Hacker News Reader

Comment by SilverBirch | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

That's how Ned Stark bit it. Trying to be honorable, lost the first move, then had his head chopped off.

I mean their statement all but smeared him in public.

It's hard to think of what they could have said that would have been worse than what they did.

> Still no one has really said what Sam is meant to have done wrong that would cause him to get fired!

oh good. I can skip reading a million HN posts on this drama. Thanks for pointing this out.

It's also interesting that he did not protest his innocence, against the unusually accusatory tone of the board's statement.

> 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.

“Funneled money to the startup” or “fundraised for the startup?”

There’s a world of difference between those two things.

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.

I was paraphrasing what I remember of the blurb of the article. I probably should have used fundraising, though.

“attempted to raise” is not the same as “funneled”, which connotes actual fraud. you discredit yourself by being imprecise.

> AI chip company startup

It appears Sam has joined Microsoft instead.

So perhaps it wasn't actually much of a real deal.

> Still no one has really said what Sam is meant to have done wrong that would cause him to get fired!

From legal and career point of view - no one will say that, outside of a courthouse or memoirs published in like 15 years from now.

Nah I bet it leaks within a couple weeks. That information has, uh, wings. Given any way out it will find it.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com