This kind of stuff is the reason why Altman was fired.
The board lost trust for his honesty from many small things that kept accumulating. Altman is back on condition that there is a investigation.
The board lost trust for his honesty from many small things that kept accumulating. Altman is back on condition that there is a investigation.
Can't tell if this is meaningless, the reporter just failed to convey its actual meaning, or I am too dumb to understand
It's definitely both of the first two.
Generally I wouldn't gatekeep, but here, it seems apt.
The American education system is no measure of a person's worth. I've already built and sold one startup somehow despite your sneering, and I dropped out after a semester and a half. I'm now working on my second. Try to avoid the urge to casually dismiss entire categories of people because you want to elevate yourself above one of them. Books are available without spending $40k per year.
If you don't know what Worldcoin is, look it up. It doesn't really need any commentary.
The fact that this dude was basically handed YCombinator and then handed OpenAI shows how incestuous the inside-most track of Silicon Valley is. I guess it's pretty much identical to Hollywood.
It's like that for every billionaire, humanity will make some X progress in some Y field and some lucky schnook will find themselves in the epicenter of it all.
Just like on the other hand an Earthquake will stuck in coordinates X,Y and some poor unlucky schnook Z will find themselves in the epicenter of it all
Saying that you are not in it for the money is becoming like a fashion statement. What’s wrong in saying that you’re in it for both money and passion?
One of those things we all know is bullshit but we just pretend not smelling it.
And it doesn't mean the most profitable option will be picked, but it does ensure that easy money is not left on the table, while lots of other money is set on fire in pursuit of the personal interests of director level managers.
Take time to smell the bullshit.
[1] https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-s...
51% ownership doesn't mean you can do anything you want with the company. It's sort of a main point of a LLC.
There are a lot of misconceptions about maximizing shareholder value, even among economists. But talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. They need to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest. Only when there is a change in legal control, such as a merger or imminent hostile takeover, do they have to maximize shareholder value.
Just to be very clear: modern corporate law does not require profits at the expense of everything else, and maximizing profits or shareholder value is not the same thing as serving shareholders’ best interest.
If you disagree with what the officers think is the best way to carry out these duties, the courts say your option is not to sue them, it is to invest in a different company.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that for profit means for profit?
You can't even point to successful companies that treat consequences from violating laws or morality as just a cost of doing business and say that forces everyone else to follow suit. What might be good for one company isn't necessarily good for another.
The fact that companies advertising on twitter don't want their products appearing next to far right diatribe is proof enough that considering morality and ethics is important to maximizing value.
LLCs are amoral by design. It can be argued that this amorality can result in good outcomes when e.g. regulated proprerly. But that doesn't make the LLCs themselves moral actors.
Mistaking companies for moral actors results in folly like letting them regulate themselves.
That is the problem with the modern era, your actions do not matter your words do... Words have become violence, but actual violence is excused.
If you do not say the "correct words" your actions matter not. inversely as long as you say the "correct words" your actions matter not.
It seems anathema, but it isn't, Zen, arguably, was instrumental in the Imperial Army running roughshod over its enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War , so too with Executives -they simply become instruments of fate itself, it's not they themselves doing it.
"So committed I can't be honest"??
If you can't be honest and inform people of possible conflicts of interest, it is bad and you know yourself it's bad.
Yes, “IF” you can’t inform people of possible conflicts of interest, that is bad. But it’s also irrelevant as of yet.
But considering the board initially fired him for being dishonest/lying in an ongoing fashion, and the board wouldn't do the firing without evidence they could back it up with, it's not so hard to extrapolate that a return would be conditional on a deeper investigation and "full" cooperation.
Where's the evidence then? Why did they reinstate him if they had such amazing evidence of wrongdoing?
Since then, journalists have talked to both sides on and off the record and confirmed that the only reason for firing was distrust for Altman's honesty.
Altman's history seems to match. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/22/sam-alt...
>Four years ago, one of Altman’s mentors, Y Combinator founder Paul Graham, flew from the United Kingdom to San Francisco to give his protégé the boot, according to three people familiar with the incident, which has not been previously reported. .... he flew across the Atlantic with concerns that the company’s president put his own interests ahead of the organization — worries that would be echoed by OpenAI’s board.
>A separate concern, unrelated to his initial firing, was that Altman personally invested in start-ups he discovered through the incubator using a fund he created with his brother Jack — a kind of double-dipping for personal enrichment that was practiced by other founders and later limited by the organization.
“It was the school of loose management that is all about prioritizing what’s in it for me,”
[1] https://x.com/geoffreyirving/status/1726754277618491416?s=20
It sounds a lot like background briefing to me...
There could be conflict of interest or it could also be that OpenAI has no desire to get into the chip business.
The existence of such a conflict is not itself inherently a problem; these situations come up all the time, become disclosed, and extra scrutiny is placed on decisions where the conflict is likely to surface.
I don’t find it at all obvious that a billionaire CEO would improperly influence the company he’s running to buy from a company he’s invested in over a few million in chips. It’s a topic ripe for speculation and insinuation and hopefully the conflict of interest was properly disclosed and someone other than Altman made the final decision to commit to this purchase.
Doubt it. This type of thing is very common.
>Altman is back on condition that there is a investigation.
Altman is back because OAI had no choice.
AI chips are expensive and hard to get; nvidia can't produce enough; nvidia's chips are very expensive; building / seeding alternate supply for a crucial input is just competent business.
I see nothing wrong here.
Ironically, your follow up comment does point out the typical HN rush to judgment, a much more literal ad hominem.
> So they can shrink from and deny any possible conflict.
you quite literally insinuated negative motive and action to follow directed towards an individual using a pronoun. take some personal responsibility.
Is there another reason you were joking instead of just making your point?
OpenAI isn't a government agency or entity. They're free to no-bid or to use and purchase resources that someone within the company has ties to. The replies here are loaded with accusations of fraud; A typical HN rush to judgement.
Having investors, even if you own a controlling interest, still has implications on company decisions and possible legal action.
1. Many people would still scream bloody murder because they do not like Elon
2. When it comes to Tesla it is a public company so Elon has a duty of care to the public shareholders
3. even for the Private companies, Elon is not the SOLE owner, not even of twitter, so he still has a duty to the other minor shareholders, being a majority shareholder gives you lots of authority, but not unlimited authority. If he was the Sole shareholder it would be different.