6 ms·

Wow, there is no way around it. Sam Altman is basically getting his way by misleading people. The board did the right thing. Honesty is crucial as a leader. I t

by TeeWEE 3y ago

Wow, there is no way around it. Sam Altman is basically getting his way by misleading people. The board did the right thing. Honesty is crucial as a leader. I think for Sam Altman his goal is more important than ethics and he will do whatever to get his way.

jfengel 3y ago
Honesty is great, in moderation, but it's not the be-all and end-all of leadership. Leadership is fundamentally about manipulating people. If the people already agreed, they wouldn't need leadership. Your job as leader is to get them all working in more or less the same direction, even though they don't really want to. Honesty is a great way to do that, when it works. Honesty has the virtue of not having to keep track of your lies, and you don't get caught in an inconsistency. But it doesn't always work, and then you have to consider alternatives. Sometimes people are dumb. Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes people are hostile. Sometimes people are right, but in a way that can't actually be implemented, and you need to go with a sub-optimal path despite that. At core, you can't lead if you don't believe that you've listened to all of the concerns and reached the solution that is best for the group as a whole, according to whatever definition of "best" and "whole" you were hired for. Sometimes that's going to force you to use other means that just telling people the truth and hoping they reach the same conclusion. Leadership is fundamentally a people problem, not a technical one. And sometimes that's going to mean being dishonest. A good leader does it as little as possible, but simply dismissing it as a tactic is a recipe for failure because it hides a fundamental truth about why and how people behave in groups.
- stormfather 3y ago
  First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from the board and implement their vision, not "lead them". Second of all, your argument seems to be that ethics (specifically honestly) sometimes gets in the way of goal. I think everyone knows that, but the reason we choose to behave ethically is in spite of this, not because we are deluding into thinking ethical behavior always maximizes some objective. Thirdly, I would argue that in the long run ethical behavior is the optimal path in leadership or any other endeavor which involves cooperation.
  - rqtwteye 3y ago
    "First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from the board and implement their vision, not "lead them". Which successful CEO takes direction from a board that meets a few times a year?
    - ska 3y ago
      > Which successful CEO takes direction from a board that meets a few times a year? Honestly? Nearly all of them. It's how the whole thing is supposed to work, and for the most part it works ok. There are exceptions.
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      One who doesn't want to be replaced, especially in companies with a few very large shareholders who have their representatives on the board (e.g. major investors in startups) where if a CEO isn't proactive in ensuring that their vision is aligned with the board's vision will not be a CEO for long, even if they were the founder or something. "Managing the board" is one of the major jobs of the CEO, most of that work done outside those key moments when the board meets to formally vote on what they usually already decided based on earlier discussions between themselves, CEO, shareholders and others.
  - flappyeagle 3y ago
    You have never participated in a board or in leadership at this level it seems. This is never how it works. Boards do not provide vision. Ever.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  leadership for openai is supposedly accountable to the board. lying to board is dick move, manoeuvring to get someone fired is a dick move. If what we read is mostly true, then I can see why the board fired him, after all, how can they trust him?
- timschmidt 3y ago
  > Your job as leader is to get them all working in more or less the same direction, even though they don't really want to. Hard disagree. A leader cultivates agreement and cooperation through clear articulation of a vision and a path to get there.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Yeah the entire passage could be a blog post titled How To Justify Fascism.
- vore 3y ago
  The CEO is an instrument of the board. The CEO is not there to lead the board. This is just backstabbing, plain and simple.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    The thing about the "celebrity CEO" cult that has taken over the Valley-- and is in full force at OpenAI-- is that people like the parent have completely forgotten that the way it's supposed to work is that the CEO serves at the discretion of the board of directors. The board is not some speedbump or hassle to be maneuvered around, they choose the CEO and can revoke their choice. Not that that's actually ever going to be the case at OpenAI again, but the parent has the chain of command here totally bass-ackwards.
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      > the way it's supposed to work is that the CEO serves at the discretion of the board of directors. The board is not some speedbump or hassle to be maneuvered around, they choose the CEO and can revoke their choice. In theory, yes. In practice: Not always.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > CEO is an instrument of the board. The CEO is not there to lead the board. In truth it's both. That said, leadership doesn't mean lying. Particularly not about what another person has said. Very particularly not when it's trivial for them to compare notes.
- calf 3y ago
  I think you've confused the concept of leadership for demagoguery. Your line of reasoning fulfills the stereotype that tech people are sorely lacking in a well-rounded education.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Leadership is fundamentally about manipulating people. This is wrong. Manipulating people is not leadership. It might be management in some circumstances, but management is not leadership. > If the people already agreed, they wouldn't need leadership. This is wrong too. People can agree on a goal without seeing how to get there. Leadership is not just about seeing the goal. It's about leading people there. But if you have to manipulate the people, you're not leading them. You're just using them for your own ends.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Scariest thing I've read on HN in a long time and I wonder how many people believe this.
  - ferbivore 3y ago
    It's pretty hard to believe anything else.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > Leadership is fundamentally about manipulating people. This is true...if you are the leader of a cult, which exist to deify you more than benefit the group. > If the people already agreed, they wouldn't need leadership. Your job as leader is to get them all working in more or less the same direction, even though they don't really want to. Yes, but if you're having to puppet people to do it, it's not leadership. It's just manipulation. You should be able to do this through inspiration, and transparently in group settings, not by compartmentalizing lies and half-truths privately. That's just fucking embarrassing. Altman's leadership skills are on par with a 14-year old influencer. I feel like you're taking the argument for why "we let Pearl Harbor happen" and using it to excuse the whims of a psychopath.
m3kw9 3y ago
Obviously it wasn’t the right thing, as he’s back. You don’t fire someone so important for that and extrapolate it into equating human extinction. He has flaws but he seem to have the right balance between acceleration and safety, even though I’m not a fan of him gunning for regulatory capture
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  >Obviously it wasn’t the right thing, as he’s back. The dude essentially threatened to destroy the company if he didn't get his way. Might does not make right. Sam turned out to have more leverage here; that doesn't make him a good person. >You don’t fire someone so important for that and extrapolate it into equating human extinction. On the other hand, would you really want a company developing existentially dangerous technology to be lead by someone who's known as a slippery operator? My hunch is that part of the board's motivation was a feeling that they should have unusually high standards for the CEO of OpenAI.
  - m3kw9 3y ago
    You are assuming Altman is out to destroy humanity, he values his life and others just as much as you do, if not more. He has as much to lose as anybody if he blows himself up. Also who is to say deceleration in the age of AI isn’t worse than acceleration? Every govt entity is developing it, and it could be a national sec issue to speed it up faster than an adversary
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      >In AI, like in any field, most of the people who hold power are people who have been very good at winning a bunch of races. It's hard for these people to not want to race and they privately think they should win the race. >... >Pretty much everyone who works on AI thinks that they're 'one of the good people'. Statistically, this is unlikely to be the case. >... >Proactively giving up power is one of the hardest things for people to do. Giving up power and money is even harder. AI orgs are rapidly gathering power and money and it's not clear they have right incentives to willfully shed their own power. This sets us up for racing. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1555980412333133824 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1555980412333133824 >Also who is to say deceleration in the age of AI isn’t worse than acceleration? Every govt entity is developing it, and it could be a national sec issue to speed it up faster than an adversary See e.g. https://pauseai.info/faq#if-we-pause-how-about-china https://pauseai.info/faq#if-we-pause-how-about-china Silicon Valley seems to have a fairly strong monopoly on AI talent.

by TeeWEE 3y ago

jfengel 3y ago

Honesty is great, in moderation, but it's not the be-all and end-all of leadership. Leadership is fundamentally about manipulating people. If the people already agreed, they wouldn't need leadership. Your job as leader is to get them all working in more or less the same direction, even though they don't really want to. Honesty is a great way to do that, when it works. Honesty has the virtue of not having to keep track of your lies, and you don't get caught in an inconsistency. But it doesn't always work, and then you have to consider alternatives. Sometimes people are dumb. Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes people are hostile. Sometimes people are right, but in a way that can't actually be implemented, and you need to go with a sub-optimal path despite that. At core, you can't lead if you don't believe that you've listened to all of the concerns and reached the solution that is best for the group as a whole, according to whatever definition of "best" and "whole" you were hired for. Sometimes that's going to force you to use other means that just telling people the truth and hoping they reach the same conclusion. Leadership is fundamentally a people problem, not a technical one. And sometimes that's going to mean being dishonest. A good leader does it as little as possible, but simply dismissing it as a tactic is a recipe for failure because it hides a fundamental truth about why and how people behave in groups.

stormfather 3y ago
First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from the board and implement their vision, not "lead them". Second of all, your argument seems to be that ethics (specifically honestly) sometimes gets in the way of goal. I think everyone knows that, but the reason we choose to behave ethically is in spite of this, not because we are deluding into thinking ethical behavior always maximizes some objective. Thirdly, I would argue that in the long run ethical behavior is the optimal path in leadership or any other endeavor which involves cooperation.
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  "First of all, it's the CEO's job to take direction from the board and implement their vision, not "lead them". Which successful CEO takes direction from a board that meets a few times a year?
  - ska 3y ago
    > Which successful CEO takes direction from a board that meets a few times a year? Honestly? Nearly all of them. It's how the whole thing is supposed to work, and for the most part it works ok. There are exceptions.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    One who doesn't want to be replaced, especially in companies with a few very large shareholders who have their representatives on the board (e.g. major investors in startups) where if a CEO isn't proactive in ensuring that their vision is aligned with the board's vision will not be a CEO for long, even if they were the founder or something. "Managing the board" is one of the major jobs of the CEO, most of that work done outside those key moments when the board meets to formally vote on what they usually already decided based on earlier discussions between themselves, CEO, shareholders and others.
- flappyeagle 3y ago
  You have never participated in a board or in leadership at this level it seems. This is never how it works. Boards do not provide vision. Ever.
KaiserPro 3y ago
leadership for openai is supposedly accountable to the board. lying to board is dick move, manoeuvring to get someone fired is a dick move. If what we read is mostly true, then I can see why the board fired him, after all, how can they trust him?
timschmidt 3y ago
> Your job as leader is to get them all working in more or less the same direction, even though they don't really want to. Hard disagree. A leader cultivates agreement and cooperation through clear articulation of a vision and a path to get there.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Yeah the entire passage could be a blog post titled How To Justify Fascism.
vore 3y ago
The CEO is an instrument of the board. The CEO is not there to lead the board. This is just backstabbing, plain and simple.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  The thing about the "celebrity CEO" cult that has taken over the Valley-- and is in full force at OpenAI-- is that people like the parent have completely forgotten that the way it's supposed to work is that the CEO serves at the discretion of the board of directors. The board is not some speedbump or hassle to be maneuvered around, they choose the CEO and can revoke their choice. Not that that's actually ever going to be the case at OpenAI again, but the parent has the chain of command here totally bass-ackwards.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > the way it's supposed to work is that the CEO serves at the discretion of the board of directors. The board is not some speedbump or hassle to be maneuvered around, they choose the CEO and can revoke their choice. In theory, yes. In practice: Not always.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > CEO is an instrument of the board. The CEO is not there to lead the board. In truth it's both. That said, leadership doesn't mean lying. Particularly not about what another person has said. Very particularly not when it's trivial for them to compare notes.
calf 3y ago
I think you've confused the concept of leadership for demagoguery. Your line of reasoning fulfills the stereotype that tech people are sorely lacking in a well-rounded education.
pdonis 3y ago
> Leadership is fundamentally about manipulating people. This is wrong. Manipulating people is not leadership. It might be management in some circumstances, but management is not leadership. > If the people already agreed, they wouldn't need leadership. This is wrong too. People can agree on a goal without seeing how to get there. Leadership is not just about seeing the goal. It's about leading people there. But if you have to manipulate the people, you're not leading them. You're just using them for your own ends.
jacquesm 3y ago
Scariest thing I've read on HN in a long time and I wonder how many people believe this.
- ferbivore 3y ago
  It's pretty hard to believe anything else.
jstarfish 3y ago
> Leadership is fundamentally about manipulating people. This is true...if you are the leader of a cult, which exist to deify you more than benefit the group. > If the people already agreed, they wouldn't need leadership. Your job as leader is to get them all working in more or less the same direction, even though they don't really want to. Yes, but if you're having to puppet people to do it, it's not leadership. It's just manipulation. You should be able to do this through inspiration, and transparently in group settings, not by compartmentalizing lies and half-truths privately. That's just fucking embarrassing. Altman's leadership skills are on par with a 14-year old influencer. I feel like you're taking the argument for why "we let Pearl Harbor happen" and using it to excuse the whims of a psychopath.

m3kw9 3y ago

Obviously it wasn’t the right thing, as he’s back. You don’t fire someone so important for that and extrapolate it into equating human extinction. He has flaws but he seem to have the right balance between acceleration and safety, even though I’m not a fan of him gunning for regulatory capture

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
>Obviously it wasn’t the right thing, as he’s back. The dude essentially threatened to destroy the company if he didn't get his way. Might does not make right. Sam turned out to have more leverage here; that doesn't make him a good person. >You don’t fire someone so important for that and extrapolate it into equating human extinction. On the other hand, would you really want a company developing existentially dangerous technology to be lead by someone who's known as a slippery operator? My hunch is that part of the board's motivation was a feeling that they should have unusually high standards for the CEO of OpenAI.
- m3kw9 3y ago
  You are assuming Altman is out to destroy humanity, he values his life and others just as much as you do, if not more. He has as much to lose as anybody if he blows himself up. Also who is to say deceleration in the age of AI isn’t worse than acceleration? Every govt entity is developing it, and it could be a national sec issue to speed it up faster than an adversary
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    >In AI, like in any field, most of the people who hold power are people who have been very good at winning a bunch of races. It's hard for these people to not want to race and they privately think they should win the race. >... >Pretty much everyone who works on AI thinks that they're 'one of the good people'. Statistically, this is unlikely to be the case. >... >Proactively giving up power is one of the hardest things for people to do. Giving up power and money is even harder. AI orgs are rapidly gathering power and money and it's not clear they have right incentives to willfully shed their own power. This sets us up for racing. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1555980412333133824 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1555980412333133824 >Also who is to say deceleration in the age of AI isn’t worse than acceleration? Every govt entity is developing it, and it could be a national sec issue to speed it up faster than an adversary See e.g. https://pauseai.info/faq#if-we-pause-how-about-china https://pauseai.info/faq#if-we-pause-how-about-china Silicon Valley seems to have a fairly strong monopoly on AI talent.