It also isn't clear why Altman couldn't have been replaced by someone else with literally no change in operations and progress. It is just really confusing why people acted as if they fired Michael Jordan from the Bulls.
If employees would have voted Sam out, you'd take that as a shiny example of the proletariat exercising the power for the good of human kind, hammer, sickle and all that.
I always find it funny when people understand democracy to mean "other people that should vote my way, otherwise they are imoral and should be re-educated".
First, I'm actually quite libertarian and capitalist -- although not necessarily so when it comes to companies working on powerful AI (or fighter jets for that matter). Here are some comments of mine from other discussions if you don't believe me:
And by the way, here is a comment I made the other day making essentially the point you are making, that in a democracy everyone is entitled to their opinion, even the dastardly Elon Musk: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38261265 And I also argue in favor of freedom of speech here, for whatever that's worth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37713086
Point being, I'm not sure our disagreement lies where you think it does.
The purpose of the board is that they're supposed to be disinterested representatives of humanity, supervising OpenAI. The employees aren't chosen for being disinterested, and it seems quite likely that they are, in fact, interested, per my link.
From the perspective of human benefit (or from the perspective of my own financial stake in OpenAI, given that their charter says their "primary fiduciary duty is to humanity"), I prefer a small group of thoughtful, disinterested people over a slightly larger group whose interest is systematically biased relative to the interest of me or the average person. Which is more likely to produce a fair trial: a jury of 12 randomly chosen citizens, or a jury of 1200 mafiosos?
I don't think that means it intends to pay a financial dividend to each and every person on the planet. I think it means that if it is successful at AGI, that in itself will expand the economy enough to have the same effect.
> pay a financial dividend to each and every person on the planet
I think it could mean this, in the context of Altman's other project (WorldCoin) which despite all its controversy is ostensibly intended as a vehicle for distributing an AGI-funded Universal Basic Income (UBI) to all of humanity.
Introducing Worldcoin
a potential path to AI-funded UBI.
He is obviously a great leader and those that work there wanted to work with him. It’s very clear in this thread how undervalued exceptional leadership actually is, as evidence by comments thinking the top role in the most innovative company could be just plug-and-play.
I'm going to guess it's not about leadership. From the Lex Fridman interview he claims to be personally involved in all hires - and spend a good fraction of his time evaluating candidates.
- He's not going to hire someone he doesn't like
- Someone that doesn't like him is unlikely to join his team
So it's very likely the whole staff ends up being people that "like" him or get along with him. He did come off as a charming smooth talking - and I'm sure he has lot of incredibly powerful friends/connections. But at least from that little window into his world I didn't feel he showed any particularly brilliance or "leadership". He did seem pretty deferential to ML experts (which i guess he's not) - but it's hard to know if it's a false humility or not
It's also an unvalidated claim, predicated upon assumptions.
I've hired people I "don't like" on a personal level. I care more about their ability to work positively with oters, and their professionalism and skill.
Yet you and the parent poster have assumed he is hiring a cult, because he spends time evaluating?
Why is your argument from authority relevant at all here?
1. For that matter, I would not work with a boss who doesn't recognize an argument from authority as a response.
2. Furthermore a boss who lacks critical thinking skills and can't recognize a mildly skeptical comment for what it is.
3. Why assume I'm rigidly taking any position re. Altman in particular?
4. "That's pathetic" is not "He's pathetic", so perhaps the problem here is your low reading comprehension level, and not any particular assumption that I have committed to at all.
5. "A weird assumption" -- so, you decide it's weird because you just read it wrongly? Or, if something seems weird, why not ask a curious question and find out? Listening skills? Why is it so important to make this about another commenter?
I find your poor faith interpretation of my comment to be offensive. You've at the used your professionalism as pretense to biasedly cast judgment on what is a critical or even mildly skeptical general remark. This reflects the bad side of tech culture. You should apologize.
Buddy, trying to pretend your comment didn't exist in the contextualized space it did, when you replied, is not viable. And your response is way out in left field.
oh sorry - I didn't mean it in a nefarious way at all
I think it's just human nature to not hire people you feel you won't get along with. If you're deeply involved in all your hires, then I feel you'll end up with an organization full of people that you get along with and who you like (and probably like you back). I wouldn't go so far as to say it'd make a personality cult - though with their lofty mission statements and ambitions to make the world better.. who knows. Not going to psychoanalyze a bunch of people I don't know
"I've hired people I "don't like" on a personal level."
I'm honestly impressed... I feel that's rather exceptional. I feel a lot of hiring goes on "gut feeling"
Perhaps my gut feeling is just tuned more towards competence, than personality sync? I often find lacking competencies to be more jarring than variant personalities.
This comment made me look for a recent article about Paul Graham firing him from Ycombinator for being exactly not a great leader or trustworthy person.
The article was just days ago but it’s eluding my search.
Would love to see it. Everything I’ve read/seen from PG regarding Sama has been nothing but high praise. My understand is Sam chose to leave YC president role to pursue other interests/ventures which eventually turned into OpenAI
There's exceptional leadership, and then there are charming sociopaths.
Unfortunately, it can sometimes be hard to tell those two apart when a sociopath is actively pushing your emotional buttons to make you feel like they care about the same things as you etc.
I dunno about this thought, are there other AI startups operating at this level and that have the amount of market share and headspace that OpenAI has? I see comments like this on hacker news a lot, and I get that yes, the man is human and fallible, but they are doing something that’s working well for their space. If there’s some compelling reason to doubt Altman’s leadership or character I haven’t heard it yet.
a sane company has a plan for succession, even if worst case scenario Altman has a sudden medical issue or car crash or something.
It tells a lot that Altman made openAI so dependend on him that his ousting could have killed the company. That's also contributing to the fact that the board was not trusting him
