3 ms·

Theft of what, and from whom? The author breathlessly jumps around without ever establishing the most basic premise. Seems like clickbait doom-mongering more th

Theft of what, and from whom? The author breathlessly jumps around without ever establishing the most basic premise. Seems like clickbait doom-mongering more than anything substantial.

CPLX 1y ago
Here’s an analogy that might help: Imagine if an executive was running the world’s largest charity for cancer research, which was chartered to make sure a cure remained in the public trust and raised millions with that promise. But then once they discovered a cure for cancer the executive instead decided to transfer that cure to a ruthlessly competitive company they personally owned a large percentage of and then become a billionaire many times over.
- JohnnyMarcone 1y ago
  I thought Altman didn't own hardly any equity.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - senordevnyc 1y ago
    He doesn't, which the Sam haters consistently just ignore or gloss over. Or my favorite, they pivot to complaining about how OpenAI is investing in companies he has a stake in, so that's how he's grifting everyone! Which makes no sense, because he could have pretty easily openly negotiated tens of billions in equity in OpenAI if he was after that, rather than try and do some kind of sleight of hand behind the scenes to maybe make 1% of that. Maybe.
    - piva00 1y ago
      What's in it for Altman then? It's money but how?
    - CPLX 1y ago
      Altman isn’t the only beneficiary, my analogy is just that, an analogy. The property of a charity is being pillaged for the benefit of private parties, like Microsoft, existing employees, and yes of course Altman himself via various means. You can “well actually” this all day, but at the beginning of the story there’s a charity with millions of dollars to do research and the promise to keep the resulting advancements in the public trust. At the end of the story there will be billions of dollars in the hands of private individuals and the IP the charity created in the hands of a ruthless for profit company.
  - MagnumOpus 1y ago
    Bloomberg reported last year that Sam is angling for the board to give him 7% of the company, and the board was seriously discussing it. The optics weren’t right at the time, but you can rely on something being in planning. Sam doesn’t do anything for free, even though he is already a billionaire 2-3 times over.

Theft of what, and from whom? The author breathlessly jumps around without ever establishing the most basic premise. Seems like clickbait doom-mongering more than anything substantial.

CPLX 1y ago

Here’s an analogy that might help: Imagine if an executive was running the world’s largest charity for cancer research, which was chartered to make sure a cure remained in the public trust and raised millions with that promise. But then once they discovered a cure for cancer the executive instead decided to transfer that cure to a ruthlessly competitive company they personally owned a large percentage of and then become a billionaire many times over.

JohnnyMarcone 1y ago
I thought Altman didn't own hardly any equity.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- senordevnyc 1y ago
  He doesn't, which the Sam haters consistently just ignore or gloss over. Or my favorite, they pivot to complaining about how OpenAI is investing in companies he has a stake in, so that's how he's grifting everyone! Which makes no sense, because he could have pretty easily openly negotiated tens of billions in equity in OpenAI if he was after that, rather than try and do some kind of sleight of hand behind the scenes to maybe make 1% of that. Maybe.
  - piva00 1y ago
    What's in it for Altman then? It's money but how?
  - CPLX 1y ago
    Altman isn’t the only beneficiary, my analogy is just that, an analogy. The property of a charity is being pillaged for the benefit of private parties, like Microsoft, existing employees, and yes of course Altman himself via various means. You can “well actually” this all day, but at the beginning of the story there’s a charity with millions of dollars to do research and the promise to keep the resulting advancements in the public trust. At the end of the story there will be billions of dollars in the hands of private individuals and the IP the charity created in the hands of a ruthless for profit company.
- MagnumOpus 1y ago
  Bloomberg reported last year that Sam is angling for the board to give him 7% of the company, and the board was seriously discussing it. The optics weren’t right at the time, but you can rely on something being in planning. Sam doesn’t do anything for free, even though he is already a billionaire 2-3 times over.