"King of the Cannibals": How Sam Altman Took over Silicon Valley
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
* He's close with Peter Thiel
* He's an ace networker (but, completing the stereotype, is also an introvert)
* He left YC, not entirely voluntarily, because he was too committed to OpenAI to do the YC job
* Echoing YC, the OpenAI board tried to oust him over concerns that he was being manipulative and pursuing outside interests (a chip firm) that conflicted with the mission
The article doesn't seem to have much to say past that. If you go to an Altman house party, you'll apparently get a blanket if you want one. But, like, you'll also get one of those on a Delta flight, so.
It feels like people are a bit obsessive about this guy.
AI is about to take over the world (for better or worse), and this is the guy in charge of building it.
I follow a lot of people on this topic and even at the top of the foodchain there are hundreds of people from all corners of the world competing with each and improving each others work. It's actually really fun and amazing to watch(especially the pace at which it happens) and very different from how Sam portrays it.
There's something to be said about that, lol. Probably not even Musk has that kind of power.
They buy and sell our politicians, set policy directly or by proxy, and make decisions that lead to prosperity for some and mass misery and death for others.
None of this is subtle or a conspiracy theory, it's how our society is structured, it's not particularly confusing unless you choose for it to be.
- Gore Vidal
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a conspiracy analyst.
Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to.
They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while these terrible things were happening to the nation. I believe that of them.
~ Gore Vidal (2007) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/may/05/featuresreview...It's entirely possible that he went further than accusing Bush et al. of being asleep at the wheel and being overly fond of Saudi oil, if so I missed that particular descent into the abyss.
It's also just possible I'm wrong! Like, obviously? But I think we're all just hyperfixated on this guy because we can see ourselves wearing the same goofy blue sneakers as he did in the "Bilderburg" photo. It's a crab bucket thing. Our attention to him, I mean. He could end up being a supervillain! I just don't think he is right now; I think what he is is much more boring than that.
We're in damn near furious agreement . . . although there's a few of the original AskHistorians academics from a decade back that would take Vidal over Jared Diamond in a heartbeat :)
Be well.
Rich people control the world.
Rich people own the media.
Rich people run boards.
Rich people built up cults of personality. Influencers to lend credibility for their long terms plans.
Rich people then pick a rich friend or ‘make’ a new friend, and then promote their friend.
Rich people’s friends typically after their role is done are found to be sociopaths and liars and frauds.
But this is OK because remember Rich people control the media.
Not rich people are going to be living in the shit society that Rich people are planning for not rich people. AI is to play big role.
Now, ask any further question, we all know you are smart so this confusion of yours is due to your world model.
Let’s discuss your world model.
Control of boards doesn't matter.
Rich people don't control the media, because the upper middle class won't let them.
Sam Altman does not secretly control the world; see above.
Interested in this theory of middle class controlling the world. My personal yardstick is: “whose interests are most served by the system?”
For example, “middle class” doesn’t want wars, revolution, things shaking up. Which is why comrades hate them. Upper classes despise them and lower classes want to kill them. :) So seriously, is it the “middle class controlling the world” that has cash fire hoses gushing dollars “abroad” while “middle class” struggles to hold on to its shrinking perch?
Do enlighten me brother.
So, what I care about is a true lens into how we will be getting to the next step in the path.
Thats all I care about...
And obviously SA is a master at ensuring the engineers in his harem are well fed (paid).
But its really important to note who his closest bodies are in his orbit. There is no question about Thiels propensity for imbuing his views in his interests - and, personally, I'd really like to know what SA's goals and views and desires are especially WRT how they are colored by those he trusts, or advises him, such as Thiel.
Its critically important to see the path ahead - because there is no going back from the level of entanglement AI is causing, and will cause. I love how Tristan said it regarding AI, and where it is today
>"It the worst it will ever be" (meaning its only going to get stronger and more entangled, and thus, this is the only optimal time to check our rudder)
And SA and Thiel have a solid grasp on the inputs to that rudder.
I hope that all the youngin's in tech (like the actual teenagers, like my children) are really paying attention to where we are in tech history with AI in general - and with OpenAI in particular - as SA can attempt to look like a Carnegie but actually be a Rockefeller.
And beyond a direct say any person of course can be an advocate for anything. And should be, if it affects their society.
Not sure you meant to make the exact opposite point of the one you stated, but convincing people they don't have a say, when in fact they do, is a pretty longstanding trick of the ruling class, so perhaps you've been convinced as well.
Or are part of the ruling class.
Astro-turfing/Gaslighting at the same time:
"The act of one or many to feign as though they dont care, and there is nothing to worry about, or what one can do - so just go along with it, when eventually the truth is revealed that there was in fact something to worry about - the astro-gassers stood to benefit from your complacency." Whether Thomas realizes it or not - he is in this class.
Further, there is an entire new city being bought-up, planned and developed in the greater Bay Area as a new tech-city. I 100% gaurantee you, it will be riddled with AI 'living augmentations'... its being built by the technorati in SV. It will be interesting to see how that builds out.
You should hope that they go back to school and study history. All of this has happened before, many times over.
Sounds good on paper, but the nature of modern day life is far different than it was when other revolutions occurred.
Yes, revolutions in tech are just that - they up-end the old way of life, the dust settles and a new way of living emerges.
This is so basically obvious that its not worth mentioning.
What is worth more than mentioning, but truly paying attention to, aside from Thomas' analogy to a neighboring mcdonalds, which is an actually insanely lazy look at this matter - especially coming from one who is a security expert, is that the level of "entanglement" into our daily life with massive core-AI systems, such as the capabilities of GPT-'N' has, cannot be understated.
When cars overtook horses, we could weaponize cars by putting guns on them and calling them tanks. But once you put a gun on a car and call it a tank, it can only shoot at one target at a time.
With AI, when it provides the substrate upon which you will interface with the information relationship you have the rest of global reality, can be easily weaponized, not just against you, but anyone and anything interfacing with it, its important to know who, or at least what incentives, truly owns, or at least is the lens through which one interfaces with whatever information that system provides.
SO, aside from 'doom-and-gloom' -- its really important to really understand as much as possible, and rather than Thomas' just throwing up his hands (which again is bizarre from a security guy just saying he doesnt care who runs the black box, is weird) - I want to know how whatever that system is (openAI/whatever dominant AI) and who made it such and what agency I still retain in my digital life.
--
@Unity:
Entanglement of big business and government in our lives was and will always be - what big-core-AI provides both business and governments (which now there is vanishingly thin membranes between the two these days) complete solvent for any friction for said entanglement.
AI's capabilities for extracting indivulaized-insights-AT-SCALE is what AI provides to both, with zero recourse from the individuals. That is the "alignment" problem that Aza and Tristan are pushing back against.
Also- I do not "worship" or "idolize" SA, and especially Thiel - I am terrified of them. That's why I said that they may attempt to appear as a Carnegie, but are actually a Rockefeller (Carnegie attempted to wash his reputation with endowments - Rockefeller was just an evil oil-carpet-bagging C*Sucker and an evil person (he is the reason we have "fossil fuels" as manufactured scarcity for profit)
I have no idea why you think I idolize any of this - I am fully, and even further, into the Raskin-Harris camp... alignment regulation is going to get trampled - and to be honest, I have serious questions about SAs motives...
I'd bet he's already got a team working on the plans for his bunker/lair, and taking notes from the Zucks and Thiels on best design resources.
Entanglement of big business and government is not new. Yes, we should be very concerned, but the solution is not to worship idols like business leaders or politicians. They will not solve that problem for us. You have to think carefully before handing more authority to individuals who've already been ascribed far more than is due.
> from a security guy just saying he doesnt care who runs the black box, is weird
One cannot select the "right" person to run that black box. We're all biased, flawed, etc. So yes, you should be concerned. But use that concern to drive your actions towards distributing authority– not centralizing it through more idol worship.
In response to your edit:
> I do not "worship" or "idolize" SA, and especially Thiel - I am terrified of them.
This is idol worship. You're ascribing a power to Altman and Thiel that they do not have. Bad behavior has consequences that are beyond what even the government can impose. If Altman or Thiel were to make a habit of targeting people, he or his adherents/descendants would eventually find themselves friendless in a house built on sand. Altman almost lost his job that way. The fact that consequences may play out slowly in some cases doesn't make it less true. Nobody can infinitely violate the golden rule without eventually facing consequences.
Serious answer then.
The reality is that the higher the pay, the less it stings when people screw you over. If OpenAI was a low pay startup, Ilya would probably feel a lot more bitter about what happened. People care for various reasons. You don't need to care, because you actually already have what I described above, because of three reasons:
1. the work that you did and the country in which you did it
2. the people you were surrounded with while you were doing it
3. the culture around it, especially the US is very vocal about what they achieve, which automatically became a huge (possibly) unintentional mutual marketing platform for you and your friends.
There are plenty of security people that have contributed to the security community just as much as you, but make a fraction of the money. Good for you, honestly, but not everyone has had those opportunities. For many of us(I for example grew up in Germany as an immigrant), the predominant culture is to not invest in people like us(very different from the valley), and to make sure to constantly tell them that they can only be successful if they are good worker bees. It took someone convincing me to leave to the UK to realize that.
I want to know and improve, because I have made several people and institutions rich or contributed to their fame, because of whatever work I did or whatever thing I reverse engineered, and got ultimately burned with zero credit.
LLM's would exist with or without OpenAI, but it's absolutely fascinating that Sam how somehow managed to convince the world(outside of a big scientific and engineering niche) that ChatGPT would not have happened without him, but that conversely everyone at ChatGPT is disposable. Even if you don't care about Sam in general it may be worth caring about it in some fashion, when he's lobbying on Capitol Hill to limit access to non regulated AI.
It's only natural for me to want to learn some of it, to at least protect myself in the future.
The thread you linked is from 2020.
So if Altman is as smooth and ruthless and self interested as he appears, he's likely to end up in control of... something big.
Even if he "just" becomes the next "richest man in the world," that's still a title that carries with it a massive ability to shape society. It's no wonder people would like to understand what this potential oligarch is like behind closed doors.
I'm skeptical of yet another, extremely computationally expensive aspirational technique.
Crypto seems destined for a backend technology.
Actually-open AI with open weights and open source is innovating rapidly too, especially when it comes to making models more efficient on smaller hardware. We have fast local mixtures of experts now. Rumor is that Llama3 is training as well, and that it may be some kind of MoE.
I feel like focusing on efficiency first for local models rather than shooting to beat GPT-4 is the right approach, because without major efficiency improvements a shot for simple dominance will just yield a model only wealthier people can afford the hardware to run.
OpenAI still seems in the lead but it’s shrinking.
OpenAI's lead is phenomenal: remember that they managed to put GPT4 on top of the leaderboard for one year and counting, while all others (except maybe Anthropic) struggle to have their model in the top3 for more than a few months.
Define "take over the world"
Pushed to everything even if it doesnt make sense?
Or will actually significantly affect everyone's life?
On and off record sources, people as complex individuals with multiple truths, anchoring to key chronological events, and only moderate clickbaiting and defensible hyperbole.
Nothing particularly new, but a solid brief. Kudos to the Post and Dwoskin, Fisher, and Tiku.
I would expect they'd go first-hand to various people who know him and dig up stories from the past.
Which, seems fair?
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?batch=S19&batch=W19&ba...
The B2B stuff seems like things YC companies can just sell each other and make startup pain points easier, like pick axe stuff that doesn't require as much original vision or as much risk.
And there's also B2B vs B2C.
A better way of looking at it would be to try analyzing the performance of Sam’s personal investments. And comparing it against a baseline (e.g. Sequoia or YC).
(1) People who have actually worked in large tech / engineering companies, and implicitly understand that 'CEO' is a analogy for (the organization)
(2) People who have no idea how the sausage is made, and need things simplified down to one person
The former aren't misdirected, because they know the game. And the latter probably couldn't wrap their heads around the truth, even if it were explained to them.
So I'm not sure anyone who could plausibly understand otherwise is confused by the hero worship.
Except for new graduates... they're probably misunderstanding.
Sama: "I'm getting a bit of knock-back over my management style from various sources."
PR Co: "No worries, we'll run a Premium PR package to restore your reputation. A couple of nice pieces in the WashPo and other places and you're good to go."
Sama: "Great. Invoice me."
He was pursuing his vision of AI incluing a chipset specific to LLM processing that would break nvidias hold of the market.
Apparently the BoD didnt like it. They should have just been more forthcoming about it.
Some CEOs would get fired for moonlighting. Others (Elon Musk, etc) build massive companies and make their existing companies more resilient and lasting. The fact that employees closed ranks around him tell you which kind of CEO he is, and the BoD chose to ignore that at their loss
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/what-sam-altman-did-so-bad-h...
People are people. Virtually anyone can be prickly or have some opinions you might not like. Show me the reality. I can take it because I don’t expect humans to be cardboard comic book caricatures.
But as an engineer that also never learned this kind of narrative control, I too am struggling at where I can learn this from. Any hints are appreciated actually.
Sam Altman on the other hand has decades more experience is that playing field.
So I think for PR or whatever the same thing would work, simply deciding to become skilled in this area and you will naturally begin to pick up the patterns already present in your reality.
The narrative that works in your head is not necessarily a narrative that works publicly.
And some people can't really understand or perceive other people's intentions and motivations... and some people can do it but not in real time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally%E2%80%93Anne_test
Some people are good at following other people's eye gaze, some are not.
And then there is Machiavellian intelligence, which roughly scales with (real) intelligence -- but some people aren't good at it.
I don't get why more CEO/founders don't found second and third companies. You build a great leadership team, then explore adjacent spaces that can reinforce your vision of the future. In a way, it can clear the space of potential competitors. Or build potential customers.
I think Altman and Musk are doing an amazing job of it. Dorsey wasn't doing a bad job, either.
If you want to play in the big pool and own/run things, why not spread your personal risk over multiple ventures?
* Note: this for types constitutionally incapable of being happy retiring early with millions
So if their time is divided then my guess is they won't be doing it very well. If they are all face and PR then perhaps AI will replace them.
Good leaders should probably invest a lot of time in developing a deep and talented pipeline of other good leaders, so that the current leader can be replaced.
Bad (but still effective) leaders leave the company flying off the edge of a cliff without a successor when they exit. Usually because they played politics and blocked anyone's rise who could challenge them. (See: PLO)
The CEO reports to a board, and the board is too narrowminded or risk averse to allow for the CEOs ideas.
Its actually not very dissimilar from the public company vs private enterprise conflict paradigm: public rewards short term thinking while private rewards long term investment.
Unless the board is composed of visionaries, entrepreneurs , or the CEO has a track record of cultivating enterprises, you are going to have a really hard timeI can only conclude that the guys were afraid for their big bag of cash, I would expect them would allow anything that would ensure they get an obscene amount of money.
It was the team. Who put the team together?
We will never know if OpenAI would have succeeded w/o SA. That's unfalsifiable. But they got to a life changing equity because the CEO helped get it there.
My point: SA was likely putting the scaffolding of a 2nd home run in place, right as the board got scared of being on 3rd base going for the run.
And therein lies the problem. The BoD was not playing the long game.