly had nothing. They had a couple of people on the board who had no right being there. Sam wanted them gone and they struck first by somehow getting Ilya on their side. They smeared Sam in hopes that he would slink away, but he had build so much goodwill with his employees that they wouldn't let it stand. They probably had smeared people before and it had worked. I'm thrilled it didn't work for them this time and they got ousted.

jacquesm 3y ago
This sounds like a lot of conjecture. Those people definitely had a right to be there: they were invited to and accepted board positions, in some cases it was Sam himself who asked them to join. But an oversight board can be established easier than that it can be disbanded and that's for very good reasons. The only reason that it worked is not because the board made any decisions they shouldn't have made (though that may well be the case) but because they critically misjudged the balance of power. They could and maybe should have made their move, but they could not make it stick. As for the last line of your comment: I think that explains your motivation of interpreting things creatively but that doesn't make it true.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago

>To be clear: our decision was about the board's ability to effectively supervise the company, which was our role and responsibility. Though there has been speculation, we were not motivated by a desire to slow down OpenAI’s work https://nitter.net/hlntnr/status/1730034022737125782#m https://nitter.net/hlntnr/status/1730034022737125782#m Here's some interesting background which is suggestive of what's going on: https://nitter.net/labenz/status/1727327424244023482#m https://nitter.net/labenz/status/1727327424244023482#m

IshKebab 3y ago

It's pretty clear from what multiple people have said that he's a charismatic bullshitter, and they got fed up with being lied to.

irthomasthomas 3y ago

Cannot but think it's related to that performance he gave the night before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38471651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38471651

nsajko 3y ago

There was this document, no idea how trustworthy it is: https://web.archive.org/web/20231121225252/https://gist.github.com/Xe/32d7bc436e401f3323ae77e7e242f858 https://web.archive.org/web/20231121225252/https://gist.gith... > Sam directing IT and Operations staff to conduct investigations into employees, including Ilya, without the knowledge or consent of management. > Sam's discreet, yet routine exploitation of OpenAI's non-profit resources to advance his personal goals, particularly motivated by his grudge against Elon following their falling out. > Brad Lightcap's unfulfilled promise to make public the documents detailing OpenAI's capped-profit structure and the profit cap for each investor. > Sam's incongruent promises to research projects for compute quotas, causing internal distrust and infighting.

wellthisisgreat 3y ago

> why the employees are clamoring for him back what will happen with their VC-backed valuations without a VC-oriented CEO