Sam Altman tells staff there’s no plan for him to receive ‘giant equity stake’
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
As others have noted, the wording here is also highly suspect: "no current plans" for a "giant equity stake" gives him at least two different paths to claim he never lied about the situation if and when he gets equity.
The Emperor never requests favours. Instead, ambitious Senators must guess his desires and offer them to him, at which point a song and dance is done about his refusing and the Senate insisting and him, reluctantly, accepting the honor.
Believable in revolution—for every George Washington and Sulla we have dozens of Pinochets and Putins. After that, however, it’s a stupid lie. The emperor wants things and wants it to look like he was forced to accept it. This is the signature of despots, not even monarchs.
There is after you burn this image into your brain: https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/1av88z5/fir...
:-)
ok I'll pay that.
Paul Graham said: “Sam is extremely good at becoming powerful.”
Altman is a predator; people respect their power even if they fear their motives. The investor class love guys like him, because he doesn’t let ethics get in the way of seeking power. Same reason they loved Zuckerberg.
Is it "amazing"? Or is it just that everything he does is technically legal, and he has enough wealth behind him that is hoping for even more wealth that nobody really gives a shit about ethics?
I think here lies the interesting point. I’m not gonna try to mindread Sam and guess at what his true intentions are, but the investors’ intentions are clear: align Sam’s incentives with profit. I wish him the best of luck in navigating this.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundation...
[2] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundation...
That said, this is a public announcement. There is motivation more than legal for making this a public concern.
> OpenAI needs to raise funds and incorporate.
Which OpenAI are we talking about? Non-profit or its for profit subsidiaries? They're all named OpenAI Inc, OpenAI Global LLC, OpenAI LLC, etc. The for-profit is already incorporated (since 2019 [1]), it just needs to be restructured before anyone is willing to put any more money in at crazy 12 figure valuations.
AFAIK that means removing board control from the nonprofit to prevent another fiasco, converting Microsoft's deal to stock to undo the profit share cap thing, and create an employee stock pool to retain talent.
> Because the company and non-profit are at arms length.
I'm not so sure that they are (that said, I don't understand your overall point so this is probably a nitpick). The subsidiary definitely isn't a passive investment as far as UBIT is concerned, and I don't think they can ever be considered arms length if Altman is both CEO of the for-profit and on the board of the non-profit (as far as the corporate veil goes).
> There is motivation more than legal for making this a public concern.
It definitely feels like a trial balloon.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#2019:_Transition_from_n...
>A sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.
When billions of dollars are up for grabs, values, ethics, morality, past promises and everything else in between will be thrown out the window.
For society, the framework should always be that a corporation is inherently evil. It is only a matter of time when that evil presents itself.
Tesla has made about 34bn in income over the last 3 years, with stormy waters ahead, yet Elon pocketed himself 56bn under the guise of saving humanity, which is a "vibe" OpenAI also needlessly projects.
Regardless, shareholders just voted again on that same exact package retroactively and re approved it. This was a clear indication that the market still feels, even in hindsight, that the past targets were deserving of the equity granted. What internal folks thought or the judge’s guess about shareholders being “tricked” doesn’t matter since it is something shareholders (owners of the company) have judged on their own with all the information they have now about past performance. Also, neither Elon nor his brother voted on the measure. So to me all this serves as evidence that enough people think the targets were absurd enough to at least justify the equity.
I just find it hilarious that Tesla's total profit over all these years is still lower than this pay package.
In 2019 his position seemed to be this. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sam-altman-says-openai-still-...
> Altman said OpenAI's long development time-horizon ultimately meant it had no choice but to abandon the nonprofit model if the company intends to survive.
>
> "In spirit, we still view ourselves as working for the world," Altman said. "But I think you have to sort of play the field as it lies. And we just need so much capital to do our work. I think we'll need more capital than any nonprofit has ever raised, probably, and so this was sort of a reflection of reality."
Did he make statements counter to this at a later date?
The company started as a non-profit. A pretty damning evidence in itself.
This was in December 2015. Did it take this genius 4 years to figure out that to survive as a company, you need to a for profit entity?
Nah.
I think the strategy was to milk the marketing for all its worth, claiming to be "advancing the world, with no penny in pocket" high minded savior company. And then pivot (an innovative move) into raking in the money.
Did all the investors pour in billions without the understanding that this will become a for profit, and a for profit that will 10x their investments?
> We're a non-profit research company. Our full-time staff of 60 researchers and engineers is dedicated to working towards our mission regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way.
"regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way", they failed really hard on that point. That Sam Altman had already changed course by 2019 doesn't mean he didn't lie at the start.
https://www.openphilanthropy.org/files/Grants/OpenAI/OpenAI_...
Where is the selfish gain?
You can claim that the story is false and there is a plan for gain but at this stage we have someone saying A and someone saying !A. It's probably a time to look for evidence.
He is working behind the scenes to get a good stake in the company, and he most likely has told them he needs that stake to motivate himself to take the company to the next level.
I am guessing that they have a slew of new tools upcoming and this is Sam cashing out.
My query is what evidence are you basing this belief upon? I'm prepared to be convinced by evidence. It seems like for so many people to have a strong opinion that he is a serial liar that there should be many cite-able sources where
A) It is undeniable that Sam Altman said that.
B) It is clear that this is false.
and C) this has happened repeatedly.
Too much of this seems to be relying on "Sources familiar with .... claim .... ".
I'm really not trying to advocate for Altman or OpenAI here, I just would like the claims against them to be robust.
And a plausible interpretation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41657334.
Of course, as with any conspiracy theory, there are many unknown unknowns so make of it what you will. Personally, the many accounts of those who've worked with him along with these recorded statements push me towards being wary of his intentions.
It actually reminds me of descriptions I've heard of Larry Ellison (including the ones famously made by bcantrill) that he's very personable. You'll hear all these things about him that sound awful but then you meet him and he seems okay, quite reasonable, even. Then you start to observe that he's really just motivated by money, full stop. The charm is only there to get yours. That's the feeling I get reading about sama.
What you say is not true, otherwise nobody would retire early and many people do just that.
However, many billionaires become that rich for being exactly the type of person for whom money is never enough. But we don't need to be like them.
That is only true if you are constrained by lack of opportunities.
When money is never enough, then every opportunity to make some is going to be used to the full extent.
>OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor told CNBC in a statement that while the board has talked about the matter, no specific figures are on the table.
>“The board has had discussions about whether it would be beneficial to the company and our mission to have Sam be compensated with equity, but no specific figures have been discussed nor have any decisions been made,” Taylor said.
So, they're definitely talking about it and it's definitely an option. Yes, technically, there might not be a definitive plan, but the intent and want are both there, and at no point has anybody flatly said, "There will be no equity stake".
Given Sam's history, none of what was said by them today means anything at all, and it cannot be trusted. This is just corporate weasel-wording.
That time is worth money!
So what you are saying is that we need to keep guessing at the scam you are running.
Because there is always a scam