7 ms·

What is still bizarre is how the board brought him back. I just don't understand that from any angle. It is very clear that he lied and schemed. So why was ther

by bmitc 2y ago

What is still bizarre is how the board brought him back. I just don't understand that from any angle. It is very clear that he lied and schemed. So why was there any issue? He had no power once fired. If another company wants to hire him, fine. If he wants to make platitudes on Twitter, who cares? Employees threatened to leave? Let them. I imagine many of them wouldn't, and if they did, you could just rehire and find a proper CEO. It's likely that the employees who would have stayed would have been the ones you want to keep anyway. So why would you rehire him and then resign? Why not leave him fired and resign? Why did Microsoft care so much about Altman? They didn't have a board seat, so too bad so sad. They should have had no sway. If they want OpenAI, then they can buy it. Why would they even want Altman to come to their company? What possible value could Altman bring to Microsoft? Just none of it makes any sense. In fact, the most clear thing is Altman's negative behavior and mode of operation. I remember his very loud, awshucks pronouncements of having no shares in OpenAI. Yea, right. A career VC setup a new company structure or structures where he wouldn't benefit at all financially. In another timeline, OpenAI firing him, naming an interim CEO, ignoring all else, and then hiring a new CEO would have all gone just fine. I don't know why Microsoft and others made a huge kerfuffle over it. And I also don't know why the board released such a cryptic press release when they could have provided details. I just can't wrap my head around any of it, even letting in conspiracy theory lines. Lol. It just makes no sense and gives me a feeling that no one involved has any clue about anything, including Satya Nadella.

nullspace 2y ago
100% agree. I don’t care about OpenAI or the members of its board at all, one bit. What I did see was so much incompetence at the one thing I expect a board to be at least okay at. Hiring and firing. For that alone, I think the board reshuffle was good. Regardless of who you support in all of this.
- juped 2y ago
  It clearly wasn't good; the Altman-control system failed, and was replaced with not even the pretense of an Altman-control system. Sure, the rectification of names is an improvement in a sense; what is actually needed is a working Altman-control system.
Tyr42 2y ago
Better at OpenAi then a private team at Microsoft??? I don't know what they were thinking either
zooq_ai 2y ago
Sam Altman made openAI possible. A true CEO like Satya knows without Sam, the rate of progress at OpenAI will be determined by decels like Helen/Jan aka ZERO. It's a disaster for product development, especially when you have openly invited Google to dance. I know HN leans engineering/safety/reliability/labor/pedantic (like chasing the absolute truth), but at the end of the day, company scales from the likes of Jobs/Musk/Sam/Zuck even it involves deceit or reality distortion field. Sometimes people just can't handle the truth or don't believe in the vision of visionaries. So, they have to fib a little to the decels and normies. Even Larry / Sergey 'lied' to Eric during Google's growth phase. It's only when they bought normie Sundar that Google became risk averse. And look where it got Google to. If I have to bet my last $, I'd bet on Elon/Sam/Zuck/Jobs than Helen/Jan/Sundar.
- mateus1 2y ago
  This is the literal definition of a slippery slope. Letting billionaires, who already wield extreme power, break laws and skirt regulations is the opposite of a free market.
  - adamtaylor_13 2y ago
    Where do you get this idea that we have a free market? Money begets money, and as the commenter above pointed out, those who have money know how to make it and know that it's the Musk/Zuck/Altmans of the world who get it done. We don't necessarily have to like it to acknowledge it's very much reality.
  - hnfong 2y ago
    The "free market" literally means free of government interference and regulation... So it actually implies allowing capitalists to wield extreme power, skirt laws and regulations. I understand the term has gone through some kind of whitewashing to mean "this is the good system (unlike the bad system)", so one might be inclined to think it means something more equitable, but seriously, that was the original meaning.
- NikolaNovak 2y ago
  Had to look up the jargon : https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/what-is-a-decel-dueling-ideologies-in-ai-artificial-intelligence-b1121591.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/what-is-a-decel-dueling...
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
And where does this leave the current board? The CEO gave no mea culpa, and even if he did, actively thwarting board oversight is a clear no-no. How in the world do they expect to perform their duties with a CEO who demonstrated himself to refuse to even provide them the information they need to discharge their duties? As long as they keep this CEO in a position to block their access to information, the board has no credibility.
juped 2y ago
and aligning ai is even harder...
tibbar 2y ago
You had the answer there before you dismissed it -- the board agreed to bring Sam Altman back before resigning because of massive pressure campaign that involved 90%+ of employees threatening to resign, and Microsoft (which has OpenAI's IP rights) offering to hire them all immediately. This included the company's key leadership. The organization was unraveling overnight. This was far past the tipping point of "a few disgruntled employees might leave" - there would have been no OpenAI left to preside over.
- cvalka 2y ago
  They should have called their bluff.
  - kaliqt 2y ago
    There's not many who have the balls to do that left in the country, let alone California or SF.
- jfoster 2y ago
  If the board had shared something equivalent to this article at the time, perhaps there wouldn't have been such an intense internal pressure campaign. Instead, they did not even attempt to communicate any rationale behind their actions.
  - mikeryan 2y ago
    It’s not good form to bad mouth someone you’ve fired. They did, in fact, release a statement which aligns (in PR speak) with what Toner is claiming now. Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/openai-announces-leadership-transition/ https://openai.com/index/openai-announces-leadership-transit...
    - jdminhbg 2y ago
stale2002 2y ago
Employees are not replacable like that. Almost the entire company was threatening to quit. If it was possible to simply replace all of openAI, then you could just do that now, as an outside party. So the boards choice was to either bring back Sam or watch the entire company go under.
- imperfect_light 2y ago
  The board should have been transparent about the dishonesty, especially around financial stakes, and I suspect the OpenAI employees and MSFT would have reacted differently.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    The dishonesty regarding the ChatGPT release sounds like the best decision that Sam or anyone could have made in the history of the company. The ChatGPT release is what made the AI movement go mainstream. It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. By Gods am I glad that the board wasn't able to stop ChatGPT from being released.
    - mr_toad 2y ago
      > It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. Worth to who?
      - tibbar 2y ago
        Well, that was the valuation of their last fund raising round, which included a tender offer to employees. So it was worth that much to investors and to its current employees.
      - stale2002 2y ago
        Worth is determined in the same way that it is for every single other thing in the world. It is "worth" what someone else is willing to pay for it.
    - joquarky 2y ago
mr_toad 2y ago
> I don't know why Microsoft and others made a huge kerfuffle over it. Microsoft needs the sold-out version of OpenAI so they can make as much money as possible without anyone making pesky noises about ethics and safety.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  yeah MS wants the shield that OpenAI provides. Outsource all of the risk to a non-profit, but still be able to run it, and snag up all of the researchers if/when something gets ugly.
cma 2y ago
In deciding to hire him back, Helen Toner said OpenAI lawyers said she and other members of the board could be personally liable if the company lost a lot of money over keeping him out.
- bmitc 2y ago
  I suppose that would be a reasonable reason on a practical level. However, how is a board liable for that? The CEO lies and intentionally withholds information, employees strangely hold the company hostage, and yet it's the board held liable? The board governed the non-profit OpenAI.
  - jononor 2y ago
    I am pretty sure a lawyer could be found that would happily take that case against the board. And that Altman would be quite willing to go that far. At least I would not have staked my professional life and personal economy on it not happening. PG called it over 15 years ago: "You could parachute him [Sam Altman] into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king".
- gwern 2y ago
  Which should have been a bluff (board members typically have "director's insurance" to cover exactly this scenario - trying to control a company by threatening to pierce the corporate veil and sue board members individually) but shows you what sort of tactics were being employed by the Altman side. cf. Sutskever's flipping
xwolfi 2y ago
The answer is simple: the single most valuable asset at OpenAI appears to be Altman bullshitting about science fiction AI, and nothing else. When he disappear, value plumetted, partners evaporated, clients stopped paying, competitors rushed to hire him, etc. It's like Elon 'Electric Jesus' Musk, without him, they're just selling shitty cars nobody quite like. So he can get paid more than all profit Tesla ever made, because without him, there would be 0 profit anyway. Talk to Tesla owners: they are surprised by how shit the car is, but they feel like mini Elons. That's probably similar at OpenAI ?

by bmitc 2y ago

nullspace 2y ago

100% agree. I don’t care about OpenAI or the members of its board at all, one bit. What I did see was so much incompetence at the one thing I expect a board to be at least okay at. Hiring and firing. For that alone, I think the board reshuffle was good. Regardless of who you support in all of this.

juped 2y ago
It clearly wasn't good; the Altman-control system failed, and was replaced with not even the pretense of an Altman-control system. Sure, the rectification of names is an improvement in a sense; what is actually needed is a working Altman-control system.

Tyr42 2y ago

Better at OpenAi then a private team at Microsoft??? I don't know what they were thinking either

zooq_ai 2y ago

Sam Altman made openAI possible. A true CEO like Satya knows without Sam, the rate of progress at OpenAI will be determined by decels like Helen/Jan aka ZERO. It's a disaster for product development, especially when you have openly invited Google to dance. I know HN leans engineering/safety/reliability/labor/pedantic (like chasing the absolute truth), but at the end of the day, company scales from the likes of Jobs/Musk/Sam/Zuck even it involves deceit or reality distortion field. Sometimes people just can't handle the truth or don't believe in the vision of visionaries. So, they have to fib a little to the decels and normies. Even Larry / Sergey 'lied' to Eric during Google's growth phase. It's only when they bought normie Sundar that Google became risk averse. And look where it got Google to. If I have to bet my last $, I'd bet on Elon/Sam/Zuck/Jobs than Helen/Jan/Sundar.

mateus1 2y ago
This is the literal definition of a slippery slope. Letting billionaires, who already wield extreme power, break laws and skirt regulations is the opposite of a free market.
- adamtaylor_13 2y ago
  Where do you get this idea that we have a free market? Money begets money, and as the commenter above pointed out, those who have money know how to make it and know that it's the Musk/Zuck/Altmans of the world who get it done. We don't necessarily have to like it to acknowledge it's very much reality.
- hnfong 2y ago
  The "free market" literally means free of government interference and regulation... So it actually implies allowing capitalists to wield extreme power, skirt laws and regulations. I understand the term has gone through some kind of whitewashing to mean "this is the good system (unlike the bad system)", so one might be inclined to think it means something more equitable, but seriously, that was the original meaning.
NikolaNovak 2y ago
Had to look up the jargon : https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/what-is-a-decel-dueling-ideologies-in-ai-artificial-intelligence-b1121591.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/what-is-a-decel-dueling...

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

And where does this leave the current board? The CEO gave no mea culpa, and even if he did, actively thwarting board oversight is a clear no-no. How in the world do they expect to perform their duties with a CEO who demonstrated himself to refuse to even provide them the information they need to discharge their duties? As long as they keep this CEO in a position to block their access to information, the board has no credibility.

juped 2y ago

and aligning ai is even harder...

tibbar 2y ago

You had the answer there before you dismissed it -- the board agreed to bring Sam Altman back before resigning because of massive pressure campaign that involved 90%+ of employees threatening to resign, and Microsoft (which has OpenAI's IP rights) offering to hire them all immediately. This included the company's key leadership. The organization was unraveling overnight. This was far past the tipping point of "a few disgruntled employees might leave" - there would have been no OpenAI left to preside over.

cvalka 2y ago
They should have called their bluff.
- kaliqt 2y ago
  There's not many who have the balls to do that left in the country, let alone California or SF.
jfoster 2y ago
If the board had shared something equivalent to this article at the time, perhaps there wouldn't have been such an intense internal pressure campaign. Instead, they did not even attempt to communicate any rationale behind their actions.
- mikeryan 2y ago
  It’s not good form to bad mouth someone you’ve fired. They did, in fact, release a statement which aligns (in PR speak) with what Toner is claiming now. Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/openai-announces-leadership-transition/ https://openai.com/index/openai-announces-leadership-transit...
  - jdminhbg 2y ago

stale2002 2y ago

Employees are not replacable like that. Almost the entire company was threatening to quit. If it was possible to simply replace all of openAI, then you could just do that now, as an outside party. So the boards choice was to either bring back Sam or watch the entire company go under.

imperfect_light 2y ago
The board should have been transparent about the dishonesty, especially around financial stakes, and I suspect the OpenAI employees and MSFT would have reacted differently.
- stale2002 2y ago
  The dishonesty regarding the ChatGPT release sounds like the best decision that Sam or anyone could have made in the history of the company. The ChatGPT release is what made the AI movement go mainstream. It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. By Gods am I glad that the board wasn't able to stop ChatGPT from being released.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    > It is why OpenAI is worth ~80 billion dollars. Worth to who?
    - tibbar 2y ago
      Well, that was the valuation of their last fund raising round, which included a tender offer to employees. So it was worth that much to investors and to its current employees.
    - stale2002 2y ago
      Worth is determined in the same way that it is for every single other thing in the world. It is "worth" what someone else is willing to pay for it.
  - joquarky 2y ago

mr_toad 2y ago

> I don't know why Microsoft and others made a huge kerfuffle over it. Microsoft needs the sold-out version of OpenAI so they can make as much money as possible without anyone making pesky noises about ethics and safety.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
yeah MS wants the shield that OpenAI provides. Outsource all of the risk to a non-profit, but still be able to run it, and snag up all of the researchers if/when something gets ugly.

cma 2y ago

In deciding to hire him back, Helen Toner said OpenAI lawyers said she and other members of the board could be personally liable if the company lost a lot of money over keeping him out.

bmitc 2y ago
I suppose that would be a reasonable reason on a practical level. However, how is a board liable for that? The CEO lies and intentionally withholds information, employees strangely hold the company hostage, and yet it's the board held liable? The board governed the non-profit OpenAI.
- jononor 2y ago
  I am pretty sure a lawyer could be found that would happily take that case against the board. And that Altman would be quite willing to go that far. At least I would not have staked my professional life and personal economy on it not happening. PG called it over 15 years ago: "You could parachute him [Sam Altman] into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king".
gwern 2y ago
Which should have been a bluff (board members typically have "director's insurance" to cover exactly this scenario - trying to control a company by threatening to pierce the corporate veil and sue board members individually) but shows you what sort of tactics were being employed by the Altman side. cf. Sutskever's flipping

xwolfi 2y ago

The answer is simple: the single most valuable asset at OpenAI appears to be Altman bullshitting about science fiction AI, and nothing else. When he disappear, value plumetted, partners evaporated, clients stopped paying, competitors rushed to hire him, etc. It's like Elon 'Electric Jesus' Musk, without him, they're just selling shitty cars nobody quite like. So he can get paid more than all profit Tesla ever made, because without him, there would be 0 profit anyway. Talk to Tesla owners: they are surprised by how shit the car is, but they feel like mini Elons. That's probably similar at OpenAI ?