4 ms·

To me, the biggest thing here is that pg seems to be vouching for Sam, so this seems like an important rebuttal to Toner's attacks against Sam's character.

warunsl 2y ago
Or that PG has a lot of money at stake which might suddenly become a lot less valuable if the public perception towards Sam were to lean towards Sam being unreliable as a CEO of OAI.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I don't know where you got that from. It seems easily possible that both of the following are true: 1. There was reporting and online discussion that sama was fired from YC. pg didn't believe this framing was correct and sent out his tweet to correct the record. 2. Toner made some very specific allegations about instances where sama was not truthful to the OpenAI board, especially with respect to instances of self-dealing. If #1 is true (and I see no reason to believe it's not), that in no way implies #2 is false.
- odyssey7 2y ago
  Toner has cast out a whole constellation of vague and non-specific incidents that motivated her to oust Sam. If the case was as open-and-shut as (2), why has Toner continued making vague and non-specific character attacks, and why did the board put out that bizarre "not consistently candid" line? Clearly, Microsoft didn't see much of a legal problem when Microsoft supported Sam's return to OpenAI and when Microsoft offered to hire Sam. If Toner has been telling the truth about all of the myriad things that she claims happened, where was she when she was responsible for oversight during recent years? Toner comes across as unprofessional and reckless in how she handled all of this, whether her claims are true or not.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree that the board's communication and how they handled the firing was woefully naive and extremely poorly done. That said, you may have missed it but Toner alleged some very specific instances of lying and withholding information from the board: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40506582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40506582. That's very different from "vague and non-specific character attacks". And, importantly, 4 total board members agreed that was the right action to take.
    - odyssey7 2y ago
      I believe that 2 things can be true: 1. Toner says some specific things. 2. Toner presents them alongside insinuations and plenty of vague and nonspecific things. Apparently (1) wasn’t sufficient to justify her actions, so she’s had to resort to (2). As for four board members, that’s a description of what the board did, not what Sam did. The board’s actions do not justify the board’s actions, however much Toner might wish that were the case. Just another insinuation in place of a reason.
      - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        Based on the timing it doesn't seem like your "Apparently (1) wasn’t sufficient to justify her actions, so she’s had to resort to (2)" conclusion makes sense. It wasn't like she gave out a lot of specifics, and when people thought that wasn't enough evidence that she then resorted to "vague and non-specific" claims. The timing was the opposite. My guess (having seen other examples of this) is the board depended too much on the legal advice they got. That is, I'm sure their lawyers recommended giving as few details as possible, because every detail you give is a potential opening for a lawsuit. This is generally standard legal advice when firing someone. The problem with that advice is that while it may make sense from a purely legal perspective, it is absolutely horrible practical advice when it comes to communicating their rationale for a decision of this magnitude.
        odyssey7 2y ago
        My apologies, in listing elements with numbers I meant to make them easy to reference, rather than to suggest a temporal ordering of their use. I did write that (2) has been used alongside (1). And it’s not like the vague character attacks and insinuations (2) have stopped being a device in the story Toner tells. If Toner’s approach has merely been to stay pragmatic about avoiding legal risks, then it’s difficult to say what prompted her recent podcast, which she had no legal duty to produce. For what it’s worth, smearing her professional colleague with the stereotype of a sneaky, untrustworthy gay man really shouldn’t have any place in Toner’s repertoire. Gay men can of course be sneaky and untrustworthy, but if Toner really feels the need to explain her behavior to the public, then Toner could potentially improve her credibility by trying her hardest to give a very clear and detailed picture of what happened and to stop employing vague and non-specific devices, so that the public can consider her claims with lucidity rather than through a fog of insinuation.
solidasparagus 2y ago
Terrible people have powerful people vouching for them all of the time (just look at the retinue of high-level politicians who showed up to support Trump at his trial). Sam is CEO of OpenAI, arguably the most important company on earth right now, and will be for the foreseeable future. A positive relationship with him is beneficial. I don't think you can infer anything about Sam's character from this tweet.
- eschaton 2y ago
  > arguably the most important company on earth right now This is some Nicholas Negroponte level science fiction charlatan handwaving right here. LLMs are stochastic parrots. What you’re experiencing when you see its output is essentially pareidolia but with language and not faces.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
eschaton 2y ago
Or an indictment of pg’s. (It’s this.)

warunsl 2y ago

Or that PG has a lot of money at stake which might suddenly become a lot less valuable if the public perception towards Sam were to lean towards Sam being unreliable as a CEO of OAI.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

I don't know where you got that from. It seems easily possible that both of the following are true: 1. There was reporting and online discussion that sama was fired from YC. pg didn't believe this framing was correct and sent out his tweet to correct the record. 2. Toner made some very specific allegations about instances where sama was not truthful to the OpenAI board, especially with respect to instances of self-dealing. If #1 is true (and I see no reason to believe it's not), that in no way implies #2 is false.

odyssey7 2y ago
Toner has cast out a whole constellation of vague and non-specific incidents that motivated her to oust Sam. If the case was as open-and-shut as (2), why has Toner continued making vague and non-specific character attacks, and why did the board put out that bizarre "not consistently candid" line? Clearly, Microsoft didn't see much of a legal problem when Microsoft supported Sam's return to OpenAI and when Microsoft offered to hire Sam. If Toner has been telling the truth about all of the myriad things that she claims happened, where was she when she was responsible for oversight during recent years? Toner comes across as unprofessional and reckless in how she handled all of this, whether her claims are true or not.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree that the board's communication and how they handled the firing was woefully naive and extremely poorly done. That said, you may have missed it but Toner alleged some very specific instances of lying and withholding information from the board: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40506582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40506582. That's very different from "vague and non-specific character attacks". And, importantly, 4 total board members agreed that was the right action to take.
  - odyssey7 2y ago
    I believe that 2 things can be true: 1. Toner says some specific things. 2. Toner presents them alongside insinuations and plenty of vague and nonspecific things. Apparently (1) wasn’t sufficient to justify her actions, so she’s had to resort to (2). As for four board members, that’s a description of what the board did, not what Sam did. The board’s actions do not justify the board’s actions, however much Toner might wish that were the case. Just another insinuation in place of a reason.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      Based on the timing it doesn't seem like your "Apparently (1) wasn’t sufficient to justify her actions, so she’s had to resort to (2)" conclusion makes sense. It wasn't like she gave out a lot of specifics, and when people thought that wasn't enough evidence that she then resorted to "vague and non-specific" claims. The timing was the opposite. My guess (having seen other examples of this) is the board depended too much on the legal advice they got. That is, I'm sure their lawyers recommended giving as few details as possible, because every detail you give is a potential opening for a lawsuit. This is generally standard legal advice when firing someone. The problem with that advice is that while it may make sense from a purely legal perspective, it is absolutely horrible practical advice when it comes to communicating their rationale for a decision of this magnitude.
      - odyssey7 2y ago
        My apologies, in listing elements with numbers I meant to make them easy to reference, rather than to suggest a temporal ordering of their use. I did write that (2) has been used alongside (1). And it’s not like the vague character attacks and insinuations (2) have stopped being a device in the story Toner tells. If Toner’s approach has merely been to stay pragmatic about avoiding legal risks, then it’s difficult to say what prompted her recent podcast, which she had no legal duty to produce. For what it’s worth, smearing her professional colleague with the stereotype of a sneaky, untrustworthy gay man really shouldn’t have any place in Toner’s repertoire. Gay men can of course be sneaky and untrustworthy, but if Toner really feels the need to explain her behavior to the public, then Toner could potentially improve her credibility by trying her hardest to give a very clear and detailed picture of what happened and to stop employing vague and non-specific devices, so that the public can consider her claims with lucidity rather than through a fog of insinuation.

solidasparagus 2y ago

Terrible people have powerful people vouching for them all of the time (just look at the retinue of high-level politicians who showed up to support Trump at his trial). Sam is CEO of OpenAI, arguably the most important company on earth right now, and will be for the foreseeable future. A positive relationship with him is beneficial. I don't think you can infer anything about Sam's character from this tweet.

eschaton 2y ago
> arguably the most important company on earth right now This is some Nicholas Negroponte level science fiction charlatan handwaving right here. LLMs are stochastic parrots. What you’re experiencing when you see its output is essentially pareidolia but with language and not faces.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

eschaton 2y ago

Or an indictment of pg’s. (It’s this.)