[CPLX]

> I cannot think of a single facet of their day-to-day operations, product roadmap, competitive position, etc. that would be improved by this decision.

This is a genuine question, can anyone explain to me what the actual value of San Altman is?

I don’t know anything about the guy except the core public outline of his career but I find his timeline confusing.

He founded Loopt which by all accounts was unremarkable.

Then he ran YC during a period where at best you can say it didn’t get wrecked, though it seems to have lost focus and influence. He left YC in a situation that seems similarly abrupt minus the PR drama which was kept completely under wraps.

Then OpenAI which is a genuinely impressive organization but by now he’s been in personal conflict with basically everyone involved and doesn’t seem to have been a driver of the actual technology.

Other than that there’s world coin which is a total grift at best and dystopian at worst. And stuff like Bohemian Grove or whatever.

With all that said I don’t have a personal opinion just observing the broad strokes and trying to figure out how exactly he ended up some kind of kingpin.

[jacquesm]

> can anyone explain to me what the actual value of San Altman is

Weird as it may seem: that's not all that important. What is important is that the rest of the world sees OpenAI as a mature and stable organization and that image has now been seriously damaged. Even if they wanted to fire Sam there must have been a dozen ways in which that could have been done more effectively and without this much damage to the OpenAI brand. It's almost comical, they were on track to outrun Google and Facebook combined and now they're on track to be an also-ran. You can expect a large number of resignations because no matter what you think of Sam Altman you want to work for a company that is mature and stable, not one where execs are replaced on a moments notice on a clear and sunny day without a direct and clear cause.

[CPLX]

> they were on track to outrun Google and Facebook combined

But what if they don’t want that. Those are rapacious and malevolent organizations.

Regardless, even if that is the goal what’s the evidence Altman is the right guy for that? It’s not like he’s done that before. The relationship between his stature and his track record is the part that’s confusing me.

[jacquesm]

They are. But who is 'they'? The board? The shareholders of the for-profit? The rest of the people working there?

And if the board wanted the company to be a pure research organization they should have acted much, much earlier, and the company probably should not have hired Sam Altman in the first place but someone like Geoffrey Hinton or another respected name from academia, provided they would be available in the first place.

[CPLX]

> And if the board wanted the company to be a pure research organization they should have acted much, much earlier

I mean sure. But if true that’s hardly an argument for why they shouldn’t do it now as the stakes grow increasingly higher.

[jacquesm]

Agreed, but then they did it in the worst possible way. You don't create a crisis around your brand like this on purpose. Much better to get everybody to play along and make it look as if Sam really wanted to spend more time with his family. Short of a cold body in his freezer this was done carelessly. But let's wait and see how it all develops because it is more than just a little strange to see it play out like this without a good enough reason for the haste, if it turns out there wasn't I expect the board to be axed.

[CPLX]

> I expect the board to be axed

By whom?

[kaoD]

> Those are rapacious and malevolent organizations.

Isn't that exactly why you should outrun them?

[anonymouskimmer]

> this much damage to the OpenAI brand

Can you quantify and specify the brand damage? I only see some possible damage to current and possible future employee morale (in that some of them are quitting and others may be less inclined to take a job there). Do you see this as seriously affecting relationships with companies such as Microsoft? With end-users?

[jacquesm]

> Do you see this as seriously affecting relationships with companies such as Microsoft? With end-users?

Absolutely. If there isn't a very good reason why they did this in this way then I fully expect the board to be replaced.

[sudosysgen]

Who is going to be replacing the board? Who has that authority?

[jacquesm]

Depending on how the bylaws are put together: the donors, the beneficiaries, the employees of the non-profit and any other stakeholders. Any of those acting alone or in concert could petition a court if the board doesn't voluntarily resign. And if the board split on this issue is a close one then that might happen easier.

[bbor]

I find the idea that some random court filing would succeed in recalling the board of the most high profile technology company in the world, based on “we felt that they were brusque and unprofessional”, to be very unlikely. I mean, MAYBE if some of them started going to prison, but otherwise… this seems like the realm of politics more than court proceedings. But maybe I’m missing some precedents?

[swalkergibson]

Their relationship with MSFT is now effectively over.

They will remain aboard for as long as it takes to find a suitable replacement.

[bbor]

I don’t get why people aren’t seeing this. OpenAI said they’d achieve AGI by December. It’s mid November. When they claim to have achieved AGI, Microsoft’s deal with them ends immediately. Sam Altman is a practical man who thinks a lot about server costs, and Ilya is a terrified man who thinks a lot about potential catastrophe. Sam recently bragged about “pushing back the veil of ignorance”, and Ilya is working full-time on alignment techniques.

Why the dominant narrative isn’t “they’re probably disagreeing over the AGI status of a GPT5 ensemble because it affects their relationship w/ Microsoft” I have NO idea, and I’m trying to keep my head down and not let it all drive me crazy with anxiety…

Much love to the fellow hackers out there. If I’m anywhere close to right-ish, then I’m looking forward to exploring the post-SV/VC world with you.

[jacquesm]

I'd love to know how necessary the donations to the non-profit still are now that the commercial venture has picked up. But MSFT might want to re-think their OpenAI integration efforts at this point.

[karmasimida]

Being leader himself is the value, first and foremost.

It is like saying Jobs doesn’t make iPhone, so he is not useful either. I don’t like the Sam is the new Jobs narrative but here it fits.

OpenAI is no small company now, it needs a head to pull itself in a single string.

In real world, power or trust goes to the person people who actually trusts. A manager isn’t a manager just by calling oneself manager. Without trust, people will find or form other decision centers around them. The result is execution became watered down or outright not being executed.

That is how I see the value those high level executives really offer. They are the center of trust and accountability. If people trust them, people beneath him will make sure things happen fast and hold themselves accountable. On the other hand, you just end up with an ineffective company

[CPLX]

Yeah I get the concept. But this guy didn’t launch the first viable personal computer from a garage he made Loopt and then has been aggressively promoted ever since.

He’s run exactly two impressive organizations, wasn’t the rainmaker at either, and left both somewhat abruptly. I don’t quite get it.