4 ms·

The comments here and on Twitter are really weird. I don't like the guy either but surely anyone has to agree that there's a difference between being told, "We

by mort96 2y ago

The comments here and on Twitter are really weird. I don't like the guy either but surely anyone has to agree that there's a difference between being told, "We don't want you on as CEO anymore", and being told "We want you as CEO but we need a CEO who's only focused on one company"? It seems weird to describe the situation where Altman is asked to choose and chooses OpenAI as "he was fired from YC".

mort96 2y ago
Like if I say to my boss, "Hey I want to reduce my position to 50% to spend 50% of my time working for this other company", and they respond with "Sorry, we don't want part-time employees", and I respond "ok I quit", who in their right mind would describe that as me getting fired?
- falcor84 2y ago
  Did he actually ask to reduce his position? As far as I'm aware, being a CEO is never based on hours worked, and there are plenty of other CEOs with multiple commitments.
  - mort96 2y ago
    The way the tweet is phrased makes me think he was asked by the board to choose, so I guess a more appropriate analogy would be: I'm employed by a company, I start a side gig which I spend 50% of my productive time on, my boss eventually tells me that they need someone in my position to be a proper full time employee and I need to choose. I respond, "okay, in that case I resign". There's no difference between the two analogies in my eye, they're the same except that the first is about asking permission while the second is about just doing it.
falcor84 2y ago
There is definitely a difference to discuss, but simplified it still states "Unless you change your behavior, you need to go", as suck, I don't feel that "fired" is inaccurate.
- mort96 2y ago
  This feels reductive. He was asked to choose between two jobs, and told that he couldn't have both. He chose one of them. Describing that as being "fired" is whack. "He was fired for choosing to work somewhere else instead of here", really?
  - yurishimo 2y ago
    In layman's terms, we call that "quitting"!
    - jfoster 2y ago
      I would call it an ultimatum. Quitting: You decide that it's time to go. Firing: Your boss decides that it's time for you to go. Ultimatum: Choose between these options, or it's time for you to go. The only part that might not be right is the tone. I think "ultimatum" sounds a bit adversarial, whereas PG is describing something more cooperative in nature.
- addicted 2y ago
  You’re not “fired” if you were given an option to continue in the job.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - falcor84 2y ago
    How so? If my boss tells me that I have to stop my out-of-work political activism or he he'll fire me, what would you call that?
belter 2y ago
Both scenarios involve a loss of control over one's professional destiny, not by choice but by external forces...
- mort96 2y ago
  Are you making the argument that "every situation which involves losing control over one's professional destiny is by definition a situation in which one is fired"? If so, I disagree. If not, I don't see the relevance.
  - belter 2y ago
    > Are you making the argument that "every situation which involves losing control over one's professional destiny is by definition a situation in which one is fired"? No, I am saying these two are similar. > I don't see the relevance. The relevance is that trying to pull an Elon Musk one...Has relevance to the professional ethics of the current manager of the OpenAI new safety team...
    - mort96 2y ago
      Aha so you're saying you agree with me, calling this a firing isn't appropriate. It's just similar to a firing in that both involve not working at a place anymore. Cool
      - belter 2y ago
        Ah..ah..nice try:-) That is like those cheating husband arguments. - You are not leaving me...I am leaving you!
        mort96 2y ago
        Person A to person B: "Hey I love you, please stay with me but you have to choose between me and person C" Person B: "okay I choose person C, bye" Person B left --- Contrast with: Person A to person B: "I'm leaving you because you have a relationship with person C" Person A left --- It's really not complicated, and I seriously don't understand why so many people here don't get it... whether you're fired or resigning, and whether you're the person leaving or the person being left, depends on who has the agency. If you're making the choice, you're resigning. If you have no say, you're being fired. People leave their jobs all the time because their job requires something from them that they don't want to give. That's not being fired, that's resigning. (If the job requires something which you're unable to give, such as if you're doing as good of a job as you can reasonably do but your employer requires you do better still and you're just not good enough, then you don't have the agency; you're being fired.) Now, I'm done with this conversation, if you have a counter argument then try to think hard about what I would say in response. You can handle both sides of this conversation from here. I have been clear enough.
tivert 2y ago
> The comments here and on Twitter are really weird. I don't like the guy either but surely anyone has to agree that there's a difference between being told, "We don't want you on as CEO anymore", and being told "We want you as CEO but we need a CEO who's only focused on one company"? It seems weird to describe the situation where Altman is asked to choose and chooses OpenAI as "he was fired from YC". But maybe not as big a difference as some make it out to be. A PIP is technically a statement of "we want you to be an employee, but we need you to change X to stay," but someone doesn't meet the PIP requirements you'd still say they were fired.
- mort96 2y ago
  If someone can't meet the PIP requirements, then they're fired. If someone could easily meet the PIP requirements, but decides to leave instead, then they left. In my mind, the entire question is about who has agency.
  - bradlys 2y ago
    A PIP is almost always a formal nothingburger as a paperwork enforced means to get someone fired. Very often the goals of PIPs are either ridiculously high or nonsensically vague as to be interpreted in whatever way that would please the person doing the firing. It gives a false sense of "agency" for the employee. In reality, the employee was already fired 3 months ago in the mind of the manager.
    - mort96 2y ago
      Right. So there's no real agency, so it's a firing. Unlike the case where you're just asked which of the two companies you want to be CEO of.
  - tivert 2y ago
    No, it's not a simple binary like that. PIPs aren't about ability, they're about performance (as in "doing the thing"). For instance, someone who can meet the PIP requirements can still choose not to meet them yet also choose not to resign. Those choices will probably lead them to be fired.
stefan_ 2y ago
I suppose you also think all these executives really quit to be with their family?
- mort96 2y ago
  That's a completely different question. You're alleging that Paul is lying, which might very well be the case. I'm just saying that if everything Paul said is correct, I don't think the word "fired" is appropriate.

by mort96 2y ago

mort96 2y ago

Like if I say to my boss, "Hey I want to reduce my position to 50% to spend 50% of my time working for this other company", and they respond with "Sorry, we don't want part-time employees", and I respond "ok I quit", who in their right mind would describe that as me getting fired?

falcor84 2y ago
Did he actually ask to reduce his position? As far as I'm aware, being a CEO is never based on hours worked, and there are plenty of other CEOs with multiple commitments.
- mort96 2y ago
  The way the tweet is phrased makes me think he was asked by the board to choose, so I guess a more appropriate analogy would be: I'm employed by a company, I start a side gig which I spend 50% of my productive time on, my boss eventually tells me that they need someone in my position to be a proper full time employee and I need to choose. I respond, "okay, in that case I resign". There's no difference between the two analogies in my eye, they're the same except that the first is about asking permission while the second is about just doing it.

falcor84 2y ago

There is definitely a difference to discuss, but simplified it still states "Unless you change your behavior, you need to go", as suck, I don't feel that "fired" is inaccurate.

mort96 2y ago
This feels reductive. He was asked to choose between two jobs, and told that he couldn't have both. He chose one of them. Describing that as being "fired" is whack. "He was fired for choosing to work somewhere else instead of here", really?
- yurishimo 2y ago
  In layman's terms, we call that "quitting"!
  - jfoster 2y ago
    I would call it an ultimatum. Quitting: You decide that it's time to go. Firing: Your boss decides that it's time for you to go. Ultimatum: Choose between these options, or it's time for you to go. The only part that might not be right is the tone. I think "ultimatum" sounds a bit adversarial, whereas PG is describing something more cooperative in nature.
addicted 2y ago
You’re not “fired” if you were given an option to continue in the job.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- falcor84 2y ago
  How so? If my boss tells me that I have to stop my out-of-work political activism or he he'll fire me, what would you call that?

belter 2y ago

Both scenarios involve a loss of control over one's professional destiny, not by choice but by external forces...

mort96 2y ago
Are you making the argument that "every situation which involves losing control over one's professional destiny is by definition a situation in which one is fired"? If so, I disagree. If not, I don't see the relevance.
- belter 2y ago
  > Are you making the argument that "every situation which involves losing control over one's professional destiny is by definition a situation in which one is fired"? No, I am saying these two are similar. > I don't see the relevance. The relevance is that trying to pull an Elon Musk one...Has relevance to the professional ethics of the current manager of the OpenAI new safety team...
  - mort96 2y ago
    Aha so you're saying you agree with me, calling this a firing isn't appropriate. It's just similar to a firing in that both involve not working at a place anymore. Cool
    - belter 2y ago
      Ah..ah..nice try:-) That is like those cheating husband arguments. - You are not leaving me...I am leaving you!
      - mort96 2y ago
        Person A to person B: "Hey I love you, please stay with me but you have to choose between me and person C" Person B: "okay I choose person C, bye" Person B left --- Contrast with: Person A to person B: "I'm leaving you because you have a relationship with person C" Person A left --- It's really not complicated, and I seriously don't understand why so many people here don't get it... whether you're fired or resigning, and whether you're the person leaving or the person being left, depends on who has the agency. If you're making the choice, you're resigning. If you have no say, you're being fired. People leave their jobs all the time because their job requires something from them that they don't want to give. That's not being fired, that's resigning. (If the job requires something which you're unable to give, such as if you're doing as good of a job as you can reasonably do but your employer requires you do better still and you're just not good enough, then you don't have the agency; you're being fired.) Now, I'm done with this conversation, if you have a counter argument then try to think hard about what I would say in response. You can handle both sides of this conversation from here. I have been clear enough.

tivert 2y ago

> The comments here and on Twitter are really weird. I don't like the guy either but surely anyone has to agree that there's a difference between being told, "We don't want you on as CEO anymore", and being told "We want you as CEO but we need a CEO who's only focused on one company"? It seems weird to describe the situation where Altman is asked to choose and chooses OpenAI as "he was fired from YC". But maybe not as big a difference as some make it out to be. A PIP is technically a statement of "we want you to be an employee, but we need you to change X to stay," but someone doesn't meet the PIP requirements you'd still say they were fired.

mort96 2y ago
If someone can't meet the PIP requirements, then they're fired. If someone could easily meet the PIP requirements, but decides to leave instead, then they left. In my mind, the entire question is about who has agency.
- bradlys 2y ago
  A PIP is almost always a formal nothingburger as a paperwork enforced means to get someone fired. Very often the goals of PIPs are either ridiculously high or nonsensically vague as to be interpreted in whatever way that would please the person doing the firing. It gives a false sense of "agency" for the employee. In reality, the employee was already fired 3 months ago in the mind of the manager.
  - mort96 2y ago
    Right. So there's no real agency, so it's a firing. Unlike the case where you're just asked which of the two companies you want to be CEO of.
- tivert 2y ago
  No, it's not a simple binary like that. PIPs aren't about ability, they're about performance (as in "doing the thing"). For instance, someone who can meet the PIP requirements can still choose not to meet them yet also choose not to resign. Those choices will probably lead them to be fired.

stefan_ 2y ago

I suppose you also think all these executives really quit to be with their family?

mort96 2y ago
That's a completely different question. You're alleging that Paul is lying, which might very well be the case. I'm just saying that if everything Paul said is correct, I don't think the word "fired" is appropriate.