[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.

[gregates]

My point is mainly that PG's telling isn't trustworthy, because that's what you agree to say when the person you're "firing" chooses to go quietly. Obviously I have no specific insight into the situation, but given what I have observed about how career changes happen for people who've reached a certain level of power, I have no faith that the people involved have any interest in accurately describing the situation to the public.

[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.

[greentxt]

History being different than it has been. Like the statements Paul has made to date have been in agreement with the common perception of it being a firing, not very consistent with this newer counter narrative. Obviously just imo and ymmv.

[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.

[fwip]

Clearly?

[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?