9 ms·

Sam Altman, Lately

• earnesti 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > whining starts instantly when someone makes a bit dough More like scrutiny.
  • richbell 2y ago
    > The whining starts instantly when someone makes a bit dough Can you elucidate what your comment is trying to say in the context of the article? I don't understand the relevance.
    • Waterluvian 2y ago
      People, most of which who will never be rich, get anxious when their idea of the American Dream is challenged. Because what’s gonna happen when it’s their turn to make it big?
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > get anxious when their idea of the American Dream is challenged How does anything in this article challenge the American Dream?
        • Waterluvian 2y ago
          No, the complaint that when people get rich, they’re scrutinized more. People who won’t ever get rich, but hope to one day, defend the rich in this manner because of this dream.
          • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
            > the complaint that when people get rich, they’re scrutinized more When people get powerful they're scrutinized. Plenty of billionaires fly under the radar. If you go to the Congress, however, and tell the country you're inventing something that could blow up humanity, yeah, you're going to get attention.
  • oldkinglog 2y ago
    Left wingers complain when journalists don't hold powerful people to account. Right wingers complain when they do.
    • elevatedastalt 2y ago
      The complaints are most due to lack of consistency in the selection of the targets of scrutiny. The point of scrutiny should be to uncover the truth, not political point-scoring.
• stephc_int13 2y ago
  I don't see any of the comments here, is that a bug?
  • asadm 2y ago
    a dead comment has the rest of 8 comments
  • Forgeties79 2y ago
    HN was behaving strangely for me a little while ago
• shamino 2y ago
  Paul Graham came out publicly to defend Sam, and we instantly have this blog post about, wait, just a sec, let's dissect actually why Sam is still evil. Can we believe that Sam could actually be a good person? Today, Kara Swisher in her podcast on Pivot said, "Every time I tell people I actually like Sam, they become widely offended".
  • lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
    > Can we believe that Sam could actually be a good person? Depends on what good means to you. This is a person that we have evidence on repeatedly using these kind of underhanded techniques. Maybe he's not physically hurting anyone, but this is a person I would avoid.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > these kind of underhanded techniques What in the article is underhanded? Worst case, he has undisclosed conflicts of interest. > this is a person I would avoid Does Altman have a Trump-like wake of ruined careers and lost riches among former allies? Everyone he's been close to seems to have done well from it.
      • fragmede 2y ago
        > Worst case, he has undisclosed conflicts of interest. Given the size of these deals, that's kind of a big deal. It isn't an "oops, it slipped my mind" small little conflict of interest kind of thing, imo.
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > Given the size of these deals, that's kind of a big deal For investors, sure. (And the investors are more than fine with Altman, warts and all.) For the public, eh.
          • pseudalopex 2y ago
• ricardobeat 2y ago
  I’m astounded he amassed $500+ million even before this. Loopt can’t have earned him more than one digit, are YC partners paid this well?
  • esafak 2y ago
    As opposed to partners in other VCs? Successful VCs make good money, thanks to performance fees; say, 20% of the profit. edit: I don't know the specifics of Altman's case.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > thanks to performance fees Based on public reporting, Altman's wealth came from his family office piggybacking alongside YC versus his share of carry in YC's funds.
      • brcmthrowaway 2y ago
        What does this mean for dummies? Altman family was already rich?
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > What does this mean for dummies? He sold Loopt for $40mm and then invested his share of that into start-ups like Stripe. (That investment alone should have taken him past $100mm.)
          • brcmthrowaway 2y ago
            Oh wow, wish I had just 1% of his wealth
  • neural_thing 2y ago
    If you read the WSJ article, his second investment was $15,000 for 2% of Stripe
• gizmo 2y ago
  I'm a little bit surprised by these articles. I thought it was well known (or at least an open secret) that sama is one the most prolific tech investors? Yes, sure, there are conflicts of interest but this is par for the course. If you make many bets and startups pivot to greener pastures then inevitably you end up up funding startups that compete head-on. When people take sama's money they know he has a stake in 400 other startups. But sama's network is also one of his great assets.
  • chrishare 2y ago
    He either didn't disclose key commercial dealings to the OpenAI board, or purposefully concealed them. That's a big deal.
    • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      Anyone not living under a rock knew who he was. If someone has been investing for 10 years before taking a job, one can reasonably assume they are going to have a bunch of investments. It doesn't need to be 'disclosed'. What's next, someone will be surprised warren buffett owns some stocks outside berkshire?
      • chrishare 2y ago
        If you are a CEO, especially of a quasi non-profit, and you start a for-profit investment vehicle as part of this organisation, you should tell the board that.
        • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
          What makes you think they didn't know it existed?
      • ameister14 2y ago
        There is a huge difference between 'I have private investments' and 'I own a controlling interest in a fund I have been telling you is independent'
• vasco 2y ago
  > He owns no stake in the ChatGPT developer, saying he doesn’t want the seductions of wealth to corrupt the safe development of artificial intelligence, and makes a yearly salary of just $65,000. > “A growing number of Altman’s startups do business with OpenAI itself, either as customers or major business partners. The arrangement puts Altman on both sides of deals, creating a mounting list of potential conflicts in which he could personally benefit from OpenAI’s work.” If nothing else this idea that a person that is positioned to lead such a company is willing to do it for just $65k for altruistic reasons, backfired. Clearly the person has many incentives to go find profits somewhere else. edit: added second quote to clarify
  • wslh 2y ago
    Altruism?
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Altman isn't an Effective Altruist.
      • sangnoir 2y ago
        > Altman isn't an Effective Altruist Or any type of small-a altruist, really. Which is in direct conflict of the image he wishes/wished to portray by "only" officially getting a bay-area-intern-level salary with no equity.
      • pseudalopex 2y ago
        Did they edit their comment? Or did you assume altruism meant Effective Altruism?
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > Did they edit their comment? Yes.
  • m3kw9 2y ago
• stephc_int13 2y ago
  The cat is out of the bag now, and the Toyota Corolla trick was evented, but I think he could have used it, or a less Miami-esque version of it. Like the other Sam, his bank account has not been inflating by accident, and him insisting that he is not that much interested by money should be taken, at least, with a reasonably sized pinch of salt.
  • blitzar 2y ago
    Having a couple of billion in the bank tends to make people (publicly) disinterested in money.
• ajross 2y ago
  So... not entirely joking: at what point do we declare that "OpenAI" the non-profit was basically a scam? It's clear it isn't now what it originally presented itself to be, and it's increasingly looking like it was never meant to be. The public-face of an open non-profit was, what, just a recruiting tool to be able to hire folks who otherwise wouldn't want to leave academia?
  • kelipso 2y ago
    I think it was a classic bait and switch for the academics working there. You were able to publish everything, which is what academics want, until they came up with the safety nonsense and closed everything up.
  • tim333 2y ago
    There's a Musk court case about that coming along.
• eigenvalue 2y ago
  It really seems like criticizing Sam is the new hot thing to do, with tons of people jumping on the bandwagon. Whether it's hiring a voice actor who sounds like ScarJo, having non-disparagement clauses in separation agreements (something basically all big companies and institutions tend to do), being associated with a crypto project (Worldcoin), "lying" to OpenAI board members, etc. No one is perfect, and when you are put under a microscope, just about anyone can look bad in the wrong light. Ultimately, I ask myself, is my life better because Sam was born and did what he did? And the answer is 1,000 times "yes!" because the introduction of ChatGPT changed so much and enabled so much creation and learning for me personally. And I have a strong suspicion that if the Helen Toners of the world had their way, it never would have been released at all. And without all that money and prestige floating around OpenAI, I doubt they would have been able to create such a dream team that allowed the thing to happen in the first place. And I think all of that comes down at least in large part to Sam's vision and scrappiness and willingness to just do stuff and not get stuck in institutional morass.
  • darig 2y ago
    [dead]
  • chrishare 2y ago
    Tech loves drama just like anyone else, haha. But this recent pattern of drama that follows Altman is of his own making, although perhaps he is under more scrutiny than most, reflecting OpenAIs importance in our industry.
  • artwr 2y ago
    > It really seems like criticizing Sam is the new hot thing to do, with tons of people jumping on the bandwagon. Whether it's hiring a voice actor who sounds like ScarJo, having non-disparagement clauses in separation agreements (something basically all big companies and institutions tend to do), being associated with a crypto project (Worldcoin), "lying" to OpenAI board members, etc. No one is perfect, and when you are put under a microscope, just about anyone can look bad in the wrong light. True, but it's hard to start something as big as OpenAI and not warrant a little scrutiny. At least, I think there is plenty of public interest here, in particular because of the chosen mission statement for the company. > Ultimately, I ask myself, is my life better because Sam was born and did what he did? And the answer is 1,000 times "yes!" because the introduction of ChatGPT changed so much and enabled so much creation and learning for me personally. Which is a very reasonable position, but is the fact that your life is better negate concerns that applications of ChatGPT may actually make other people's lives worse? And that the lack of transparency around conflicts of interest raises reasonable concerns about both judgement and the ability of the organization to deliver on its mission?
• danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  Unpopular but true: if you don't have conflicts of interest, you aren't really in the game. I don't know any serious business person who doesn't have conflicts. Some manage them as honestly and fairly as possible, others not so much. Having conflicts doesn't make someone bad.
  • idkdotcom 2y ago
    [dead]
  • iamthirsty 2y ago
    It’s not even specifically about the conflicts of interest — although that isn’t great — it’s about the obfuscation of that information, and the direct contradiction with public statements and ‘mission goals’.
    • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      What is a concrete example?
  • tanseydavid 2y ago
    >> Having conflicts doesn't make someone bad. What if someone is willful opaque about their conflicts?
    • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      Read the entire comment, and think.
  • omnimus 2y ago
    Yeah if you dont have conflicts of interest you are a looser. There are so few companies that what can one do?
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• idkdotcom 2y ago
  [dead]
• ml-anon 2y ago
  Paul Graham comes off as such a gormless chump. Trying to hand wave away a 10M stake in OpenAI taken when they were valued at <1Bn and then trying to weasel out by saying profit is capped. Why yes it is Paul, at 100x initially with the cap raising by 20% a year. And then trying to claim that the PPUs aren’t liquid despite regular liquidity events being the entire reason we know OpenAIs current valuation. Didn’t think I’d see the founder of YC try the “I’m a moron who doesn’t understand how investments work” defense.
  • icpmacdo 2y ago
    > OpenAI taken when they were valued at <1Bn Incorrect round
• iamthirsty 2y ago
  The author here, just want to clarify: The post is not a “hit-piece” on Sam, nor am I calling him a bad person or anything of the like. It’s a discussion of the direct contradiction between publicly stating someone is without financial biases and the hard facts of clear financial entanglements. I’m happy to hear any criticism on how I could’ve written it better to explain my position! :)
  • quitit 2y ago
    The tech community is inherently cynical, not because we dwell in basements and fear sunlight, but because we've been around long enough to see the corruptive effects of the big business side of tech. The article is well balanced and in my opinion doesn't exhibit a sense of bias. It's clear you're not alone in noticing the dots on the graph are forming a line. Some may say that merely shining a light on the topic, rather than something more virtuous, is a form of bias. I tend to disagree with those assessments due to the aforementioned reasons. We're all adults, we can hold a complex view of Sam Altman. It's not about putting him in a good or bad box, but being aware that he does have financial ties to all of this (avoidable or otherwise) and that is the lens we may need to evaluate some of his decisions by. His actions will ultimately tell his story. That said, HN can be a little too suspicious and it does frequently trump up malice in the benign.
  • Lerc 2y ago
    Ok, please take this as constructive criticism of your writing, and not as a counterargument to your position. In your post the comment. > Graham's attempt to dispel rumors of Altman's supposed firing didn't work as well as hoped, with many of the responses reiterating that making him choose between OpenAI & YCombinator still constituted a form of firing. Portrays this as a matter of opinion, when if any single opinion should be considered it should be Paul Graham's since he was the person performing the act. The likely cause for Paul Graham's statement was Helen Toners comments a few days earlier >if Sam did stay in power as he ultimately did you know that would make their lives miserable and I guess the last thing I would say about this is that this actually isn't a new problem for Sam and if you look at some of the reporting that that has come out since November it's come out that he was actually fired from his previous job at Y combinator which was hushed up at the time Which clearly carries the implication that this was an inarguable firing for misdeeds. In this context, it does not matter if being asked to make a choice is technically firing. The main point is that this is a rebuttal of the narrative put forth by Helen Toner. Paul Graham makes this clear >we would have been happy if he stayed So this is how you start out, It places the article within a false narrative, but is not even the topic of the post. It would have been better to more concisely state that the thread containing Paul Graham's statement revealed an additional piece of information. Next you say >While responding to replies, it seems that Graham was informed - and later confirmed - that Altman had, in a pretty clear conflict of interest You are combining a conclusion and evidence here. The evidence shows that Sam Altman has a degree of investment in OpenAI through Y Combinator. You need to make the argument that this was a clear conflict of interest separately, additionally you need to state whether you mean the conflict of interest is referring to when he invested the money as the president of Y Combinator, or later in decision making at OpenAI as a stake holder. >obviously unbeknownst to YCombinator leadership, Is clearly false because at the time Altman was YCombinator leadership himself. >a tidy sum of $10 million Everything is relative, it is worth taking into context how much $10 million represents to the people concerned. In your provided reference, Paul Graham describes the sum as >This was not a very big investment for those funds. I cannot critique the accuracy of your representations of the Wall Street Journal, as it is paywalled. The Gist of the critique is that there are deals between OpenAI and enterprises that Sam Altman has an investment in. It is not uncommon for individuals to be in decision making roles in one company while it does dealings with another in which they have a financial interest. It is not enough to establish that this connection exists for it to be a story. There needs to be some suggestion and evidence that there were decisions that were improperly influenced by the person with the conflict of interest. The typical way to avoid even the appearance of improper influence is for the person to declare their conflict of interest and leave that decision to non conflicted parties. Declarations of conflict of interest are commonplace, because conflicts of interest are not bad in themselves, only when they influence events. If you are alleging that Sam Altman improperly influenced the negotiation with Reddit for data, or any similar conflicted negotiation, then you really have a story. You also need evidence to say that it happened. Even evidence that Sam Altman refused to step aside from such negotiations would be significant news. While he may not have influenced negotiations to his own advantage, being in a position where it appears that it might have happened would generally be considered a lapse in judgement. Barring that evidence. You have a story about someone's investments that have increased in value, which is what people expect their investments to do.
• philwelch 2y ago
  > While responding to replies, it seems that Graham was informed — and later confirmed — that Altman had, in a pretty clear conflict of interest and obviously unbeknownst to YCombinator leadership, invested a tidy sum of $10 million through YCombinator into OpenAI’s for-profit arm. The emphasized phrase doesn’t make sense. At the time, Altman was YCombinator leadership. Graham had retired to England by then; it’s hardly unusual or surprising that he wasn’t keeping track of every single YC investment.
  • FireBeyond 2y ago
    > every single YC investment A startup from the current crop whose $500K investment for 7%? Sure. Pretty much the hottest topic ON THE PLANET, north of $80B valuation? Yeah, I'm a bit more skeptical that "it's not unusual he wouldn't be paying attention to that investment".
• Havoc 2y ago
  I find it strange that people keep attacking him on this. He’s allowed to make money. Musk bezo etc all did and nobody whined There is plenty to attack him on legitimately…yet people seem obsessed with this angle
  • manquer 2y ago
    They didn’t claim to be running non-profit/ capped profit entity , being altruistic and saving the world from AGI and didn’t co-opt the word “Open” and never claimed to work on a humble 65000 salary with no equity upside and doing it all in their goodness of their hearts No one cares about another billionaire founder if they were honest about it . The valley created dozens if not more each wave . The current generation of founders have drunk their own cool aid it seems and are no longer satisfied with becoming a billionaire they also want be to adored and revered as the savior the next Jesus or MLK, Gandhi or Mandela. It belittles the people who sacrifice their careers, money and livelihoods to make a difference on actual social missions.
• SkyMarshal 2y ago
  > Altman’s personal investments range in everything from nuclear fission reactor start-up Helion Helion is a fusion startup, not fission. That's what makes it particularly interesting. Getting a simple but obvious detail like that wrong is odd.
  • iamthirsty 2y ago
    Honestly was a typo, I was actually aware of the type of reactor. People make simple mistakes sometimes, especially while typing fast. Fixed in post.
    • SkyMarshal 2y ago
      Ah thx for the update, probably should have given you the benefit of the doubt on that one, sorry!