28 ms·

OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft

273 points by apsec112 3y ago

_8j50 3y ago
You know, I was just thinking how if I was a google exec I'd poach openai and/or attempt to gain some controlling shares if the org by throwing money at sam/board.
catchnear4321 3y ago
> We all left these big corporations to move fast and build exciting things… sama found a flock. this will go poorly.
greenyoda 3y ago
https://archive.ph/hgoST https://archive.ph/hgoST
sylware 3y ago
... and after the latest openai episode, we now know that msft was pulling the strings in the "shadows" (the "nah! I am just supporting without doing anything..."). It is not conspiracy anything to think it is certainly happening elsewhere. And there is so much critical open source stuff on github... that said, github is at least noscript/basic (x)html friendly for its core functions.
- schemescape 3y ago
  Sadly, viewing source code no longer appears to work without JavaScript… Edit: tested in w3m
  - sylware 3y ago
    Indeed I have to git clone. Well, it is getting worse and worse.
- chollida1 3y ago
  > ... and after the latest openai episode, we now know that msft was pulling the strings in the "shadows" (the "nah! I am just supporting without doing anything..." Do we? What evidence is there that Microsoft was "pulling the strings in the shadows"? As far as we know Microsoft only found out a minute before Sam did that he was being fired.
  - rossdavidh 3y ago
    Well, we found out that Microsoft is able to reverse essentially any decision they feel strongly about, which is essentially what "pulling the strings" means, in common usage.
    - chollida1 3y ago
      > Well, we found out that Microsoft is able to reverse essentially any decision they feel strongly about, which is essentially what "pulling the strings" means, in common usage. What specific decision did Microsoft reverse? We already know that they had no say in Sam's firing or any specific pull in his rehiring. Or is there any proof we have that Microsoft forced the reversal of Sam's firing?
      - whatshisface 3y ago
        Microsoft is a billion dollar company, they could hire away everyone at a McDonald's restaurant and buy the location if they didn't like how it was being run. They arguably have less power over OpenAI than they do over the average startup because they could probably buy any given startup outright but they ended up with nonvoting shares in OpenAI.
    - sylware 3y ago
      Yep, kind of obvious. And it is reasonable to think this is only the tip of the iceberg.
VirusNewbie 3y ago
"No one wanted to go to Microsoft." This person called the company "the biggest and slowest" of all the major tech companies — the exact opposite of how OpenAI employees see their startup. Lol. I was wondering about this...
ausbah 3y ago
they didn’t want to leave because of OpenAI’s great compensation packages ($300k+) I do think it is a little unfair to characterize MSFT as “slow and boring” when they’ve been the ones to make the fastest pivot to supporting generative AI as a product line
- soulbadguy 3y ago
  I think the deal was for employee to keep their OpenAI compensation even after moving to MSFT
  - jandrese 3y ago
    Even if they did you know the annual performance review would go something like: "You did a great job this year and met or exceeded all of the metrics we measured, but your compa ratio is just too high so instead of a raise we are going to give you a lump sum instead." Big company culture vs. startup culture is a known issue. People choose to work for startups to avoid that big company culture, so if a big company buys you out then it's time to move on.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      How is that culture at OpenAi working out?
  - gwern 3y ago
    OP discusses this and how it was a hollow promise. Even if it was kept in the full spirit of the nonbinding verbal agreement (which would utterly infuriate MS staff and demoralize them), it would be a bad deal to swap ultra-hot private OA PPUs for the same nominal (but low-growth) amount of MS stock and then have to work at MS.
- andy99 3y ago
  These are all people who could make good money anywhere. Few are presumably there solely because it's the best paying job. Part of it is certainly identity, OpenAI or $hot_startup sounds way cooler than Microsoft to a lot of people. And part would be wanting to work at a startup and not a legacy SaaS company and all the baggage that entails. Whatever carve-out they were going to get, there's now way you'd be as unconstrained working at MS as you would at OpenAI. It's precisely because the money isn't that important that a lot would have probably bailed if they all were absorbed into Microsoft.
Racing0461 3y ago
Everyone already knew that. It was just to get sam on the board with as little chaos as possible.
kvee 3y ago
pg talks about how Sam Altman is the most powered person he's ever met. Seems we have a super powerful psychopath running perhaps the most important company in human history. I do think he legitimately believes he's doing the right thing though all throughout, which maybe makes it more scary. Sorta like how Mark Zuckerberg seemed to truly believe in Facebook's mission and wound up having all sorts of negative externalities for the world. Mark Zuckerberg just isn't quite as effective as Sam Altman, and it's easier to be suspicious of his motives. Not to say that psychopaths are necessarily bad. Peter in Ender's Shadow turned out great! But it does seem dangerous for 1 person to hold so much power over the future of humanity. Sam Altman's reasoning for him having all the power, I think, is that “short timelines and slow takeoff is likely the safest quadrant of the short/long timelines and slow/fast takeoff matrix.” If you believe that and believe that Sam Altman having complete control of OpenAI is the best way to accomplish that, everything seems fine. I'd personally have preferred trying to optimize for long timelines and a slow takeoff too, which I think might have been doable if we'd devoted more resources to neglected approaches to AI alignment–like enhancing human capabilities with BCI and other stuff like that.
- superb_dev 3y ago
  There’s a lot to be said about Altman, but calling him a “psychopath” is just wrong. It’s a legitimate medical term and should not be used for hyperbole
  - miraculixx 3y ago
    Look up Annie Altman.
    - replwoacause 3y ago
      Are you saying this because of the diddling accusations or for some other reason?
      - throw_away_584 3y ago
        https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman-s-sister-annie-altman-claims-sam-has-severely https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman...
Laaas 3y ago
> This person called the company "the biggest and slowest" of all the major tech companies Could not be further from the truth.
- gwern 3y ago
  It doesn't need to be true, just needs to be what a nontrivial number of OAers think. And given how many people I still see putting down 'M$', I can absolutely believe a dislike of Microsoft is widespread.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    It was in vogue to make fun of M$ in the late 90s and aughts; the Gates/Ballmer era. Even for people using M$ products for a living. I think the moniker just stuck. I don't dislike M$ more than I dislike Google or any other similar tech leviathan.
- soulbadguy 3y ago
  why ?
  - Nthringas 3y ago
    because IBM is both bigger and slower?
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      IBM is not "major" anymore in the sense of major tech companies that the person above meant.
    - nostrebored 3y ago
      I don't think IBM is something that comes to mind when people are talking "Major tech companies" anymore.
      - zlg_codes 3y ago
zer00eyz 3y ago
During that whole mess it seemed to slip out that MS has access to all the IP up to AGI. And that has a definition that might be "replacing people at work", so not passing the Turing test fully but close enough. There are some problems that need to get cleared up for that to happen. The system needs to loose the cutoff date, be a bit more deterministic and still function. The whole quagmire around copyright needs to get resolved. (Because it looks like the output of LLM's is immediately in the public domain) If I worked at OpenAI, I would be looking for that contract and reading it myself. Because giving away all the IP for the half assed runway where you have to get to AGI... doesn't sound like it ends in a massive pay day. MS may have cleaned up its public image in the recent years, or been displaced by things people hate and fear more. But there is this: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/microsoft-ai/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/microsoft-ai/ and the underlying tos looks a like like old school M$ and shady dealings.
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  Your implication that OpenAI has "AGI" is unsupported and implausible imo. LLMs are impressive, can increase productivity for certain workers in certain industries etc, yes but avoid reaching like that please.
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    I don't imply they have it. I imply that their deal with MS has a definition that we would not call "AGI". One that has implications that may make cutting them (MS) off impossible. From: https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure ... "While our partnership with Microsoft includes a multibillion dollar investment, OpenAI remains an entirely independent company governed by the OpenAI Nonprofit. Microsoft has no board seat and no control. And, as explained above, AGI is explicitly carved out of all commercial and IP licensing agreements."
    - joe_the_user 3y ago
      Sorry, I see how your post could be read as you state but the simplest reading is what I said.
ghaff 3y ago
Is it actually news that 70% (or whatever) of the employees at a hot startup wouldn't go to work for Microsoft even if they kept their compensation packages (which would probably have a lot of asterisks attached) because of executive suite drama?
- andy99 3y ago
  It's "business insider". Don't underestimate how poorly management understands "technical resources". I can certainly see lots of leadership just assuming that pay is the only relevant variable and ignore culture entirely during an acquihire, assuming people are fine doing whatever as long as they're paid.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    To be fair, there are a lot of devs for whom compensation is the only thing that really matters -- they are overrepresented here on HN, even. It would be pretty easy to assume that's the majority point of view. It also may be that's exactly the sort of person that Microsoft prefers, too, but I don't know.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      It's an open question whether moving to Microsoft would have been a good deal or a bad deal. But I'm pretty sure that most people seriously contemplating a move were definitely considering the dollars, even if not exclusively. (Although I expect most people signing a petition were not actually serious.)
    - GVIrish 3y ago
      Microsoft pay isn't the best in the industry so if compensation is the only thing that matters to someone, Microsoft shouldn't even be in their top five.
  - ElevenLathe 3y ago
    Even from a compensation point of view, they presumably have a better chance for a big exit of some kind at a startup vs as a Microsoft employee.
gweinberg 3y ago
How does crap like this get published? Not a shred of evidence is given for its assertions, and they sound pretty preposterous. Nobody actually wanted to go to Microsoft, and they didn't even think Altman was that great as a CEO. So why did they all sign the letter threatening to quit? Mysterious unspecified "pressure". Why did Microsoft claim it was willing to hire the OpenAI team at their current compensation levels, pissing off their own employees, if it really wasn't? Umm, no reason.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >So why did they all sign the letter threatening to quit? I probably wouldn't in an employment situation where it could come back to bite me. But lots of people sign, virtually or otherwise, petitions in the heat of the moment because emotions or it's just the path of least resistance. And "at current compensation levels" wasn't a contractual promise and would probably have had plenty of strings attached.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > How does crap like this get published? That is easy to answer: BI belongs to the infamous German media conglomerate Axel Springer [1], hosting one of Europe's most vile, disgusting and scandal-ridden [2][3] tabloids called "BILD" and its barely veiled sister publication "WELT". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider [2] https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/70-jahre-bild-zeitung-zwischen-boulevard-und-hetze-swr2-wissen-2022-06-24-100.html https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/70-jahre-bild-zeitung-zwische... [3] https://de.statista.com/infografik/2588/publikationen-mit-den-meisten-ruegen-durch-den-deutschen-presserat/ https://de.statista.com/infografik/2588/publikationen-mit-de...
  - sgift 3y ago
    Lol, really? BI is Axel Springer .. wow. And I always wondered why I felt iffy about their articles. That makes it clear. Into the "ignore this garbage" list they go.
- gwern 3y ago
  > and they didn't even think Altman was that great as a CEO. There are plenty of people who think that. Even the OA executives apparently weren't nearly as enthused with Altman as all those social-media hearts might lead one to assume. See the Time article yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38550240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38550240 specifically The board expected pressure from investors and media. But they misjudged the scale of the blowback from within the company, in part because they had reason to believe the executive team would respond differently, according to two people familiar with the board’s thinking, who say the board’s move to oust Altman was informed by senior OpenAI leaders, who had approached them with a variety of concerns about Altman’s behavior and its effect on the company’s culture.
xazzy 3y ago
Am an employee, signed the letter. I can't read the article so maybe the content is more nuanced, but the framing irks me. This all happened really fast and the offer was informal. I can only speak for myself but I do have a lot of respect for modern MS, and would have seriously considered the move if that's what kept the team together and comp was reasonable. I would be surprised if most people felt differently.
- wintogreen74 3y ago
  >> and comp was reasonable A lot of complex issues and perspectives packed into those few words...
  - replwoacause 3y ago
    I thought the offer from MSFT, albeit unofficial, was that anyone who made the switch kept their current salary.
    - shwaj 3y ago
      A big part of the comp is in equity, and since OpenAI has an uncommon equity structure it is unclear how that would translate to Microsoft stock.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - rgbrgb 3y ago
      i would guess a lot of OpenAI employees are sitting on some pretty valuable stock/options if the company doesn't implode
      - imjonse 3y ago
        Hence the overwhelming number of hearts in the Twitter messages asking for the return of Sam Altman.
port515 3y ago
Microsoft will be the leader in AI with or without OpenAI. Mark my words, you can take that to the bank. Come back to this post in 5 years, you'll see I predicted the future.
- miraculixx 3y ago
  Apple more likely. Or some other co we don't know about yet. OpenAI is going to crumble. Microsoft will be challenged for trust. We'll see what happens.
  - replwoacause 3y ago
    Apple? They seem to be asleep at the wheel as far as AI goes. I thought their focus was hardware. Siri is a piece of junk.
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      apple only has one focus. ecosystem. that is the reason for the slow movements and the appearance of sleep. different scale. different game.
neilv 3y ago
> A scheduled tender offer, which was about to let employees sell their existing vested equity to outside investors, would have been canceled. All that equity would have been worth "nothing," this employee said. > The former OpenAI employee estimated that, of the hundreds of people who signed the letter saying they would leave, "probably 70% of the folks on that list were like, 'Hey, can we, you know, have this tender go through?'" If that one person's speculation is true, does the non-profit have an alignment problem, with employees who are doing the technical work -- that the employees are motivated more by individual financial situations, than by the non-profit's mission? (Is it possible to structure things such that the people doing the work don't have to think about their individual financial situations, and can focus 100% on the actual mission? Can they hire enough of the best people for their mission that way? And maybe also keep key technical talent away from competitors that way?)
- CaveTech 3y ago
  I think it's relatively easy to prove that the main motivation for the majority of employees is not mission alignment, simply by the fact that salaries within OpenAI are in the top few percentile of the field. I don't believe this is necessarily in conflict with the mission though. Employees are mercenaries, it's up to management/leadership to enforce the mission and make sure employees contribute to it positively. The employee becomes forcefully aligned with the mission because that is the key to their personal enrichment. They are paid to contribute, their personal beliefs are not all that important.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > it's up to management/leadership to enforce the mission and make sure employees contribute to it positively. But surely, the primary tool that leadership has to do that is by selecting employees who are on the same page as them. A purely mercenary workforce is very undesirable unless the company is also mercenary.
  - neilv 3y ago
    > Employees are mercenaries, it's up to management/leadership to enforce the mission and make sure employees contribute to it positively. The employee becomes forcefully aligned with the mission because that is the key to their personal enrichment. They are paid to contribute, their personal beliefs are not all that important. I think that might be the norm, but it's sounds like an awful dynamic. It's also unfortunate if you want to do something better. We have many mercenaries companies that have appropriated some of the language we might use to characterize something better. So, say you're trying to found a company with grand ideals, made up of people who care about the mission, you actively want a diversity of ideas, etc., and almost every sentence you can think of to communicated that a bunch of candidates nodding, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, we've heard this a hundred times, just tell me what the TC is, for the 18 months I'll stay here".
reso 3y ago
I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days later. I have to assume that the individuals involved are under a mix of social and legal pressure to not talk about the circumstances.
- richbell 3y ago
  The speculation seems to be that Sam was being duplicitous and trying to oust a board member he didn't like. Members of the board compared notes and realized he had misrepresented his conversations with other members in an attempt to build concensus. Throw in the rapid expansion of OpenAI (commercialization being in conflict with the board's vague mandate to do what's best for humanity) and the rumored (now confirmed) deal he was arranging with a company that he had a financial stake in, and they felt like they needed to remove him. However, by trying to do so swiftly and not allowing him a chance to retaliate they pissed off Microsoft and the employees. At that point, they were basically forced to reinstate him or the entire company would collapse — and if they do that, they can't also go on record clarifying why he's bad. * this is my vague recollection based on reading past discussions. I'm on my phone right now and unfortunately don't have any sources I can link, take this with a grain of salt. Edit: a few links https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38559770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38559770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38548404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38548404
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Their communication strategy was also juvenile at best.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Thanks for the citations. That was my guess... but only because it was the only scenario I could think of where the board being curiously and obviously intentionally vague about 'why' in the announcement, but still saying more than nothing, made sense.
- pixelmonkey 3y ago
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
> Given the absence of interest in joining Microsoft, many OpenAI employees "felt pressured" to sign the open letter, the employee admitted. The letter itself was drafted by a group of longtime staffers who have the most clout and money at stake with years of industry standing and equity built up, as well as higher pay. They began calling other staffers late on Sunday night, urging them to sign, the employee explained. What a clusterfuck. I feel bad for anyone who supported the board.
- Tenoke 3y ago
  This isnt the board though. This is the against the board side.
  - what_ever 3y ago
    That's why they feel bad for those who supported the board as the ones that opposed the board may not have just done it based on the board's actions.
- staunton 3y ago
  Anyone who supported the board was in a situation where they deemed they could afford to go against the peer pressure. This is a combination of acting according to their beliefs/values and economic security. Those people should be envied, not pitied.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    We should envy people that stand firm on their beliefs and are vindicated, not those that may experience backlash in the future because people that had a different view won in the end. Suffering hardship for doing what you think is right is not something to envy. Don't envy martyrs, wish for a world without the need for them.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      How many people will stand by their “beliefs” at the cost of millions of dollars?
fwungy 3y ago
As if OpenAI employees would have any problem landing a new gig... Going from an agile startup environment to an F50 is a huge leap culturally. It's like going from Summer science camp to the army.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > As if OpenAI employees would have any problem landing a new gig... They'd have problems landing new gigs where they worked on OpenAI, with OpenAI's resources, team, etc.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  It’s the opposite though. MSFT is the classic rest and vest company. OpenAI likely has bad WLb. Like going from the army to summer camp
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
simplypeter 3y ago
Why would OpenAI employees want to jump ship to Microsoft, especially when Microsoft's been slashing jobs and freezing pay? Doesn't really add up for me.
- slantedview 3y ago
  Even in normal times, Microsoft does stack ranking. It's not great.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    I might be wrong but Microsoft ended stack ranking in 2013.
- phillipcarter 3y ago
  Being the CEO's pet AI lab is one of the best positions to be in, as it's actually the rare combination of being able to do innovative work but getting all the resources of big tech to do it. Satya is no muppet; he knows that if he were to absorb them he'd have to keep anyone from messing with them. They would be the most protected class of employee at MSFT. The main reason why you'd not want to do it is that Startup Funny Money stock options won't be as high as they might be if you'd stay independent.
Havoc 3y ago
Not sure that part actually matters? The message of the letter was clear and the gun being held at boards head was credible. And what 90%+ supported on paper? Even if many of the 90% are lukewarm & half-arsed, from a leadership perspective that's conclusively game over.
Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
Well that's the benefit then you have multiple entities bidding for your labor. You just need to say Company A will give me the same terms (if not better), not need to list A, B, C, D, etc even if you just want to stay where you are, you are still in the position to cherry pick who you want to work for. Heck I've done it myself, Was happy where I was, but wanted a pay bump, shopped around, went back to my employer and said if you will pay (highest bid + percentage) I'll stay, but otherwise I'm out the door. They paid up. Its the gamble you take. Granted when most off the staff also have the same demands it puts the company more on the back foot. Just a note, I've also taken work for less pay, but (imo) better working conditions. It all just depends on what you want your working conditions to be and what your willing to accept in terms of comp.
MicolashKyoka 3y ago
Anything from business insider should be taken with a mountain of salt. The msft deal would've created a separate org for openai, sorta like how linkedin & github are operated. So much of the context disappears when you view things through the lens of someone not familiar with the domain.
- x86x87 3y ago
  Shoulda, woulda, coulda. That move was purely to force them to reinstate the ousted CEO. Microsoft would have done anything to protect their investment, but that does not mean that everyone at OpenAI would have benefited from this move - far from it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dataangel 3y ago
They already work for MS, their paycheck comes out of the $10B they gave them.
autotune 3y ago
Billionaires care very little about where their employees want to work.
zombiwoof 3y ago
nothing says messed up more than OpenAI starting as a non-profit, via Elon Musk and ending up in the monopolistic (guilty as charged) Microsoft, who would love to have us all go back to bowing down to their empire of shit.

273 points by apsec112 3y ago

You know, I was just thinking how if I was a google exec I'd poach openai and/or attempt to gain some controlling shares if the org by throwing money at sam/board.

catchnear4321 3y ago

> We all left these big corporations to move fast and build exciting things… sama found a flock. this will go poorly.

greenyoda 3y ago

https://archive.ph/hgoST https://archive.ph/hgoST

sylware 3y ago

... and after the latest openai episode, we now know that msft was pulling the strings in the "shadows" (the "nah! I am just supporting without doing anything..."). It is not conspiracy anything to think it is certainly happening elsewhere. And there is so much critical open source stuff on github... that said, github is at least noscript/basic (x)html friendly for its core functions.

schemescape 3y ago
Sadly, viewing source code no longer appears to work without JavaScript… Edit: tested in w3m
- sylware 3y ago
  Indeed I have to git clone. Well, it is getting worse and worse.
chollida1 3y ago
> ... and after the latest openai episode, we now know that msft was pulling the strings in the "shadows" (the "nah! I am just supporting without doing anything..." Do we? What evidence is there that Microsoft was "pulling the strings in the shadows"? As far as we know Microsoft only found out a minute before Sam did that he was being fired.
- rossdavidh 3y ago
  Well, we found out that Microsoft is able to reverse essentially any decision they feel strongly about, which is essentially what "pulling the strings" means, in common usage.
  - chollida1 3y ago
    > Well, we found out that Microsoft is able to reverse essentially any decision they feel strongly about, which is essentially what "pulling the strings" means, in common usage. What specific decision did Microsoft reverse? We already know that they had no say in Sam's firing or any specific pull in his rehiring. Or is there any proof we have that Microsoft forced the reversal of Sam's firing?
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      Microsoft is a billion dollar company, they could hire away everyone at a McDonald's restaurant and buy the location if they didn't like how it was being run. They arguably have less power over OpenAI than they do over the average startup because they could probably buy any given startup outright but they ended up with nonvoting shares in OpenAI.
  - sylware 3y ago
    Yep, kind of obvious. And it is reasonable to think this is only the tip of the iceberg.

VirusNewbie 3y ago

"No one wanted to go to Microsoft." This person called the company "the biggest and slowest" of all the major tech companies — the exact opposite of how OpenAI employees see their startup. Lol. I was wondering about this...

ausbah 3y ago

they didn’t want to leave because of OpenAI’s great compensation packages ($300k+) I do think it is a little unfair to characterize MSFT as “slow and boring” when they’ve been the ones to make the fastest pivot to supporting generative AI as a product line

soulbadguy 3y ago
I think the deal was for employee to keep their OpenAI compensation even after moving to MSFT
- jandrese 3y ago
  Even if they did you know the annual performance review would go something like: "You did a great job this year and met or exceeded all of the metrics we measured, but your compa ratio is just too high so instead of a raise we are going to give you a lump sum instead." Big company culture vs. startup culture is a known issue. People choose to work for startups to avoid that big company culture, so if a big company buys you out then it's time to move on.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    How is that culture at OpenAi working out?
- gwern 3y ago
  OP discusses this and how it was a hollow promise. Even if it was kept in the full spirit of the nonbinding verbal agreement (which would utterly infuriate MS staff and demoralize them), it would be a bad deal to swap ultra-hot private OA PPUs for the same nominal (but low-growth) amount of MS stock and then have to work at MS.
andy99 3y ago
These are all people who could make good money anywhere. Few are presumably there solely because it's the best paying job. Part of it is certainly identity, OpenAI or $hot_startup sounds way cooler than Microsoft to a lot of people. And part would be wanting to work at a startup and not a legacy SaaS company and all the baggage that entails. Whatever carve-out they were going to get, there's now way you'd be as unconstrained working at MS as you would at OpenAI. It's precisely because the money isn't that important that a lot would have probably bailed if they all were absorbed into Microsoft.

Racing0461 3y ago

Everyone already knew that. It was just to get sam on the board with as little chaos as possible.

kvee 3y ago

pg talks about how Sam Altman is the most powered person he's ever met. Seems we have a super powerful psychopath running perhaps the most important company in human history. I do think he legitimately believes he's doing the right thing though all throughout, which maybe makes it more scary. Sorta like how Mark Zuckerberg seemed to truly believe in Facebook's mission and wound up having all sorts of negative externalities for the world. Mark Zuckerberg just isn't quite as effective as Sam Altman, and it's easier to be suspicious of his motives. Not to say that psychopaths are necessarily bad. Peter in Ender's Shadow turned out great! But it does seem dangerous for 1 person to hold so much power over the future of humanity. Sam Altman's reasoning for him having all the power, I think, is that “short timelines and slow takeoff is likely the safest quadrant of the short/long timelines and slow/fast takeoff matrix.” If you believe that and believe that Sam Altman having complete control of OpenAI is the best way to accomplish that, everything seems fine. I'd personally have preferred trying to optimize for long timelines and a slow takeoff too, which I think might have been doable if we'd devoted more resources to neglected approaches to AI alignment–like enhancing human capabilities with BCI and other stuff like that.

superb_dev 3y ago
There’s a lot to be said about Altman, but calling him a “psychopath” is just wrong. It’s a legitimate medical term and should not be used for hyperbole
- miraculixx 3y ago
  Look up Annie Altman.
  - replwoacause 3y ago
    Are you saying this because of the diddling accusations or for some other reason?
    - throw_away_584 3y ago
      https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman-s-sister-annie-altman-claims-sam-has-severely https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman...

Laaas 3y ago

> This person called the company "the biggest and slowest" of all the major tech companies Could not be further from the truth.

gwern 3y ago
It doesn't need to be true, just needs to be what a nontrivial number of OAers think. And given how many people I still see putting down 'M$', I can absolutely believe a dislike of Microsoft is widespread.
- Clubber 3y ago
  It was in vogue to make fun of M$ in the late 90s and aughts; the Gates/Ballmer era. Even for people using M$ products for a living. I think the moniker just stuck. I don't dislike M$ more than I dislike Google or any other similar tech leviathan.
soulbadguy 3y ago
why ?
- Nthringas 3y ago
  because IBM is both bigger and slower?
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    IBM is not "major" anymore in the sense of major tech companies that the person above meant.
  - nostrebored 3y ago
    I don't think IBM is something that comes to mind when people are talking "Major tech companies" anymore.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago

zer00eyz 3y ago

During that whole mess it seemed to slip out that MS has access to all the IP up to AGI. And that has a definition that might be "replacing people at work", so not passing the Turing test fully but close enough. There are some problems that need to get cleared up for that to happen. The system needs to loose the cutoff date, be a bit more deterministic and still function. The whole quagmire around copyright needs to get resolved. (Because it looks like the output of LLM's is immediately in the public domain) If I worked at OpenAI, I would be looking for that contract and reading it myself. Because giving away all the IP for the half assed runway where you have to get to AGI... doesn't sound like it ends in a massive pay day. MS may have cleaned up its public image in the recent years, or been displaced by things people hate and fear more. But there is this: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/microsoft-ai/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/microsoft-ai/ and the underlying tos looks a like like old school M$ and shady dealings.

joe_the_user 3y ago
Your implication that OpenAI has "AGI" is unsupported and implausible imo. LLMs are impressive, can increase productivity for certain workers in certain industries etc, yes but avoid reaching like that please.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  I don't imply they have it. I imply that their deal with MS has a definition that we would not call "AGI". One that has implications that may make cutting them (MS) off impossible. From: https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure ... "While our partnership with Microsoft includes a multibillion dollar investment, OpenAI remains an entirely independent company governed by the OpenAI Nonprofit. Microsoft has no board seat and no control. And, as explained above, AGI is explicitly carved out of all commercial and IP licensing agreements."
  - joe_the_user 3y ago
    Sorry, I see how your post could be read as you state but the simplest reading is what I said.

ghaff 3y ago

Is it actually news that 70% (or whatever) of the employees at a hot startup wouldn't go to work for Microsoft even if they kept their compensation packages (which would probably have a lot of asterisks attached) because of executive suite drama?

andy99 3y ago
It's "business insider". Don't underestimate how poorly management understands "technical resources". I can certainly see lots of leadership just assuming that pay is the only relevant variable and ignore culture entirely during an acquihire, assuming people are fine doing whatever as long as they're paid.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  To be fair, there are a lot of devs for whom compensation is the only thing that really matters -- they are overrepresented here on HN, even. It would be pretty easy to assume that's the majority point of view. It also may be that's exactly the sort of person that Microsoft prefers, too, but I don't know.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    It's an open question whether moving to Microsoft would have been a good deal or a bad deal. But I'm pretty sure that most people seriously contemplating a move were definitely considering the dollars, even if not exclusively. (Although I expect most people signing a petition were not actually serious.)
  - GVIrish 3y ago
    Microsoft pay isn't the best in the industry so if compensation is the only thing that matters to someone, Microsoft shouldn't even be in their top five.
- ElevenLathe 3y ago
  Even from a compensation point of view, they presumably have a better chance for a big exit of some kind at a startup vs as a Microsoft employee.

gweinberg 3y ago

How does crap like this get published? Not a shred of evidence is given for its assertions, and they sound pretty preposterous. Nobody actually wanted to go to Microsoft, and they didn't even think Altman was that great as a CEO. So why did they all sign the letter threatening to quit? Mysterious unspecified "pressure". Why did Microsoft claim it was willing to hire the OpenAI team at their current compensation levels, pissing off their own employees, if it really wasn't? Umm, no reason.

ghaff 3y ago
>So why did they all sign the letter threatening to quit? I probably wouldn't in an employment situation where it could come back to bite me. But lots of people sign, virtually or otherwise, petitions in the heat of the moment because emotions or it's just the path of least resistance. And "at current compensation levels" wasn't a contractual promise and would probably have had plenty of strings attached.
mschuster91 3y ago
> How does crap like this get published? That is easy to answer: BI belongs to the infamous German media conglomerate Axel Springer [1], hosting one of Europe's most vile, disgusting and scandal-ridden [2][3] tabloids called "BILD" and its barely veiled sister publication "WELT". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider [2] https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/70-jahre-bild-zeitung-zwischen-boulevard-und-hetze-swr2-wissen-2022-06-24-100.html https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/70-jahre-bild-zeitung-zwische... [3] https://de.statista.com/infografik/2588/publikationen-mit-den-meisten-ruegen-durch-den-deutschen-presserat/ https://de.statista.com/infografik/2588/publikationen-mit-de...
- sgift 3y ago
  Lol, really? BI is Axel Springer .. wow. And I always wondered why I felt iffy about their articles. That makes it clear. Into the "ignore this garbage" list they go.
gwern 3y ago
> and they didn't even think Altman was that great as a CEO. There are plenty of people who think that. Even the OA executives apparently weren't nearly as enthused with Altman as all those social-media hearts might lead one to assume. See the Time article yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38550240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38550240 specifically The board expected pressure from investors and media. But they misjudged the scale of the blowback from within the company, in part because they had reason to believe the executive team would respond differently, according to two people familiar with the board’s thinking, who say the board’s move to oust Altman was informed by senior OpenAI leaders, who had approached them with a variety of concerns about Altman’s behavior and its effect on the company’s culture.

xazzy 3y ago

Am an employee, signed the letter. I can't read the article so maybe the content is more nuanced, but the framing irks me. This all happened really fast and the offer was informal. I can only speak for myself but I do have a lot of respect for modern MS, and would have seriously considered the move if that's what kept the team together and comp was reasonable. I would be surprised if most people felt differently.

wintogreen74 3y ago
>> and comp was reasonable A lot of complex issues and perspectives packed into those few words...
- replwoacause 3y ago
  I thought the offer from MSFT, albeit unofficial, was that anyone who made the switch kept their current salary.
  - shwaj 3y ago
    A big part of the comp is in equity, and since OpenAI has an uncommon equity structure it is unclear how that would translate to Microsoft stock.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - rgbrgb 3y ago
    i would guess a lot of OpenAI employees are sitting on some pretty valuable stock/options if the company doesn't implode
    - imjonse 3y ago
      Hence the overwhelming number of hearts in the Twitter messages asking for the return of Sam Altman.

port515 3y ago

Microsoft will be the leader in AI with or without OpenAI. Mark my words, you can take that to the bank. Come back to this post in 5 years, you'll see I predicted the future.

miraculixx 3y ago
Apple more likely. Or some other co we don't know about yet. OpenAI is going to crumble. Microsoft will be challenged for trust. We'll see what happens.
- replwoacause 3y ago
  Apple? They seem to be asleep at the wheel as far as AI goes. I thought their focus was hardware. Siri is a piece of junk.
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    apple only has one focus. ecosystem. that is the reason for the slow movements and the appearance of sleep. different scale. different game.

neilv 3y ago

> A scheduled tender offer, which was about to let employees sell their existing vested equity to outside investors, would have been canceled. All that equity would have been worth "nothing," this employee said. > The former OpenAI employee estimated that, of the hundreds of people who signed the letter saying they would leave, "probably 70% of the folks on that list were like, 'Hey, can we, you know, have this tender go through?'" If that one person's speculation is true, does the non-profit have an alignment problem, with employees who are doing the technical work -- that the employees are motivated more by individual financial situations, than by the non-profit's mission? (Is it possible to structure things such that the people doing the work don't have to think about their individual financial situations, and can focus 100% on the actual mission? Can they hire enough of the best people for their mission that way? And maybe also keep key technical talent away from competitors that way?)

CaveTech 3y ago
I think it's relatively easy to prove that the main motivation for the majority of employees is not mission alignment, simply by the fact that salaries within OpenAI are in the top few percentile of the field. I don't believe this is necessarily in conflict with the mission though. Employees are mercenaries, it's up to management/leadership to enforce the mission and make sure employees contribute to it positively. The employee becomes forcefully aligned with the mission because that is the key to their personal enrichment. They are paid to contribute, their personal beliefs are not all that important.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > it's up to management/leadership to enforce the mission and make sure employees contribute to it positively. But surely, the primary tool that leadership has to do that is by selecting employees who are on the same page as them. A purely mercenary workforce is very undesirable unless the company is also mercenary.
- neilv 3y ago
  > Employees are mercenaries, it's up to management/leadership to enforce the mission and make sure employees contribute to it positively. The employee becomes forcefully aligned with the mission because that is the key to their personal enrichment. They are paid to contribute, their personal beliefs are not all that important. I think that might be the norm, but it's sounds like an awful dynamic. It's also unfortunate if you want to do something better. We have many mercenaries companies that have appropriated some of the language we might use to characterize something better. So, say you're trying to found a company with grand ideals, made up of people who care about the mission, you actively want a diversity of ideas, etc., and almost every sentence you can think of to communicated that a bunch of candidates nodding, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, we've heard this a hundred times, just tell me what the TC is, for the 18 months I'll stay here".

reso 3y ago

I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days later. I have to assume that the individuals involved are under a mix of social and legal pressure to not talk about the circumstances.

richbell 3y ago
The speculation seems to be that Sam was being duplicitous and trying to oust a board member he didn't like. Members of the board compared notes and realized he had misrepresented his conversations with other members in an attempt to build concensus. Throw in the rapid expansion of OpenAI (commercialization being in conflict with the board's vague mandate to do what's best for humanity) and the rumored (now confirmed) deal he was arranging with a company that he had a financial stake in, and they felt like they needed to remove him. However, by trying to do so swiftly and not allowing him a chance to retaliate they pissed off Microsoft and the employees. At that point, they were basically forced to reinstate him or the entire company would collapse — and if they do that, they can't also go on record clarifying why he's bad. * this is my vague recollection based on reading past discussions. I'm on my phone right now and unfortunately don't have any sources I can link, take this with a grain of salt. Edit: a few links https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38559770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38559770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38548404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38548404
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Their communication strategy was also juvenile at best.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Thanks for the citations. That was my guess... but only because it was the only scenario I could think of where the board being curiously and obviously intentionally vague about 'why' in the announcement, but still saying more than nothing, made sense.
pixelmonkey 3y ago

6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago

> Given the absence of interest in joining Microsoft, many OpenAI employees "felt pressured" to sign the open letter, the employee admitted. The letter itself was drafted by a group of longtime staffers who have the most clout and money at stake with years of industry standing and equity built up, as well as higher pay. They began calling other staffers late on Sunday night, urging them to sign, the employee explained. What a clusterfuck. I feel bad for anyone who supported the board.

Tenoke 3y ago
This isnt the board though. This is the against the board side.
- what_ever 3y ago
  That's why they feel bad for those who supported the board as the ones that opposed the board may not have just done it based on the board's actions.
staunton 3y ago
Anyone who supported the board was in a situation where they deemed they could afford to go against the peer pressure. This is a combination of acting according to their beliefs/values and economic security. Those people should be envied, not pitied.
- kbenson 3y ago
  We should envy people that stand firm on their beliefs and are vindicated, not those that may experience backlash in the future because people that had a different view won in the end. Suffering hardship for doing what you think is right is not something to envy. Don't envy martyrs, wish for a world without the need for them.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    How many people will stand by their “beliefs” at the cost of millions of dollars?

fwungy 3y ago

As if OpenAI employees would have any problem landing a new gig... Going from an agile startup environment to an F50 is a huge leap culturally. It's like going from Summer science camp to the army.

wolverine876 3y ago
> As if OpenAI employees would have any problem landing a new gig... They'd have problems landing new gigs where they worked on OpenAI, with OpenAI's resources, team, etc.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
It’s the opposite though. MSFT is the classic rest and vest company. OpenAI likely has bad WLb. Like going from the army to summer camp

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

simplypeter 3y ago

Why would OpenAI employees want to jump ship to Microsoft, especially when Microsoft's been slashing jobs and freezing pay? Doesn't really add up for me.

slantedview 3y ago
Even in normal times, Microsoft does stack ranking. It's not great.
- wvenable 3y ago
  I might be wrong but Microsoft ended stack ranking in 2013.
phillipcarter 3y ago
Being the CEO's pet AI lab is one of the best positions to be in, as it's actually the rare combination of being able to do innovative work but getting all the resources of big tech to do it. Satya is no muppet; he knows that if he were to absorb them he'd have to keep anyone from messing with them. They would be the most protected class of employee at MSFT. The main reason why you'd not want to do it is that Startup Funny Money stock options won't be as high as they might be if you'd stay independent.

Havoc 3y ago

Not sure that part actually matters? The message of the letter was clear and the gun being held at boards head was credible. And what 90%+ supported on paper? Even if many of the 90% are lukewarm & half-arsed, from a leadership perspective that's conclusively game over.

Crosseye_Jack 3y ago

Well that's the benefit then you have multiple entities bidding for your labor. You just need to say Company A will give me the same terms (if not better), not need to list A, B, C, D, etc even if you just want to stay where you are, you are still in the position to cherry pick who you want to work for. Heck I've done it myself, Was happy where I was, but wanted a pay bump, shopped around, went back to my employer and said if you will pay (highest bid + percentage) I'll stay, but otherwise I'm out the door. They paid up. Its the gamble you take. Granted when most off the staff also have the same demands it puts the company more on the back foot. Just a note, I've also taken work for less pay, but (imo) better working conditions. It all just depends on what you want your working conditions to be and what your willing to accept in terms of comp.

MicolashKyoka 3y ago

Anything from business insider should be taken with a mountain of salt. The msft deal would've created a separate org for openai, sorta like how linkedin & github are operated. So much of the context disappears when you view things through the lens of someone not familiar with the domain.

x86x87 3y ago
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. That move was purely to force them to reinstate the ousted CEO. Microsoft would have done anything to protect their investment, but that does not mean that everyone at OpenAI would have benefited from this move - far from it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dataangel 3y ago

They already work for MS, their paycheck comes out of the $10B they gave them.

autotune 3y ago

Billionaires care very little about where their employees want to work.

zombiwoof 3y ago

nothing says messed up more than OpenAI starting as a non-profit, via Elon Musk and ending up in the monopolistic (guilty as charged) Microsoft, who would love to have us all go back to bowing down to their empire of shit.