The only problem with this account is the idea that Ilya thought he could persuade the people of the evils of Sam. One of the most confusing parts of this whole debacle is that Sam was fired on Friday, multiple renegotiations have gone on, public statements from the new CEO, public statements from Microsoft and yet: Still no one has really said what Sam is meant to have done wrong that would cause him to get fired!
Sure, you can argue that they thought they could persuade people Sam had done something bad.... but they haven't even tried! They've said basically nothing specific about what he was doing wrong.
You would've thought they knew if they were going to do it they needed a bloody good reason yet we haven't even heard them try to justify it.
Well, suppose they had a good reason, but didn't want to smear Sam in public? That would mean that they're taking the publicity hit to do the classy thing.
Organizations used to do that, from time to time. Maybe some still do.
Or maybe they can't release what the reason was because they don't actually have a good one, and trying to say what their reason was would just make them look either evil or incompetent.
And as long as they're silent, we can't tell which it is. Given how badly this has been handled, though, "incompetent" seems likely...
If you don't want to smear Sam in public you don't cite him not being candid as the reason he's leaving.
They certainly could have communicated better, but most of the actually good reasons are stuff you wouldn't expect a board to disclose, like "we told you not to do this large unannounced deal with a publicly listed company that we intend to totally renegotiate" or or "you lied about how much this tech sucks" or "you keep lying about this in-progress initiative we haven't announced yet and don't intend to launch in your departure notice"
It's a theory, but it's not like they refrained from badmouthing him and kept it all professional. That would have looked like "after careful deliberation, we have determined that OpenAI cannot meet its mission under current management, and..."
It's extremely strange to make it clear the firing is for cause, and to be vague about the cause, and then to issue statements that whatever the cause was it was not related to fiduciary issues or AI safety. It really does amount to "he did something really bad that created a crisis we had no choice but to respond to precipitously... but it wasn't all that bad and we don't want to talk about it" situation.
I think "incompetent seems likely" is the only reasonable conclusion here.
> The only problem with this account is the idea that Ilya thought he could persuade the people of the evils of Sam.
Did he? As far as I can tell, absolutely no one tried to make a case for firing Altman. There was some vague hand-wavey bullshit about their "mission", but absolutely nothing in the way of a press offensive or even telling Altman himself why he was getting the sack.
My best guess is that the board are comically stupid, and they figured that invoking their mission would cease all debate about whether this was a good idea. Maybe because there is some angst about the impact of AI on society in the press or something, and they figured they'd draft off of that.
Then of course it came out that they had basically no good reason to fire Altman. Then that they wanted him back. Then that Microsoft were fuming. Then that their own employees were threatening to resign en masse. Then Altman joining Microsoft, with what is almost certainly a blessing to poach whoever he wants from OpenAI.
This board basically just sold their enterprise to Microsoft for $0. What a total pack of clowns.
This is the alternate history in which Mark Antony grabs the mic first, and Brutus never gets to articulate a coherent sentence before he is forced to flee.
Sam and his allies have been extremely effective at getting their voice out on all the media outlets over the weekend. The OpenAI board, on the other hand, seems to have broken apart already.
Or, rather, it’s odd that you haven’t heard what Sam did wrong. There was a front page Bloomberg article that alleges what Sam did and it was briefly in the top of this site then disappeared.
It alleged that Sam funneled a lot of money to his AI chip company startup.
Yes, all the reporting pointed to his attempts to raise money externally for an AI chip company, and specifically soliciting sovereign wealth funds.
I could understand board concerns about him being spread too thin, but more chip competition would pretty clearly benefit OpenAI as a large consumer of GPU chips, and this is very different than any sort of allegation around mishandling of funds (which has been ruled out by several people anyway).
From the initial board release, the issue then was not necessarily the fundraising or him being spread too thin, but rather that he was not forthright with the board. Every CEO manages the board to some extent and paints a picture for them, but if significant, material information about strategy and operations is being purposely withheld from the board, they cannot do their job.
OpenAI is/was critically partnered with Microsoft, using NVidia-based Azure for compute to the benefit of both.
There certainly appears to be a conflict of interest in Altman trying to create an NVidia competitor, and proliferation of AI, and seeing as he was seeking middle eastern funds it also raises questions about US limits on export of AI tech.
That's normally true in a "This is an official statement" point of view, not from a "People have been gossiping to Kara Swisher" point of view. Not even off the record are the board leaking the information, and considering the pressure they're under you could understand why they'd leak it if they could.
This points to 2 things - First, it really is only the board who know the details because anyone else would've leaked it. Second, the board has lost faith in the reason because if they thought it was good they'd have leaked it by now.
This is pedantic and unnecessary, but Caesar was undefeated militarily. His battle against Pompey was remarkable because of how much the odds were stacked against him. Most of the senate sided with Pompey because his victory seemed like a foregone conclusion.
Worth noting that Pompey's march was spurred at least in part by Caesar's ambition- Stalwarts of the Republic like Cato and Cicero supported Pompey as the lesser of two evils. In short there's a lot of nuance. (Caesar was also famous for being great to his soldiers, being apathetic about wealth, and inspiring incredible leadership)
To be even more unnecessary, his invasion of Britain in 55BC was essentially a defeat. Having said that, it was a solid propaganda victory even though Caesar was teetering on the edge of massive disaster, and what he did a year later means what happened in 55BC can easily be disregarded.
I've been enjoying _The Practicing Stoic_ recently. Wade Farnsworth does a great job of tying together lessons and a framework from a bunch of different stoic thinkers.
It's almost like Ilya was sitting at his desk programming, deep in thought, someone stopped by and said 'sign this', and he does. Then few hours later he finishes programming and sees the news that he voted out Sam.
The idea that a bunch of tech bros with delusions of grandeur bear comparison to the transfer of power in Ancient Rome is laughable.
Ilya is a guy who is on the board and supported the board decision until it was clear that the mood of the company meant that the entire project was hosed as a result, then argues that the board he himself is 1/6th of, is incompetent.
This is less Ides of March, more Leopards Ate My Face.
There's also multiple ways one could spin the Brutus analogy.
The romans, pre-Caesar, had been extremely wary of concentrated power and had therefore ruled the empire by committee - the senate. There was no emperor before Caesar. They would give individuals short-term grants of specific powers necessary to do an assigned job such as managing a province or to a general fighting a war. One such grant of temporary power being "dictator" (where we get the modern word from).
Caesar was really out for himself at the expense of the empire, had enriched himself via military campaigns in gaul, then literally crossed the line by "crossing the [river] rubicon" and bringing his army into the city of Rome, and declared himself dictator for life. This was all too much for Brutus et al who were defending traditional roman values in plotting the murder of this egomaniac.
So, in the Ilya=Brutus analogy, is he the disloyal friend or is he the one defending the empire by getting rid of an egomaniac (Ilya: "ego is the enemy of growth") ?
I have to agree - the amount of self-importance in this is hilarious. I would really like someone to be able to point to something definitive that Sam has actually built. In my view, he was a classic techbro who built one MVP and immediately went on an Regulation World Tour to secure his market cap. It seemed pretty transparent, but I guess people must like that?
It is a good story, but facts seems to indicate that essentially the rest of the board wanted Sam out before he was not keeping them in the loop for things they didn't want to hear. They got Ilya on their side.
Now they have got rid of Mira as well. Mira and Ilya and 500+ employees are threatening to quit if the board doesn't back down.
So it seems Ilya was not the main driver of the coup but essentially went along with it initially but changed his opinion after seeing what that would do, but the rest of the board were not willing to back down.
It must have been Ilya. His AGI hype went ridicule. His safety project went nowhere, so Sam had a 2nd team to do it better without telling him. Sam didn't tell Ilya that his approach sucked, only another board member.
I think this is probably the right take -- that Sam was getting more credit than others felt he deserved, and because of that attention maybe was not treating everyone with the respect they felt they deserved -- but this struck me as odd: "So, Ilya .... decided to take him out. [T]hey gave us some EA reasoning about how "scared" they were about what Sam was pursuing..."
Did they? I never heard any "EA" reasoning, or any reasoning at all from the board beyond their statement that he was insufficiently candid.
Shakespeare's Brutus speech is brilliant, turning "Brutus is an honorable man" from econium to deadly sarcasm.
"[Shakespeare's] version of Mark Antony's speech is probably the greatest written speech ever"
Let us not forget the Gettysburg Address, which is the pivot point not of a factional quarrel but a national repurposing to equality, and shorter to boot.
I believe it's dangerous to build this cult of personality around Sam. Sure, he's a great businessman but Musk also seemed like a smart guy in the beginning but it turns out all this idolatry corrupts and brings out the worst in people.
You don't actually think all these articles are "organic sentiment" do you? Biggest money always wins this kind of game. And the circle of people who really know what went down is pretty small atm. I'll wait for more info before jumping on bandwagons
550 Employees who want to get rich on a IPO, versus Scientist who worked for 20 years on AI and wanted a non profit...Who upsets most the Silicon Valley intelligentsia ?
Hard to say, actually. There is very little inside information. My first thought was exactly the same, but I'd probably also be upset if instead of guaranteed millions in stock options I was suddenly offered a choice between becoming a Microsoft drone vs scrambling for live in a doomed organisation. All this really depends what sort of communication happens within the company - something most of us here simply are not privy to.
They should not have expected the OpenAI staff to follow Ilya after Sams exit. Sam’s policies are a lot more lucrative for the openAI staff. The staff is acting in their own interest as well
It's incredible how Altman's ousting of Musk flies over the author's head. Guess it's easy to ignore when you are hell bent on making an overstretched analogy.
Following this bizarre mass hysteria caused by a salesman being let go from a tech shop I am now expecting this individual to become the next US president.
Because almost noone can write his last name right. Here on HN we get it consistently wrong, in the Bloomberg article there are two conflicting and different variants. Суцкевер / Sutskever would be right.
It's almost like Ilya was sitting at his desk programming, deep in thought, someone stopped by and said 'sign this', and he does. Then few hours later he finishes programming and sees the news that he voted out Sam.
Many of our institutions are more held together by 'un-written social norms' and someone like Trump can just ignore them. Do laws even matter now? Just like in Rome, the positions of power do 'what they can get away with', not what any 'law' says they can do.
The US has had past 'coup' plots. Even going back to Washington. Really if Washington hadn't been such boy scout, true believer, would we even have a US Republic?
Basically, the US has been more fragile than we would like to acknowledge.
Unwritten social norm #251: it is wholly acceptable to lie under oath to the secret FISA intelligence court to get permission for surveillance on one's political enemies.
Most of the world is at this point. Fair or unfair is a long debate, but every time he opens his mouth, he loses more supporters. And it's his choice to keep opening his mouth.
I’m a bit surprised of how antagonistic HN is against the builders, Sam was/is a Seller, it’s a needed function to pair with Builders, but no one can reasonably say that Sam built anything, Ilya and the safety contingent are the builders, but somehow the mob is angry at them for protecting what they made from the Sellers, kind of hard to see us becoming so profit motivated that we choose IBM over Woz
It might be the influx of all the MBA-CEO-Steve-Job wannabe types due to the tech boom and normalisation of tech entrepreneurship, and due to YC becoming a brand.
I don't care too much about Sam. He seems to me just a bloke that was at the right place at the right time. With the builders, though - I always felt so much contempt to the extremities of AI safety "they" seem to be pushing (and many, I knoq, feel the same) - that makes it rather hard to emphasise.
In our society, why should they be expected to build for free? Unless you only hire previously wealthy individuals the idea that there's this class of selfless scientists at the top of their field that don't need to pay a mortgage or support a family is absurd.
In case you do not understand why you are being downvoted. This is precisely what the person you are replying to is saying. When push comes to shove, will these builders prefer a paycheck or stand on their principles.
Tell me in which country Linux was first developed?
Which part of the world is that?
Do the countries there have something special which they are well known for, and which might make unpaid passion projects more attainable than, say, 2020s North America?
This is my main observation as well watching this play out.
I’ve welcomed how a non-profit board finally “struck back” on the trend of the commercialization and rollout of an incomplete yet highly impactful technology. It might have been imperfectly done, but it was done.
We went though scaling at all costs with social media etc and lived through the last several years to pay for that choice. Watching AI the last year felt like that was all starting again.
OAI’s 700 employees not having as clear a route to fat RSU payouts as they did on Friday seems to be the least important concern here. This technology and its impacts are greater than any 1 company or founder. The idea of another Zuck situation sitting on it in control is not good. Zero lessons were learned from ‘07-2022.
Exactly, how are the researchers going to get all the compute power they need without the 'seller's selling something? Like it or not ChatGPT took the country by storm, has name recognition, generating revenue. And that all allows them to purchase more compute, hire more researchers. What do they think will happen if they stop selling? Will they work for free?
It's contempt for the Yudkowskyans ("AI doomers"), not contempt for the builders.
I find these threads deeply frustrating, as a long-time Yudkowskyan, because approximately zero of the critics show any understanding at all of the arguments involved, and the vast majority seem not even to have tried to understand the core concern. Most seem to be engaging in some kind of status demonstration, sneering at a group of panicked nerds, rather than having any actual technical opinion at all.
Unlike another poster, I don't think this indicates that HN is full of MBA types. Just average software engineers.
My hope for the situation is that we can give as much compassion as possible to all involved.
My hope is that the people around Ilya give him compassion and love. He will be experiencing sadness, regret, and grief. I hope he gets lots of good emotional support.
Same for Sam, same for all employees.
My hope for Ilya is that once the dust settles, instead of getting people scared about AI safety by talking to them, he gives people the experience he had. Give the training data, not the output. You can't reason someone into or out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. People don't get into opinions from a place of reasoning but from a place of emotion and experience. To help someone shift their opinion, we need to give them experience.
There are some interesting religious lenses on the situation. It certainly will remind people a bit of a crucifixion scenario where we may see Sam and Greg emerge three days later within a new company. It's kind of like a Phoenix from the ashes, like Aslan in Narnia, which of course is also based on the story of Christ. Humans like stories of scapegoats and people being attacked and then being defended. One of the things we've seen is a massive outpouring of support for Sam Altman on Twitter, particularly from so many random founders and people in tech that he helped whether they were nobodies or already successful. When someone gets attacked publicly in a way that people dislike or when it’s a person people really like and like more than the perceived attacker, then they have a lot of other people that then want to come and defend them.
I hope everyone involved realizes that debate doesn't accomplish much other than polarization and tribalization, and that people instead seek to make the other side feel understood. And give the other side the experiences that gave them their own preferences/feelings, rather than trying to convince them to feel the same way. And generally, help people emotionally regulate instead of going into debate or commiserating by sharing negative things about other parties involved.
(Don’t tweet while angry, instead, share your emotions with a friend, then tweet after you’re feeling neutral and peaceful!)
Overall, I hope people minimize attacks. I hope that people directly express their own emotions so that they don't come out in other ways cloaked in rationalizations. This will help people avoid derogatory comments towards people. Sharing specific facts and specific stories can be okay, but avoiding miscellaneous negative judgment in any direction. I hope that people from all directions can see that everyone involved is just doing what they felt was good, and there's a good chance that you would have done something similar if you had the same genetics and upbringing. I hope everyone involved realizes that debate doesn't accomplish much other than polarization and tribalization…
Reminder: Any attack or vitriol makes the person defend themselves, and defending themselves make them more of whatever they are defending themselves against.
There will be a lot of people experiencing varying degrees of grief in the startup and AI ecosystems in the coming week.
Ideally, everyone involved just goes in and gets a really good Swedish relaxation massage, is feeling super peaceful, helping all those around them feel equally peaceful, focusing on releasing and processing their emotions. I believe this moment is potentially a critical moment in history, and the more emotional regulation the people involved in the industry can do over the coming weeks, the better. I believe the future is path-dependent and depends on the present. Generally, we get more of what we have, so the more peace we can have in the present, the more peace we're likely to have in the future. I hope we can all maximize empathy and understanding for all the people involved and minimize polarization and tribalization. I hope people try to make others feel understood and focus on emotional regulation.
Emotional regulation and open-mindedness are vital when facing unexpected and influential incidents.
I do hope that Ilya gets good support! I hope the same for Sam, all other employees. I’m worried that Ilya will get a lot of hate. (My allegiance is with Sam.) But I support general kindness and I feel sadness for all involved.
Sure, you can argue that they thought they could persuade people Sam had done something bad.... but they haven't even tried! They've said basically nothing specific about what he was doing wrong.
You would've thought they knew if they were going to do it they needed a bloody good reason yet we haven't even heard them try to justify it.