[throwaway_5753]

A lot of people here bending over backwards to try to interpret this maximally negatively.

Probably because the "Sam Altman is an amoral, power hungry mastermind who was run out of all his previous gigs" is a more interesting narrative than whatever is actually happening.

[gizmo]

What you call "maximal negativity" is what I would call skepticism about spin. Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move. PG is not universally opposed to people running multiple organizations. He's fine with Musk being in charge of Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink and Starlink. I don't think pg was unhappy about Dorsey running both Square and Twitter[1]. OpenAI leadership was fine with Sam in both roles. But Sam had to either quit OpenAI or quit YC, and would get fired from YC if he refused to choose.

[1] https://x.com/paulg/status/1235363862159003649

[zild3d]

> PG is not universally opposed to people running multiple organizations

I don't see why that matters, YC is "his" organization, other organizations can do what they want

Take out all the names, and it's just a belief that YC should be run by someone that's all in / fully committed.

[edgyquant]

Right but this is him being fired

[tomhoward]

Fired means or at least connotes a specific thing, I.e., is against the will of the departing employee. Leaving the organisation by mutual agreement after an adult conversation to focus on exciting new project is a very different thing to fired.

[gregates]

The adult conversation in question being, in a nutshell: "We've decided it's time for you to move on. Would you like the public perception of this event to be that it was a mutual decision, or would you prefer to burn some bridges on your way out?" Sure, in some sense the departing individual chooses to go one way rather than the other.

[tomhoward]

Or the adult conversation was: you need to pick one thing to focus on, we’d prefer it was YC but obviously we can’t force you to choose YC.

PG’s telling if it, and Occam’s Razer, support that version.

Many people here want to imagine that it was vastly more dramatic than this, or need to reinterpret the word “fired” to support the narrative that Sam is bad. I understand it can be fun to think that way.

For the record I’m no great fan of OpenAI and I think people who are convinced they are about to achieve AGI are, er, mistaken. I mostly just care about correct definitions of words and avoiding sensationalism.

[lolinder]

Except that isn't at all what Paul is claiming here—he says YC offered him the choice between running YC and running OpenAI but not both at once. Altman chose OpenAI. That might have been the obvious choice in the circumstances (it certainly appears so in retrospect), but that doesn't turn the conversation into the kind you're claiming.

[throw0101d]

'Mutual agreement' could be that the employer didn't want the employee, and the employee was tired of BS being unreasonably dumped on them:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

(Not saying that this is such a situation.)

[TeMPOraL]

I wonder what evidence could possibly convince you, if both sides of the alleged "firing" saying it wasn't so isn't convincing enough.

[1024core]

Even Jack couldn't handle being CEO of Twitter and Square. It's just not easy to do.

[imgabe]

Being fired does not include the option to stay.

[apgwoz]

This is Sam being given an ultimatum and making a choice before being fired. Is it effectively the same thing? Yes. But technically, he left to pursue OpenAI. YC never said “You’rrrrrrrrrrrre Firedddd!!!” (In my best Spacely Sprockets voice); it just politely asked him to leave if he couldn’t give 100%.

[l1nktlst]

This semantics argument seems super productive

[AlwaysRock]

The entire point of the tweet is to explain that he wasnt fired.

[fwip]

Yeah, and the tweet isn't being honest. Issuing somebody an ultimatum that you know they'll refuse is just a different way to get rid of someone.

[AlwaysRock]

If PG's goal was to show Sam was actually fired, why would he take it upon himself to make a tweet explaining that Sam wasnt fired?

[burnished]

Which was also clearly not the case here.

[tptacek]

It it nothing whatsoever like being fired.

[goodcanadian]

Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move.

Sure, but is that what happened? Or, did they sit down and have a chat and mutually agree that on what was best? I guess we will never know with certainty (and I frankly don't care).

[ghaff]

I don't know what happened either and I wouldn't even be surprised if the parties have internalized it in ways that aren't 100% consistent. I do know that situations arise where it becomes mutually apparent that a parting of the ways is best for everyone concerned even if not explicitly stated. And, in those circumstances, there's a public story that is often not untrue but isn't the whole backstory either because it's simpler for everyone involved that way.

[swiftcoder]

Is there actually a difference between those two things?

When your immediate superior sits you don't for a "chat", and you "mutually agree on what is best", it comes across an awful lot like an ultimatum.

[fwip]

Yes, it's directly in the tweet. "We told him that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAI, we should find somebody else to run YC."

[LMYahooTFY]

Or it's not a forceful move at all.

Maybe YC requires more dedication than Altman could provide to both it and OpenAI.

You print off companies as if being a CEO is just being a CEO, and as if Musk doesn't work an unhealthy amount of hours.

Or maybe there's some secret reason for pg to carry water for Sam and it's worth his integrity.

[fwip]

"Secret reason" = Paul knows it looks bad for him to fire the guy. So he comes up with justifications why it's not really firing. Maybe he even believes them.

[1024core]

You seem to have an axe to grind with @sama. This deep-rooted bias does not make for an honest discourse; as you are just expressing your opinions. If you have some facts to back up your claims, please put them out.

Otherwise, I would urge just stepping away and taking a few deep breaths.

[jazzyjackson]

same to you, who cares who's grinding whose axe

[1024core]

Same of what to me?

[mindwok]

Agree, people need to chill. The thread says they would have been happy if Sam stayed, they just wanted him to choose one or the other which he agreed with. It seems like a very amicable parting of ways when the parties involved were being pulled in different directions.

[lukan]

"The thread says they would have been happy if Sam stayed"

No, he said they would have been fine with it. That has a different quality and honestly, I am quite sure they knew sama was so invested in OpenAI that he would not have choosen to step away from it.

So everybody could save face and no one was "fired".

[acchow]

pg’s 2nd reply in the thread says they would have been happy

https://x.com/paulg/status/1796114790722449429?s=46&t=kEOaRx...

[lukan]

I see. That is, now I do - without an X account, I could just see the single top post. (Which uses a bitmap for text, so people can read the whole statement. This whole thing represents everything I cannot stand about Twitter)

[ilrwbwrkhv]

Oh my goodness. Different quality? This is like seeing a bunch of soothsayers looking at tea leaves intently to match a pattern.

[throwup238]

Have you ever seen Sam Altman with his palms pointing at the camera? You can clearly see from the intersection of his life and fate lines that he is a supervillain in the making.

[lukan]

I am fine with your comment, but not happy about it.

[nostrebored]

This comment has a ‘different quality’ than most I’d expect to see on HN

[mateus1]

Weird times when moral relativism is saved for the rich and powerful instead of the poor and meek.

[burnished]

No, what you are seeing is people refusing to be spun up into rumor-mongering, which is good because you don't want all the air going to spurious claims and counterclaims when there are factual and uncontroversial observations to be angry about instead

[weberer]

How does this in any way relate to moral relativism?

[mateus1]

I should’ve phrased it better. It seems like many people think those in power are entitled to some moral leniency when they should face higher scrutiny.

[mindwok]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

I don’t think that you actually mean anything by this. “Moral relativism” seems entirely irrelevant.

[FireBeyond]

Because PG is being very selective.

Does he forget that it is known that Sam posted to YC's site that he was now Chairman in the day or so prior to him leaving? So... what... they asked him to choose, he decided to promote himself and make a post about it, and then they hurriedly deleted that post and then Same "chose" to leave YC?

[burnished]

Or someone had some copy prepared (you don't think everyone waits until afterwards to write anything do you?) and whoopsied the publish button?

This line of thinking just reads as sensationalist or needlessly conspiratorial given that the indictment it is trying to support is so weak.

[FireBeyond]

Except PG confirmed it:

> Graham said it was his wife’s doing. “If anyone ‘fired’ Sam, it was Jessica, not me”, he said. “But it would be wrong to use the word ‘fired’ because he agreed immediately.” Jessica Livingston said her husband was correct.…To smooth his exit, Altman proposed he move from president to chairman. He pre-emptively published a blog post on the firm’s website announcing the change. But the firm’s partnership had never agreed, and the announcement was later (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38384090) scrubbed from the post…For years, even some of Altman’s closest associates—including Peter Thiel, Altman’s first backer for Hydrazine—didn’t know the circumstances behind Altman’s departure.

No whoopsie there, Sam figured he could do whatever he wanted.

[actionfromafar]

Wasn’t it whoopsied in the SEC filings too?

[ctvo]

> Probably because the "Sam Altman is an amoral, power hungry mastermind who was run out of all his previous gigs" is a more interesting narrative than whatever is actually happening.

It's not either or. The above can be true and also the reason pg wanted him to run YC.

[dehrmann]

Between the weird exit agreements OpenAI had departing employees sign and the Scarlett Johansson voice incident, people are wondering if there's a pattern to Altman's behavior.

[hn_throwaway_99]

How many logical fallacies are in this statement?

I mean, so what, this still has no bearing on what happened between pg and sama. I may think sama has done some sketchy things but why would that lead anyone to believe pg is lying? It's not like he had to make this statement or anything - it appears much more likely that it was just characterized in a way pg thought was not true.

[jimbob45]

There was no Scarlett voice incident. There was a verifiably different actress hired before Scarlett was approached. That’s it.

[FireBeyond]

By "verified" you mean OAI gave a bunch of documents to WaPo where the anonymous actress's anonymous agent said the actress had said things to him?

WaPo has not spoken to the actress.

And the agent claims that they both have to remain anonymous due to "fears for her safety".

I think we have different definitions of "verifiably".

[Matticus_Rex]

And she sounds more like Rashida Jones than Scarlett Johannsson, too. Wild that this took off so much.

[nottorp]

I have no idea what Sam Altman is but based on how he runs OpenAI's marketing I have zero trust in him.

The lies start at the company name. What's "open" about OpenAI?

[1024core]

> What's "open" about OpenAI?

It's "open" for everyone to use, for the right fee.

[nottorp]

Isn't it interesting that Altman cries for government regulation of "AI" sellers but not for requiring a permit to use "AI" for their potential customers?

I mean, if he were concerned about our safety he'd want restricted access, not universal...

[NewJazz]

Except Russia, China, and Israel*

[muzani]

Lots of people dislike PG and YC too, so it's doubly fun to strike up some bad blood between them.

[edgyquant]

I can see why, Paul Grahams Twitter is good enough reason to find him insufferable

[mattmaroon]

I personally find it a lot less interesting. It’s probably not true and even if it were, it’s still basically an ad hominem. The story is the tech.

[bfeist]

That Twitter thread (as most are) is poison.

[loceng]

Have you read his sister's allegations about their childhood? He avoids addressing those and apparently gaslights her about it.

There appears to be a pattern in regards to honesty and integrity.

[ImaCake]

Yeah, this is about the most positive and amiable way to solve the real problem of Sam Altman not having enough time to lead YC. It is a testament to Sam's own marketing skills that even banal stuff is driving mad speculation.

[latexr]

> It is a testament to Sam's own marketing skills that even banal stuff is driving mad speculation.

That’s beginning to enter “he’s playing 5D chess and making you think exactly what he wants” territory. Would you say that it’s a testament to tobacco companies’ marketing skills that everyone talks about cigarettes being cancerous?

The mad speculation is due to him being CEO of a highly talked about company but also the creator of dubious exploitative ventures[1][2] and rubbing a lot of people the wrong way, many of which talk in vague terms instead of being specific from the start.

[1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...

[2]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...

[ImaCake]

I wish I could appraise someone’s skill at something without that being considered as a general endorsement but I guess not.

I don’t think Sam Altman is probably that great at most of what he would like ppl to think he is great at. But he must be alright at marketing and getting into the right places because we are talking about him.

[latexr]

> I wish I could appraise someone’s skill at something without that being considered as a general endorsement but I guess not.

Ironic[1] that that you’re lamenting a misunderstanding of your comment while misunderstanding mine. I don’t think you were generally endorsing him, my claim is that you’re giving him credit for a skill based on faulty assumptions.

> But he must be alright at marketing and getting into the right places because we are talking about him.

That’s what I disagree with. Would you say that Justine Sacco[2] was great at marketing too? For a while there everyone was talking about her, which she did not intend and didn’t end particularly well for her. Being talked about and being good at marketing don’t automatically correlate. Barbara Streisand knows that very well[3].

[1]: Or maybe not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507616

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Justine_Sacco_i...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[meiraleal]

Well, that's visible. It doesn't need to be said and PG doesn't wanna be his arch enemy. The guy's becoming too powerful after all

[itsoktocry]

>A lot of people here bending over backwards to try to interpret this maximally negatively.

This thread exposes who buys into whatever the SF/VC overlords say.

"Got fired" may be a tad ambiguous, but being told "stop working on that other thing or leave" is not too far off.

[dmix]

Getting fired usually implies they did something wrong. Sam was always going to have a lot going on in his life so it was a given there would be competing priorities when he joined YC.

It’s like not he was some random full time employee at YC and concealing his busy life.

So when a smaller AI project he started (with PGs involvement) rapidly turned into a monster overnight and started demanding the bulk of his attention, it’s not a big deal to ask him if he has enough time for both, and to make a decision early on before it becomes overwhelming (note: he still gave him the choice to decide).

Like a lot of entrepreneurs they take on a lot of responsibilities and think they can swing a lot more stuff than they really can, and PG’s whole thing is guiding entrepreneurs to make the best decisions.

[fairity]

> "Got fired" may be a tad ambiguous, but being told "stop working on that other thing or leave" is not too far off.

It's very different.

When employees begin working at my company, they're told a list of things they're not allowed to do. And, they're told if they do these things, they will be shown the door.

By your definition of "not too far off", we're basically firing people on day one. Absurd.