10 ms·

You don't have to like Sam. But people who do big things, by definition, have to get there by pushing things along at a cadence that differs from most other peo

You don't have to like Sam. But people who do big things, by definition, have to get there by pushing things along at a cadence that differs from most other people. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good thing, but I don't get why every article about Sam seems to be surprised that the guy who helped build something nobody thought was possible (AI this decade) got there by doing things in a fast, unique way. If he followed the norms, he'd be a mid-level manager at FAANG company.

richbell 3y ago
This comment reminds me of when Bird's CEO described their intentional subversion of municipal legislation as "innovating on the regulatory front." A lot can be accomplished by skirting pesky rules and regulations. It isn't something commendable.
- gkoberger 3y ago
  This is a fallacy. You can't say "this other CEO did something" if you're trying to make a point about Sam. If you have a problem with Sam doing something illegal, say it. I'm not saying Sam has never done anything illegal, but most of the outrage seems to be that he doesn't follow social/business norms (not that he doesn't follow rules/regulations/laws).
  - richbell 3y ago
    > This is a fallacy. You can't say "this other CEO did something" if you're trying to make a point about Sam. If you have a problem with Sam doing something illegal, say it. There is nothing fallacious about my comment. Saying I'm not allowed to compare him to other CEOs is ridiculous. As another commenter said: he isn't unique.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > Saying I'm not allowed to compare him to other CEOs is ridiculous You can compare him to other CEO but you have to justify why the comparison is valid. You didn't do that. If you want to directly claim that Sam did something illegal you need to show or say that. Instead, what you did, is just point to someone else who did something illegal, and then criticize that other person, while vaguely implying that the criticism applies to Sam. But the criticism doesn't apply to Sam, because you didn't demonstrate that Sam did anything illegal.
    - blackoil 3y ago
      Not OP, but adding it is called false equivalence or commonly known as comparing apples and oranges. Just because two people are CEO doesn't relate them any more than a person with mustache to Hitler.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    The outrage is mostly focused on the fact that he doesn’t seem to tell the truth.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Yeah, those annoying "social/business norms".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      Can you give a concrete, relevant example? As a point of comparison: Musk has a far worse (in my eyes) about lying on social media than Altman.
- _3u10 3y ago
  Yes, this is why economists recommend against too many rules and regulations.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > A lot can be accomplished by skirting pesky rules and regulations. It isn't something commendable. Well that depends. Is the thing that is being accomplished very good and are the regulations bad? For example, what if there is a law that was passed for the sole purpose of protecting a well connected monopoly, so that consumers have to pay more money, only so that this one monopoly could profit. I'd say that such a law would be bad and should be under minded.
- MicolashKyoka 3y ago
  Some rules are stupid and reek of cronyism, enshrining established players at the expense of innovation. Those deserve to be challenged.
skullone 3y ago
He's not unique, instead very textbook sociopath. Lines up with the alleged abuse of his younger sister too. There's not much more to him than a wheeler and dealer, self serving abuser.
- gkoberger 3y ago
  If he was brilliant and high agency, rather than a sociopath, what would be doing differently right now? The phrase "wheeler and dealer" rarely applies to people who have genuinely changed the world forever; why do you put him in that category when he clearly has had tangible results? Hey, if you don't like Sam, that's fine. But that doesn't make him a sociopath.
  - fvbcds 3y ago
    Brilliant and high agency people don’t shill for big companies. I am not trying to be a dick but agency == honesty.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    I don't know a lot about Sam Altman's history, but I do know that there is a lot of misattribution in tech circles away from the doers and toward the managers. Has he had significant tangible results, or has he managed people who have had those tangible results? This sort of misattribution seems to show up when you have individuals with sociopathic tendencies running firms that do cool things: Elon Musk is the king of this. The man has not, on his own, had any sort of good results on the world - Tesla and SpaceX seem to do a lot better when he steps away from them - but he has found ways to get himself into a position to take credit from the engineers who do. Hyperloops and Twitter are the results of Elon Musk's original work. That's not to say that the management is necessarily negative: someone needs to fund the work of the good engineers.
    - Method-X 3y ago
      What do you think the leader of multiple billion dollar companies would be doing exactly? People like Musk are like conductors of an orchestra. That's not easy, especially with multiple successful companies.
Apreche 3y ago
My question is, what do you count as "doing"? Imagine I win the lottery and hire really smart architects and tell them to make a revolutionary new building. They go on to make some amazing building that gets all sorts of awards and recognition. Is anyone really so naive as to suggest that I am deserving of any credit whatsoever? In the words of Urkel, "Did I do that?" There are some leaders in the tech world who have clearly done something. John Carmack did something. Steve Wozniak did something. There are some questionable cases as well. As far as Altman goes, I put him firmly in the same camp as Musk. They haven't done jack shit. I give them no respect, recognition, or credit. They were just wealthy people spending money. I seriously question the people who look at them positively in any way whatsoever.
- godzillabrennus 3y ago
  Someone has to be skilled enough in fundraising to be able to raise the money to get the talent to do the thing. That alone is a difficult skill to master. It’s often harder to do than to be able to create great things. Carmack and Woz are legends for a reason.
  - Apreche 3y ago
    None of these people were skilled at fundraising. Their opportunities were inherited.
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      > Their opportunities were inherited. I agree with your first sentence, but I am confused by your second sentence. Are you referring to this part? "Carmack and Woz are legends for a reason."
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- gkoberger 3y ago
  I don’t think you need to like the people you listed (I, for example, hate Musk). But you seem to have no curiosity around understanding the value non-technical people can bring to a project or company or innovation. You need both to do something great. And there’s thousands of Woz’s out there whose names we don’t know because they never met their Jobs.
brcmthrowaway 3y ago
Which makes me think... how much of the talent in middle management in FAANG could be actually useful in the world when applied somewhere else!
- VirusNewbie 3y ago
  right now, I get a lot more use out of my iPhone, GMail, and Netflix than I do ChatGPT. Could change soon, but something to note.
- nucleative 3y ago
  The reddit fatfire sub is full of middle managers at FAANG who are pulling a few hundred k to a mil in W2 income for the foreseeable future. Their eyes are set on riding off into the sunset at the earliest opportunity. They would probably have more fun working harder if the results benefited them directly but I'm sure many aren't serious risk takers. For those who are, I think they are already off doing their own thing.
BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
It's less about not following the norms and more about not following the norms and doing so at a startup. Big companies know how to cut the tall poppies, it's a core corporate competency even.
asfgkadnhiok 3y ago
>If he followed the norms, he'd be a mid-level manager at FAANG company. If we followed the norms, he's be in prison. If you think fraud and self-dealing are justified if it moves a lot of value to shareholders, write to your senator. Until then the laws should be enforced against the rich as well as the poor. Of course, I can't much bring myself to care in this case, because all that's at stake is a chatbot.
- gkoberger 3y ago
  What laws are you accusing him of breaking?
infamia 3y ago
> You don't have to like Sam. But people who do big things, by definition, have to get there by pushing things along at a cadence that differs from most other people. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good thing, but I don't get why every article about Sam seems to be surprised that the guy who helped build something nobody thought was possible (AI this decade) got there by doing things in a fast, unique way. Why are you surprised by folks reaction? What did he successfully build before OpenAI? Nothing as far as I can tell? His main skill seems to be networking, not building product. Also, doing it fast, does not require lying, as seems his habit.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mlazos 3y ago
Sam just got lucky, look who was in the board that ousted him! A bunch of no-names with no experience managing companies with a valuation over 10k except the quora exec. OpenAI was a backwater before ChatGPT and it absolutely exploded. When that happens some people are in over their heads (as the board clearly was). Sam wasn’t to his credit, but regardless non-technical people in this company could be replaced with any run-of-the-mill startup CEO and still have their current valuation. Sam was saved to save investor perception of stability. He’s Ringo.
catlover76 3y ago
[dead]

richbell 3y ago

This comment reminds me of when Bird's CEO described their intentional subversion of municipal legislation as "innovating on the regulatory front." A lot can be accomplished by skirting pesky rules and regulations. It isn't something commendable.

gkoberger 3y ago
This is a fallacy. You can't say "this other CEO did something" if you're trying to make a point about Sam. If you have a problem with Sam doing something illegal, say it. I'm not saying Sam has never done anything illegal, but most of the outrage seems to be that he doesn't follow social/business norms (not that he doesn't follow rules/regulations/laws).
- richbell 3y ago
  > This is a fallacy. You can't say "this other CEO did something" if you're trying to make a point about Sam. If you have a problem with Sam doing something illegal, say it. There is nothing fallacious about my comment. Saying I'm not allowed to compare him to other CEOs is ridiculous. As another commenter said: he isn't unique.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > Saying I'm not allowed to compare him to other CEOs is ridiculous You can compare him to other CEO but you have to justify why the comparison is valid. You didn't do that. If you want to directly claim that Sam did something illegal you need to show or say that. Instead, what you did, is just point to someone else who did something illegal, and then criticize that other person, while vaguely implying that the criticism applies to Sam. But the criticism doesn't apply to Sam, because you didn't demonstrate that Sam did anything illegal.
  - blackoil 3y ago
    Not OP, but adding it is called false equivalence or commonly known as comparing apples and oranges. Just because two people are CEO doesn't relate them any more than a person with mustache to Hitler.
- CPLX 3y ago
  The outrage is mostly focused on the fact that he doesn’t seem to tell the truth.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Yeah, those annoying "social/business norms".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    Can you give a concrete, relevant example? As a point of comparison: Musk has a far worse (in my eyes) about lying on social media than Altman.
_3u10 3y ago
Yes, this is why economists recommend against too many rules and regulations.
stale2002 3y ago
> A lot can be accomplished by skirting pesky rules and regulations. It isn't something commendable. Well that depends. Is the thing that is being accomplished very good and are the regulations bad? For example, what if there is a law that was passed for the sole purpose of protecting a well connected monopoly, so that consumers have to pay more money, only so that this one monopoly could profit. I'd say that such a law would be bad and should be under minded.
MicolashKyoka 3y ago
Some rules are stupid and reek of cronyism, enshrining established players at the expense of innovation. Those deserve to be challenged.

skullone 3y ago

He's not unique, instead very textbook sociopath. Lines up with the alleged abuse of his younger sister too. There's not much more to him than a wheeler and dealer, self serving abuser.

gkoberger 3y ago
If he was brilliant and high agency, rather than a sociopath, what would be doing differently right now? The phrase "wheeler and dealer" rarely applies to people who have genuinely changed the world forever; why do you put him in that category when he clearly has had tangible results? Hey, if you don't like Sam, that's fine. But that doesn't make him a sociopath.
- fvbcds 3y ago
  Brilliant and high agency people don’t shill for big companies. I am not trying to be a dick but agency == honesty.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  I don't know a lot about Sam Altman's history, but I do know that there is a lot of misattribution in tech circles away from the doers and toward the managers. Has he had significant tangible results, or has he managed people who have had those tangible results? This sort of misattribution seems to show up when you have individuals with sociopathic tendencies running firms that do cool things: Elon Musk is the king of this. The man has not, on his own, had any sort of good results on the world - Tesla and SpaceX seem to do a lot better when he steps away from them - but he has found ways to get himself into a position to take credit from the engineers who do. Hyperloops and Twitter are the results of Elon Musk's original work. That's not to say that the management is necessarily negative: someone needs to fund the work of the good engineers.
  - Method-X 3y ago
    What do you think the leader of multiple billion dollar companies would be doing exactly? People like Musk are like conductors of an orchestra. That's not easy, especially with multiple successful companies.

Apreche 3y ago

My question is, what do you count as "doing"? Imagine I win the lottery and hire really smart architects and tell them to make a revolutionary new building. They go on to make some amazing building that gets all sorts of awards and recognition. Is anyone really so naive as to suggest that I am deserving of any credit whatsoever? In the words of Urkel, "Did I do that?" There are some leaders in the tech world who have clearly done something. John Carmack did something. Steve Wozniak did something. There are some questionable cases as well. As far as Altman goes, I put him firmly in the same camp as Musk. They haven't done jack shit. I give them no respect, recognition, or credit. They were just wealthy people spending money. I seriously question the people who look at them positively in any way whatsoever.

godzillabrennus 3y ago
Someone has to be skilled enough in fundraising to be able to raise the money to get the talent to do the thing. That alone is a difficult skill to master. It’s often harder to do than to be able to create great things. Carmack and Woz are legends for a reason.
- Apreche 3y ago
  None of these people were skilled at fundraising. Their opportunities were inherited.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    > Their opportunities were inherited. I agree with your first sentence, but I am confused by your second sentence. Are you referring to this part? "Carmack and Woz are legends for a reason."
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
gkoberger 3y ago
I don’t think you need to like the people you listed (I, for example, hate Musk). But you seem to have no curiosity around understanding the value non-technical people can bring to a project or company or innovation. You need both to do something great. And there’s thousands of Woz’s out there whose names we don’t know because they never met their Jobs.

brcmthrowaway 3y ago

Which makes me think... how much of the talent in middle management in FAANG could be actually useful in the world when applied somewhere else!

VirusNewbie 3y ago
right now, I get a lot more use out of my iPhone, GMail, and Netflix than I do ChatGPT. Could change soon, but something to note.
nucleative 3y ago
The reddit fatfire sub is full of middle managers at FAANG who are pulling a few hundred k to a mil in W2 income for the foreseeable future. Their eyes are set on riding off into the sunset at the earliest opportunity. They would probably have more fun working harder if the results benefited them directly but I'm sure many aren't serious risk takers. For those who are, I think they are already off doing their own thing.

BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago

It's less about not following the norms and more about not following the norms and doing so at a startup. Big companies know how to cut the tall poppies, it's a core corporate competency even.

asfgkadnhiok 3y ago

>If he followed the norms, he'd be a mid-level manager at FAANG company. If we followed the norms, he's be in prison. If you think fraud and self-dealing are justified if it moves a lot of value to shareholders, write to your senator. Until then the laws should be enforced against the rich as well as the poor. Of course, I can't much bring myself to care in this case, because all that's at stake is a chatbot.

gkoberger 3y ago
What laws are you accusing him of breaking?

infamia 3y ago

> You don't have to like Sam. But people who do big things, by definition, have to get there by pushing things along at a cadence that differs from most other people. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good thing, but I don't get why every article about Sam seems to be surprised that the guy who helped build something nobody thought was possible (AI this decade) got there by doing things in a fast, unique way. Why are you surprised by folks reaction? What did he successfully build before OpenAI? Nothing as far as I can tell? His main skill seems to be networking, not building product. Also, doing it fast, does not require lying, as seems his habit.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mlazos 3y ago

Sam just got lucky, look who was in the board that ousted him! A bunch of no-names with no experience managing companies with a valuation over 10k except the quora exec. OpenAI was a backwater before ChatGPT and it absolutely exploded. When that happens some people are in over their heads (as the board clearly was). Sam wasn’t to his credit, but regardless non-technical people in this company could be replaced with any run-of-the-mill startup CEO and still have their current valuation. Sam was saved to save investor perception of stability. He’s Ringo.

catlover76 3y ago

[dead]