Comment by Denzel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Denzel | Hacker News Reader

I've been trying to put my finger on what bothers me about Sam Altman ever since he was named President of YC in 2014. Now I know. It's less to do with him; more to do with this narrative of Sam Altman as some visionary, world-saving, future-builder. The story just doesn't fit the character. There's no comparison between him and true visionaries like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, etc.

Unlike Sam, these guys can dive deep into whatever industry they choose with a very obvious clarity of thought. Watch any of their interviews for examples. Even though Steve Jobs wasn't "technical" he was able to speak about the technical aspects in detail. On the other hand, Sam seems to stand at a very high, superficial level. I have yet to see him dive deep into any of the frontiers he's focused upon: AI, energy, biotech, etc.

But it's not just that, these visionaries let their track record speak for itself. I don't seem to understand Sam's track record. A Stanford dropout whose claim to fame is selling Loopt for $43M (at a loss to investors) after raising $30M in total at a $175M valuation, and pocketing $5M for himself? Then goes on to tout YC's runaway success as due, in part, to his leadership when >60% of YC's portfolio value is due to ~15 companies from pre-2014 YC batches.

To top it off, as proof of his ambition, a silly comparison between YC's portfolio value being 14% of Alphabet's market cap is made. That's apples-to-oranges.

Bottom line, the results we see today are largely due to PG & friends. I wish people would stop forcing this narrative of Sam Altman as a visionary. Right now, he's more Tim Cook, less Steve Jobs. There's nothing wrong with being an operational genius. YC, the company, has a manifest destiny.

Sam Altman is an excellent politician/influencer, which is probably what YC needed. PG gave the impression of not enjoying that role.

I think the best way to understand it is to compare their two respective "request for startups". Paul Graham had 6 concrete tradeable opinions about the world. Sam Altman has 21 non-specific opinions which cover more or less everything ("healthcare", "robots", "hollywood" with no specific opinions within the field), and several of them (11, 19, 14, 21) are not even startup sectors so much as talking points to show the Cathedral that he's one of them.

> I've been trying to put my finger on what bothers me about Sam Altman ...Bottom line, the results we see today are largely due to PG & friends ....

The NYT and other papers have to deliver stories to the readership, I guess. But this has a premise that is borderline ridiculous.

YC has proven itself and justified its business model many times over. But one gets the sense that it is still cruising on the momentum of P.G. and the early team.

Not knocking Sam Altman in any way. He is ambitious and has a plan which he has publicized - but he has not yet delivered on it. It is far too early to laud his greatness by speaking of his 'manifest destiny'. He has high standards for YC applicants; we should apply those standards to him as well.

> I have yet to see him dive deep into any of the frontiers he's focused upon: AI, energy, biotech, etc.

I do admit I am still very skeptical about his views on AI. I am not an expert on that particular subject, but as a student of biology my understanding is that we are still a very long way away from truly understanding how "intelligence" works...

I think of it as happening in a sort of Moore's law sense. Double what you can do today in 18 months, then do that 5-7 times in the next decade, and the results should be pretty staggering.

What's even neater about AI is that the requirements to get involved are much lower than that of hardware and much easier to propagate. Combine that with the inherent power of machines teaching themselves and networking with each other and we may be looking at more of a power law or exponential rate of increase in capacity for accomplishments.

Very exciting times.

> What's even neater about AI is that the requirements to get involved are much lower than that of hardware and much easier to propagate.

That's thinking very much from a CS point of view. Sure, if we're only talking about software you're quite right. But I would strongly argue that if we want to build an artificial intelligence, we first need to know what a "natural" intelligence looks like - and that includes a lot of neurobiological research that still needs doing. Now you can say what you like about software, but neuroscience doesn't come that cheap...

I'm not sure why A.I. would need to be based on human intelligence. At the end of the day the black box of the process doesn't matter if the results are sound, and we already frequently don't understand how our current A.I. works (which features the system is picking up on, etc). I'd expect that trend to continue.

You nailed it. I'm surprised you didn't get downvoted to the gazoo. You absolutely were able to express the way I feel.

I don't consider myself a troll, nor do I hate Sam Altman. My goal is not to come here and slander. But I agree with you. Sam's accomplishments and track record have been very much exagerated. And he has played a roll in that exageration.

For me Sam's biggest qualities are: 1) being able to navigate sillicon valley skillfully 2) having a fantastic network 3) Portraying a self image that is super founder friendly (which he actually probably his, for at least the companies that are doing well).

That said he is not: 1) A successful founder. 2) A serial entrepreneur 3) A tech genius 4) A visionary

It's the American narrative and boy, is it clear in all its features if you read this article with a European mind.

If you're American and some foreigners tell you that you all look like you're up your own assess all the time, just think of this New Yorker piece as an explanation why.

Excellent prose that crafts the same old boring story about how this very special individual has become richer and more successful than others. All around him an orbit of friendly millionaires and billionaires whose contradictive role is left out of the picture and an army of wannabes whose anxiety-laden lives are always romantically portrayed with a recurring reference to ramen-based meals -- because it's fine to have nutrition deficiencies and work 22 hours a day if you're building the next (much probably) useless tech startup that will hopefully turn you into the next Sam Altman.

This is what it is, people: a narrative. Why always trying to live by someone else's narrative? What really strikes me as incredibly counterintuitive is that every single startup story is different in its own ways, and what set successful startups apart is their willingness to follow individual paths. Yet, the way we tell these stories always gets down to pattern-matching the same old tropes everybody knows and loves.

I fondly appreciate most of the American culture, I'm enamoured with the startup scene naïveté, I think Y-combinator is a wonderful and extremely innovative player in the VC scenario. I mean, I love even this echo chamber that's called hacker news. That's how much I dig this stuff.

But again, I'm European. Doubt and skepticism are built in as standard features. So please, listen to me when I say that's better to limit agiography to the boooks about catholic saints from the Middle Age.

As a fellow European, I disagree that we have built in common features - unless you think "European" means your country and its closest relatives. If we all had the same culture, the EU wouldn't probably be in its slow bureaucratic slump.

On topic, don't underestimate the power of faith. Humans are not rational beings by default, so powerful narratives about the hot shots of SV really do have an effect in inspiring the next generation of SV hot shots. Yeah, it might be a bubble waiting to pop, but it also might be the fastest economic and technological growth the world has ever seen.

But wouldn't you agree that we share at least a general attitude that tends toward a (most of the time) healthy skepticism?

I'm originally from the UK, but feel that 'healthy skepticism' there can all too often be the label that people give "why bother, it'll probably fail anyway". The boundless optimism of the US may be more beneficial in the long run.

An interesting analysis. Let us see if the mods let you keep it up.

I find it odd that you'd criticize Sam Altman in this way then go on to call Steve Jobs a "true visionary". I see Jobs as being more a managerial type that managed to get a few things very right. He wasn't able to dive deep into technical things and grok them as you said. I have read comments on hacker news from people that worked directly under him, talking about how he forbid using object orientation in programming. So programmers had to hide it from them that they were actually using it, which was easy because he could not read the code.

Additionally, Sam Altman is now in a position to achieve greatness and he probably will do so whether or not he has already. Someone in that position would not even have to be particularly exceptional (once again, whether he is or not) to do so. So whether he has or not so far is a moot point. I'm just pleased he has ambition and apparently isn't focused on the lime light. Compare that to how most billionaires use their funds (ie, big yachts etc) and you should just be pleased that anything is happening.

Anyway, my main point is that I guess that an appreciation of "genius" is a highly subjective thing. And the instant someone would mention Jobs as such is the same moment I'd intensely disagree with them. It can probably just be left at that.

> I have read comments on hacker news from people that worked directly under him, talking about how he forbid using object orientation in programming.

Steve Jobs talked incessantly about object-oriented programming after he left Apple, and built an entire company (NeXT) and operating system (NeXTStep) using a new object-oriented programming language (Objective-C). He didn't write the code himself but he funded and led these efforts.

This was probably before NeXT

Is there anyway you can find those comments of people working directly under Jobs? I've be curious to read them.

I couldn't find them, sorry

I don't get it... This is just a bunch of your feelings about famous people you haven't met? Where's the content? I just lost a minute reading this, and another replying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com