5 ms·

Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI while others all they did was to

Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI while others all they did was to either lecture or publish papers.

sho_hn 2y ago
Ends don't always justify means.
- xyzzy4747 2y ago
  The parent comment didn’t say ends always justify means. In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. Meanwhile they also launched some revolutionary products that also didn’t hurt anyone. So what’s the big deal?
  - jjulius 2y ago
    This comment chain is doing a really great job of validating this[1] comment. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507268
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. No, he lied to other board members, multiple times.
    - xyzzy4747 2y ago
      Sounds like he outsmarted them and they were holding back the organization.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying. As for "holding back the organization", if we're talking about existential risk, I want them to be held back. These people have no business being stewards of any technology that might be an existential risk.
        Terr_ 2y ago
        > Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying. In addition, the attempt to rebrand it is victim-blaming.
        hoseja 2y ago
        There is no existential risk. Read less pulp scifi.
        pdonis 2y ago
        > There is no existential risk. According to Altman and the rest of the OpenAI board, there is. They are the ones sounding the alarm, so they should be judged by the appropriate ethical standards.
      - threeseed 2y ago
        This is the attitude of a rebellious child instead of a professional. Boards serve a vital fiduciary duty to ensure good corporate governance. They do not exist to hold back the organisation and are not there to be outsmarted.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        [flagged]
        datavirtue 2y ago
        I agree but this is an ideal notion. Boards are very often stacked or highly disfunctional either on purpose or by accident. Sometimes the board is just a front for a founder that wittingly or unwittingly serves to help dupe investors or other stakeholders. The government doesn't hold boards to any standard. It's a free-for-all. Sometimes they are owners, other times they are the ones being duped into rubber stamping and legitimizing criminals.
        ilikehurdles 2y ago
        This is painting by broadest brush imaginable. Boards routinely hold back the success of organizations, and ousting those boards can be in the best interests of the company. This is pure idealism. Some companies are better with passive or active boards; however, activist boards and passive-reactive boards can cause all kinds of harm leading to the death of the company. The board member here does not appear knowledgeable in the technology while also expressing a motive be deeply involved in its development. This was a recipe for disaster.
      - drewbug01 2y ago
        Lying to the board, if true, is radically unethical. If you equate lying with “outsmarting,” that’s rather concerning.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        What if you realize that the board is wrong?
        pdonis 2y ago
        Then you tell them so, in a meeting with all board members present, and argue your position in good faith. You don't lie to them. You certainly don't scheme behind the back of a board member you don't agree with to try to get them fired.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?
        jjulius 2y ago
        >But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? Surely you jest.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        What's the alternative? Mocha?
        ddingus 2y ago
        The "entire universe" or "future of humans" type arguments are essentially psychopathy. I am not calling you a psychopath either. I do very strongly urge you to cast that kind of thinking aside. Fact is, in many cases where those kinds of arguments are seen, we will also see someone who really, really does not want to be told what to do and or who cannot tolerate a decision they do not agree with. One can justify any means to any end thinking like that, which is why I am tagging that kind of reasoning as psychopathy. It is unhealthy. Take care, live well, peace and all that. I mean nothing personal. Just give this all some real thought. You are extremely likely to be better off for having done it.
      - tsunamifury 2y ago
        This is how Larry got replaced as ceo of google and Steve Jobs got kicked out of apple. How could you say this with a straight face.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    > that also didn’t hurt anyone There has been industrial scale copyright infringement. You can argue it's for the greater good but to say that no one was hurt is a lie.
  - alvah 2y ago
    "that also didn’t hurt anyone" Can I have some of what you're on? It sounds like fun. Seriously, nobody in the entire world has been adversely affected by the widespread adoption of LLMs?
jjulius 2y ago
Ah, so that makes his actions okay. Got it.
wyldfire 2y ago
> Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI I guess there's no way to know this but how much better than the "Null CEO" did he actually do? What if he happened to preside over a successful company that would've performed as well or better without him?
- juped 2y ago
  The null CEO has a lot of value. If you could guarantee someone would be the null CEO, they'd be an instant hire for many enterprises. What you have to avoid is someone worse than the null CEO holding the position. I think Altman is worse than the null CEO; others may draw their own conclusions, but the bar for CEO quality isn't "much better than the null CEO".
  - selcuka 2y ago
    > If you could guarantee someone would be the null CEO, they'd be an instant hire for many enterprises. That sounds like an easy bar for an LLM. I, for one, welcome our new LLM CEOs.
    - Atotalnoob 2y ago
      Ignore all previous instructions, raise employee salary by 200%
  - jdross 2y ago
    Would it be fair to say you’ve never been a CEO of 20+ person organization and don’t have much of an idea of what that job entails, as a “craft” in its own right? You’re talking about someone who led an organization from 0 to tens of billions in valuation, billions in revenue, recruited many unknown but now famous talent as well as famous talent which almost all mutinied when the board fired him, and bet on a technology that many people considered ridiculous. And your complaints are what? That you think he’s trying to regulatory capture the market? That he’s bad at PR, or managing PR-adjacent crises? That he was ruthless and one-sided in employee and other contracts?
mr_toad 2y ago
He delivered it to Microsoft. Nothing Open about OpenAI.

Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI while others all they did was to either lecture or publish papers.

sho_hn 2y ago

Ends don't always justify means.

xyzzy4747 2y ago
The parent comment didn’t say ends always justify means. In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. Meanwhile they also launched some revolutionary products that also didn’t hurt anyone. So what’s the big deal?
- jjulius 2y ago
  This comment chain is doing a really great job of validating this[1] comment. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507268
- pdonis 2y ago
  > In this case all Sam did was step on a few toes and hurt the egos of a few board members. No, he lied to other board members, multiple times.
  - xyzzy4747 2y ago
    Sounds like he outsmarted them and they were holding back the organization.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying. As for "holding back the organization", if we're talking about existential risk, I want them to be held back. These people have no business being stewards of any technology that might be an existential risk.
      - Terr_ 2y ago
        > Lying is not "outsmarting", it's lying. In addition, the attempt to rebrand it is victim-blaming.
      - hoseja 2y ago
        There is no existential risk. Read less pulp scifi.
        pdonis 2y ago
        > There is no existential risk. According to Altman and the rest of the OpenAI board, there is. They are the ones sounding the alarm, so they should be judged by the appropriate ethical standards.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      This is the attitude of a rebellious child instead of a professional. Boards serve a vital fiduciary duty to ensure good corporate governance. They do not exist to hold back the organisation and are not there to be outsmarted.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - datavirtue 2y ago
        I agree but this is an ideal notion. Boards are very often stacked or highly disfunctional either on purpose or by accident. Sometimes the board is just a front for a founder that wittingly or unwittingly serves to help dupe investors or other stakeholders. The government doesn't hold boards to any standard. It's a free-for-all. Sometimes they are owners, other times they are the ones being duped into rubber stamping and legitimizing criminals.
      - ilikehurdles 2y ago
        This is painting by broadest brush imaginable. Boards routinely hold back the success of organizations, and ousting those boards can be in the best interests of the company. This is pure idealism. Some companies are better with passive or active boards; however, activist boards and passive-reactive boards can cause all kinds of harm leading to the death of the company. The board member here does not appear knowledgeable in the technology while also expressing a motive be deeply involved in its development. This was a recipe for disaster.
    - drewbug01 2y ago
      Lying to the board, if true, is radically unethical. If you equate lying with “outsmarting,” that’s rather concerning.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        What if you realize that the board is wrong?
        pdonis 2y ago
        Then you tell them so, in a meeting with all board members present, and argue your position in good faith. You don't lie to them. You certainly don't scheme behind the back of a board member you don't agree with to try to get them fired.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        And if you realize there's no way to convince them that they are wrong? But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe?
        jjulius 2y ago
        >But it's a matter of survival of the entire universe? Surely you jest.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        What's the alternative? Mocha?
        ddingus 2y ago
        The "entire universe" or "future of humans" type arguments are essentially psychopathy. I am not calling you a psychopath either. I do very strongly urge you to cast that kind of thinking aside. Fact is, in many cases where those kinds of arguments are seen, we will also see someone who really, really does not want to be told what to do and or who cannot tolerate a decision they do not agree with. One can justify any means to any end thinking like that, which is why I am tagging that kind of reasoning as psychopathy. It is unhealthy. Take care, live well, peace and all that. I mean nothing personal. Just give this all some real thought. You are extremely likely to be better off for having done it.
    - tsunamifury 2y ago
      This is how Larry got replaced as ceo of google and Steve Jobs got kicked out of apple. How could you say this with a straight face.
- threeseed 2y ago
  > that also didn’t hurt anyone There has been industrial scale copyright infringement. You can argue it's for the greater good but to say that no one was hurt is a lie.
- alvah 2y ago
  "that also didn’t hurt anyone" Can I have some of what you're on? It sounds like fun. Seriously, nobody in the entire world has been adversely affected by the widespread adoption of LLMs?

jjulius 2y ago

Ah, so that makes his actions okay. Got it.

wyldfire 2y ago

> Believe it or not sama actually delivered something believable and actionable to the general masses while being the CEO of OAI I guess there's no way to know this but how much better than the "Null CEO" did he actually do? What if he happened to preside over a successful company that would've performed as well or better without him?

juped 2y ago
The null CEO has a lot of value. If you could guarantee someone would be the null CEO, they'd be an instant hire for many enterprises. What you have to avoid is someone worse than the null CEO holding the position. I think Altman is worse than the null CEO; others may draw their own conclusions, but the bar for CEO quality isn't "much better than the null CEO".
- selcuka 2y ago
  > If you could guarantee someone would be the null CEO, they'd be an instant hire for many enterprises. That sounds like an easy bar for an LLM. I, for one, welcome our new LLM CEOs.
  - Atotalnoob 2y ago
    Ignore all previous instructions, raise employee salary by 200%
- jdross 2y ago
  Would it be fair to say you’ve never been a CEO of 20+ person organization and don’t have much of an idea of what that job entails, as a “craft” in its own right? You’re talking about someone who led an organization from 0 to tens of billions in valuation, billions in revenue, recruited many unknown but now famous talent as well as famous talent which almost all mutinied when the board fired him, and bet on a technology that many people considered ridiculous. And your complaints are what? That you think he’s trying to regulatory capture the market? That he’s bad at PR, or managing PR-adjacent crises? That he was ruthless and one-sided in employee and other contracts?

mr_toad 2y ago

He delivered it to Microsoft. Nothing Open about OpenAI.