6 ms·

> “The senior leadership team was unanimous in asking for Sam’s return as CEO and for the board’s resignation, actions backed by an open letter signed by over 9

> “The senior leadership team was unanimous in asking for Sam’s return as CEO and for the board’s resignation, actions backed by an open letter signed by over 95% of our employees. The strong support from his team underscores that he is an effective CEO,” said an OpenAI spokeswoman. This is where I stopped reading. At the risk of sounding defensive of Sam Altman. If there's something so fundamentally wrong with him, why does he have such broad support? He's just one man, say that what this article alleges is true, how many tricks does he have up his sleeve to fool the entirety of Silicon Valley? I mean, we can beat around the bush all day but he managed to get his old/new?? job back at OpenAI. This means to me that his ouster was either unwarranted or the board was acting blindly and should have stepped aside just on account of being clearly incapable of making sound decisions. This article does not ask the right questions. Doesn't answer any questions either like the many articles written before it riddled with speculation about Sam's much belabored firing.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> why does he have such broad support? He makes people money. Plenty of terrible people commanded great loyalty. All the loyalty tells you is he’s a good leader. Not where he’s leading us. (Not saying anything about Sam. Just pointing out that loyalty is orthogonal.)
- Timber-6539 3y ago
  He should be making investors money. That's his #1 job. Aside from that, who cares about loyalty to the CEO of a tech company. He's a replaceable employee and OpenAI should be able to continue without him. What were his actual crimes. It's not clear from the previous board nor anyone who's spoken about the matter what those were.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > What were his actual crimes Boards don’t judge crimes. And unlike courts, they have no disclosure obligation. Particularly for a private company.
    - Timber-6539 3y ago
      > they have no disclosure obligation. If true, that board deserved to be dissolved privately without being given the courtesy of raising any voices against Sam or OpenAI's future.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    OpenAI is a nonprofit. Making investors money is explicitly off the table, despite how much Sam Altman wants that to change.
    - Timber-6539 3y ago
      OpenAI opted to become a for-profit company to take money from investors back in 2019. https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        OpenAI did not become for-profit. OpenAI opened a limited-profit arm. The board of directors who fired Sam Altman is the board of the nonprofit.
        Timber-6539 3y ago
        > limited-profit arm. This is another one of those recent buzzwords that mean nothing. Like oil conglomerates making "green energy" donations and calling themselves low carbon emitters.
        sudosysgen 3y ago
        The point is that this was a subsidiary under the control of the non-profit. It was mostly there for tax reasons.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Timber-6539 3y ago
        My point is that the non-profit on OpenAI's operating model is just a tag. And the reasons for why this is the case is clear to anyone with 5 minutes of time to research about the company's self described "capped-profit" investment structure.
  - sumedh 3y ago
    > That's his #1 job. That was not is #1 job as per the charter, that why all this controversy started.
    - Timber-6539 3y ago
      That charter became bogus once OpenAI started taking in billions worth of investor money.
Invictus0 3y ago
> If there's something so fundamentally wrong with him, why does he have such broad support? 75 million people voted for Trump.
az226 3y ago
95% of employees voted with their wallets. Their millions of dollars in “stock options” were at risk of being worthless and the tender offer of cashing out was halted. Of course they wanted him back. And of course they would have joined Microsoft too — but almost none of them would have joined had they gotten a standard Microsoft offer, they would only join if they got a matching or near matching offer.
- Timber-6539 3y ago
  Sounds like he is their golden goose (for both the company and the employees).
psswrd12345 3y ago
> "If there's something so fundamentally wrong with him, why does he have such broad support?" Stock options and a carefully built cult of personality, my friend
voxl 3y ago
Many years ago I once tried to share a History channel documentary on the JFK assassination with a friend. They watched up until the first part, the documentary dramaticized the assassination and talked about how the shot seemed impossible based off the shape of the car. See I had already watched this documentary in full, and knew that this was just a cliffhanger for the second part that explained the car was modified, making the seemingly impossible shot very possible. Yet, my friend said "See? That's enough evidence." and walked away. I asked, "don't you want to hear the rest?" the response: "nope." Your comment reminds me of this experience
- Timber-6539 3y ago
  So did you tell your friend who killed JFK?
alm1 3y ago
how much do you know about the signature collection process? I can easily see how a large number of these could've been out of fear of retaliation and some out of greed. Many autocrats claim high support numbers on every election, doesn't mean they are beloved.
- Timber-6539 3y ago
  Sounds like you are you saying the employee signatures were manufactured and we shouldn't trust anything OpenAI says. If so, maybe you should provide the evidence for these claims.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> why does he have such broad support? He makes people money. Plenty of terrible people commanded great loyalty. All the loyalty tells you is he’s a good leader. Not where he’s leading us. (Not saying anything about Sam. Just pointing out that loyalty is orthogonal.)

Timber-6539 3y ago
He should be making investors money. That's his #1 job. Aside from that, who cares about loyalty to the CEO of a tech company. He's a replaceable employee and OpenAI should be able to continue without him. What were his actual crimes. It's not clear from the previous board nor anyone who's spoken about the matter what those were.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > What were his actual crimes Boards don’t judge crimes. And unlike courts, they have no disclosure obligation. Particularly for a private company.
  - Timber-6539 3y ago
    > they have no disclosure obligation. If true, that board deserved to be dissolved privately without being given the courtesy of raising any voices against Sam or OpenAI's future.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  OpenAI is a nonprofit. Making investors money is explicitly off the table, despite how much Sam Altman wants that to change.
  - Timber-6539 3y ago
    OpenAI opted to become a for-profit company to take money from investors back in 2019. https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      OpenAI did not become for-profit. OpenAI opened a limited-profit arm. The board of directors who fired Sam Altman is the board of the nonprofit.
      - Timber-6539 3y ago
        > limited-profit arm. This is another one of those recent buzzwords that mean nothing. Like oil conglomerates making "green energy" donations and calling themselves low carbon emitters.
        sudosysgen 3y ago
        The point is that this was a subsidiary under the control of the non-profit. It was mostly there for tax reasons.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Timber-6539 3y ago
        My point is that the non-profit on OpenAI's operating model is just a tag. And the reasons for why this is the case is clear to anyone with 5 minutes of time to research about the company's self described "capped-profit" investment structure.
- sumedh 3y ago
  > That's his #1 job. That was not is #1 job as per the charter, that why all this controversy started.
  - Timber-6539 3y ago
    That charter became bogus once OpenAI started taking in billions worth of investor money.

Invictus0 3y ago

> If there's something so fundamentally wrong with him, why does he have such broad support? 75 million people voted for Trump.

az226 3y ago

95% of employees voted with their wallets. Their millions of dollars in “stock options” were at risk of being worthless and the tender offer of cashing out was halted. Of course they wanted him back. And of course they would have joined Microsoft too — but almost none of them would have joined had they gotten a standard Microsoft offer, they would only join if they got a matching or near matching offer.

Timber-6539 3y ago
Sounds like he is their golden goose (for both the company and the employees).

psswrd12345 3y ago

> "If there's something so fundamentally wrong with him, why does he have such broad support?" Stock options and a carefully built cult of personality, my friend

voxl 3y ago

Many years ago I once tried to share a History channel documentary on the JFK assassination with a friend. They watched up until the first part, the documentary dramaticized the assassination and talked about how the shot seemed impossible based off the shape of the car. See I had already watched this documentary in full, and knew that this was just a cliffhanger for the second part that explained the car was modified, making the seemingly impossible shot very possible. Yet, my friend said "See? That's enough evidence." and walked away. I asked, "don't you want to hear the rest?" the response: "nope." Your comment reminds me of this experience

Timber-6539 3y ago
So did you tell your friend who killed JFK?

alm1 3y ago

how much do you know about the signature collection process? I can easily see how a large number of these could've been out of fear of retaliation and some out of greed. Many autocrats claim high support numbers on every election, doesn't mean they are beloved.

Timber-6539 3y ago
Sounds like you are you saying the employee signatures were manufactured and we shouldn't trust anything OpenAI says. If so, maybe you should provide the evidence for these claims.