4 ms·

I don’t think your links are evidence of a flip flop. The first link is from mid-2016. The second link is from January 2025. It is entirely reasonable for som

I don’t think your links are evidence of a flip flop. The first link is from mid-2016. The second link is from January 2025. It is entirely reasonable for someone to genuinely change his or her views of a person over the course of 8.5 years. That is a substantial length of time in a person’s life. To me a “flip-flop” is when one changes views on something in a very short amount of time.

meowface 2y ago
IMO it probably is and Altman probably still (rightly) hates Trump. He's playing politics because he needs to. I don't really blame him for it, though his tweet certainly did make me wince.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  "I don't really blame him for it" That's the thing though right, that we all created this mess together. Like yeah, why don't you (and the rest of us) blame him?. We're all pretty warped and it's going to take collective rehab. Super pretentious to quote MLK, but the man had stuff to say so here it is (on Inaction): "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it" "The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people"
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    It's not pretentious to quote Martin Luther King.
  - benatkin 2y ago
    It seems he was virtue signaling before. So it would be more accurate to blame him for having let himself become an ego driven person in the past. Or to put it nicely and to add the context of Brian Armstrong of Coinbase, who has also been showing public support for Trump, a mission-driven person.
    - mrandish 2y ago
      > It seems he was virtue signaling before. Yes, the first mistake was a business leader in tech taking a public political position. It was popular and accepted (if not expected) in the valley in 2016. Doing that then (and banking the social and reputational proceeds) created the problem of dissonance now. If he'd just stayed neutral in public in 2016, he could do what he's doing now and we could assume he's just being a pragmatic business person lobbying the government to further his company's interests.
      - benatkin 2y ago
        I think “progressive” is probably the safest position to take. It also works if you want to get involved in a different sort of politics later on. David Sacks had no problem doing that when he was no longer interested in being CEO of a large company.
        mrandish 2y ago
        The evidence indicates not taking a position is the optimal position. I have a lot of respect for CEOs who just focus on being a good CEO. It's a hard enough job as is. I don't care about or want to know some CEO's personal position on politics, religion or sports teams. It's all a distraction from the job at hand. Same goes for actors, athletes and singers. They aren't qualified to have an opinion any more relevant than anyone else's, except on acting, athletics, singing - or CEO-ing. Sadly, my perspective is in the minority. Which is why I think so many public figures keep making this mistake. The media, pundits and social sphere need them to keep making this mistake.
        benatkin 2y ago
        I guess I think they should study what a neutral position looks like, and avoid going beyond it as best as they can. I had in mind a "progressive" who avoids any hot button issues. Someone with a high profile will be asked about politics from time to time. I think Brian Chesky is a good example of acting like a progressive in a way that stays low profile, but maybe he doesn't really act like one. https://www.businessinsider.com/brian-chesky-airbnb-new-breed-ceo-2020-11?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/brian-chesky-airbnb-new-bree... Also it helps to have sincere political views. GitHub's CEO at the time of #DropICE was too cynical and his image suffered because of it.
rybosworld 2y ago
Seems like an extremely naïve take. In 2016: Sam alluded to Trump's rise as not dissimilar to Hitler's. He said that Trump's ideas on how to fix things are so far off the mark that they are dangerous. He even quoted the famous: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In 2025: "I'm not going to agree with him on everything, but I think he will be incredible for the country" This is quite obviously someone who is pandering for their own benefit.
- benatkin 2y ago
  Just like JD Vance.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
themaninthedark 2y ago
This is quite honestly one of the major problems with our society right now. Once you take a public stance, you are not allowed to revisit and re-evaluate. I think that this is by and large driving most of the polarization in the country, since "My view is right and I will not give an inch least I be seen as weak". While most of the things affected are highly political situations, i.e. Trump's ideas or Biden's fitness. We also seem to have thrown out things that we used to consider cornerstones of liberal democracy i.e. our ideas regarding free speech and censorship, where we claim that it's not happening because it is a private company.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

meowface 2y ago

IMO it probably is and Altman probably still (rightly) hates Trump. He's playing politics because he needs to. I don't really blame him for it, though his tweet certainly did make me wince.

bloomingkales 2y ago
"I don't really blame him for it" That's the thing though right, that we all created this mess together. Like yeah, why don't you (and the rest of us) blame him?. We're all pretty warped and it's going to take collective rehab. Super pretentious to quote MLK, but the man had stuff to say so here it is (on Inaction): "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it" "The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people"
- whatshisface 2y ago
  It's not pretentious to quote Martin Luther King.
- benatkin 2y ago
  It seems he was virtue signaling before. So it would be more accurate to blame him for having let himself become an ego driven person in the past. Or to put it nicely and to add the context of Brian Armstrong of Coinbase, who has also been showing public support for Trump, a mission-driven person.
  - mrandish 2y ago
    > It seems he was virtue signaling before. Yes, the first mistake was a business leader in tech taking a public political position. It was popular and accepted (if not expected) in the valley in 2016. Doing that then (and banking the social and reputational proceeds) created the problem of dissonance now. If he'd just stayed neutral in public in 2016, he could do what he's doing now and we could assume he's just being a pragmatic business person lobbying the government to further his company's interests.
    - benatkin 2y ago
      I think “progressive” is probably the safest position to take. It also works if you want to get involved in a different sort of politics later on. David Sacks had no problem doing that when he was no longer interested in being CEO of a large company.
      - mrandish 2y ago
        The evidence indicates not taking a position is the optimal position. I have a lot of respect for CEOs who just focus on being a good CEO. It's a hard enough job as is. I don't care about or want to know some CEO's personal position on politics, religion or sports teams. It's all a distraction from the job at hand. Same goes for actors, athletes and singers. They aren't qualified to have an opinion any more relevant than anyone else's, except on acting, athletics, singing - or CEO-ing. Sadly, my perspective is in the minority. Which is why I think so many public figures keep making this mistake. The media, pundits and social sphere need them to keep making this mistake.
        benatkin 2y ago
        I guess I think they should study what a neutral position looks like, and avoid going beyond it as best as they can. I had in mind a "progressive" who avoids any hot button issues. Someone with a high profile will be asked about politics from time to time. I think Brian Chesky is a good example of acting like a progressive in a way that stays low profile, but maybe he doesn't really act like one. https://www.businessinsider.com/brian-chesky-airbnb-new-breed-ceo-2020-11?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/brian-chesky-airbnb-new-bree... Also it helps to have sincere political views. GitHub's CEO at the time of #DropICE was too cynical and his image suffered because of it.

rybosworld 2y ago

Seems like an extremely naïve take. In 2016: Sam alluded to Trump's rise as not dissimilar to Hitler's. He said that Trump's ideas on how to fix things are so far off the mark that they are dangerous. He even quoted the famous: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In 2025: "I'm not going to agree with him on everything, but I think he will be incredible for the country" This is quite obviously someone who is pandering for their own benefit.

benatkin 2y ago
Just like JD Vance.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

themaninthedark 2y ago

This is quite honestly one of the major problems with our society right now. Once you take a public stance, you are not allowed to revisit and re-evaluate. I think that this is by and large driving most of the polarization in the country, since "My view is right and I will not give an inch least I be seen as weak". While most of the things affected are highly political situations, i.e. Trump's ideas or Biden's fitness. We also seem to have thrown out things that we used to consider cornerstones of liberal democracy i.e. our ideas regarding free speech and censorship, where we claim that it's not happening because it is a private company.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]