[HN Gopher] Sam Altman, Lately
___________________________________________________________________
Sam Altman, Lately
Author : iamthirsty
Score : 115 points
Date : 2024-06-03 19:33 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (oftheclock.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (oftheclock.com)
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I don't see any of the comments here, is that a bug?
| asadm wrote:
| a dead comment has the rest of 8 comments
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| HN was behaving strangely for me a little while ago
| shamino wrote:
| Paul Graham came out publicly to defend Sam, and we instantly
| have this blog post about, wait, just a sec, let's dissect
| actually why Sam is still evil.
|
| Can we believe that Sam could actually be a good person? Today,
| Kara Swisher in her podcast on Pivot said, "Every time I tell
| people I actually like Sam, they become widely offended".
| lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote:
| > Can we believe that Sam could actually be a good person?
|
| Depends on what good means to you. This is a person that we
| have evidence on repeatedly using these kind of underhanded
| techniques. Maybe he's not physically hurting anyone, but this
| is a person I would avoid.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _these kind of underhanded techniques_
|
| What in the article is underhanded? Worst case, he has
| undisclosed conflicts of interest.
|
| > _this is a person I would avoid_
|
| Does Altman have a Trump-like wake of ruined careers and lost
| riches among former allies? Everyone he's been close to seems
| to have done well from it.
| fragmede wrote:
| > Worst case, he has undisclosed conflicts of interest.
|
| Given the size of these deals, that's kind of a big deal.
| It isn't an "oops, it slipped my mind" small little
| conflict of interest kind of thing, imo.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Given the size of these deals, that 's kind of a big
| deal_
|
| For investors, sure. (And the investors are more than
| fine with Altman, warts and all.) For the public, eh.
| qarl wrote:
| Honestly, I think his shady handling of the ScarJo thing is
| what is shifting the tide.
|
| He very clearly isn't being honest there, and it's so
| obvious that many people are starting to question
| everything he says.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| It's quite a few things. I didn't find his claims of
| ignorance around the non-competes, for example,
| particularly compelling.
|
| But all of that is quite separate from these conflicts,
| which are entirely a matter for Altman and his investors,
| investors who have no reason to complain about him.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Paul Graham came out publicly to defend Sam, and we
| instantly have this blog post about, wait, just a sec, let 's
| dissect actually why Sam is still evil_
|
| I'm not seeing good and evil in this post. It's calling Sam out
| for not being transparent. Given he's elevated OpenAI, in
| public testimony, to an extinction-level threat to humanity,
| that lack of transparency is of public concern.
|
| Not being transparent doesn't make him evil, doesn't mean he is
| unlikeable and doesn't _per se_ mean he 's dishonest. (Though
| OpenAI and he _do_ have a likeability problem, at least in
| politics, albeit one I think they can fix.)
| neilv wrote:
| > _albeit one I think they can fix_
|
| Money, a little image coaching, and have Aaron Sorkin write a
| movie.
|
| (We've seen a similar situation before.)
| iamthirsty wrote:
| That's exactly what I was going for -- the issue of
| transparency here. It wasn't dissecting why he's "bad", it's
| that the public statements don't match up with financial
| realities.
|
| Maybe next time I could press more about the transparency
| factor, but I thought it was concise enough.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _public statements don't match up with financial
| realities_
|
| Has he ever plead poverty?
| iamthirsty wrote:
| Obviously not, but as I state in the article he has
| plead:
|
| > "He owns no stake in the ChatGPT developer, saying he
| doesn't want the seductions of wealth to corrupt the safe
| development of artificial intelligence, and makes a
| yearly salary of just $65,000."
|
| According to OpenAI themselves.
|
| So he takes a "low" salary and no ownership as to,
| according to him and the company, not influence his
| decisions in the pursuit of financial gain -- yet that's
| a complete omission of the whole truth.
|
| I'll stop short of calling it a flat-out lie, but a
| mischaracterization of reality for sure.
| girvo wrote:
| You're applying pretty black and white moral values to a post
| that, at least to me, didn't read that way at all. One can like
| Sam Altman as a person while wishing he was more transparent in
| some of his business dealings.
| Lerc wrote:
| The post may not be at the extremes, but if the author has
| been following the issue as closely as it seems, they must be
| aware that there are people boldly proclaiming Sam Altman to
| be a sociopath on a daily basis.
|
| The issue has become polarized, for reasons I don't rightly
| understand, but nevertheless this is where we have ended up.
|
| To write on the topic in this environment it would be
| advisable to be clear on what they are saying, what they have
| an issue with, and what the appropriate remedy would be.
|
| To just throw out some insinuations in a "I'm just asking
| questions" manner doesn't in-itself condemn a person. It
| isn't happening in isolation though. No snowflake believes
| itself to be responsible for the avalanche.
| infecto wrote:
| Its insane how far people are willing to project on their
| feelings towards Altman. Look at this quote in this thread.
|
| "But it's worth noting that much of Sam Altman's
| presentation is just a mask (one he puts a ton of effort
| into and is good at maintaining), even if he's still less
| evil than the Sacklers or a mob boss."
|
| How do people even come up with this narrative?
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| People are angry about the "Open"AI debacle and he's been
| publicly in favor of being very paternalistic and controlling
| (likely for his material benefit as much as safety). It's fair
| that he's taken some flak for those things, he's trying to
| control the direction of society at large and people want a
| say. I don't think he's evil, but I can see why people would
| perceive him as paternalistic or even a bit patronizing.
| apsec112 wrote:
| People don't divide cleanly into "good" and "evil" buckets, and
| CEOs in general tend to be ruthless deal -makers. But it's
| worth noting that much of Sam Altman's presentation is just a
| mask (one he puts a ton of effort into and is good at
| maintaining), even if he's still less evil than the Sacklers or
| a mob boss.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| > let's dissect actually why Sam is still evil.
|
| I never said Sam is evil, nor anything close.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| I'm astounded he amassed $500+ million even before this. Loopt
| can't have earned him more than one digit, are YC partners paid
| _this_ well?
| esafak wrote:
| As opposed to partners in other VCs? Successful VCs make good
| money, thanks to performance fees; say, 20% of the profit.
|
| edit: I don't know the specifics of Altman's case.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _thanks to performance fees_
|
| Based on public reporting, Altman's wealth came from his
| family office piggybacking alongside YC versus his share of
| carry in YC's funds.
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| What does this mean for dummies? Altman family was already
| rich?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What does this mean for dummies?_
|
| He sold Loopt for $40mm and then invested his share of
| that into start-ups like Stripe. (That investment alone
| should have taken him past $100mm.)
| neural_thing wrote:
| If you read the WSJ article, his second investment was $15,000
| for 2% of Stripe
| neilv wrote:
| Nice. A tiny fraction of the opportunity cost of working as a
| founding engineer, people come to you to be vetted, and you
| can shotgun-approach it. Most of us are in the wrong
| business.
| gizmo wrote:
| I'm a little bit surprised by these articles. I thought it was
| well known (or at least an open secret) that sama is one the most
| prolific tech investors? Yes, sure, there are conflicts of
| interest but this is par for the course. If you make many bets
| and startups pivot to greener pastures then inevitably you end up
| up funding startups that compete head-on. When people take sama's
| money they know he has a stake in 400 other startups. But sama's
| network is also one of his great assets.
| chrishare wrote:
| He either didn't disclose key commercial dealings to the OpenAI
| board, or purposefully concealed them. That's a big deal.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Anyone not living under a rock knew who he was. If someone
| has been investing for 10 years before taking a job, one can
| reasonably assume they are going to have a bunch of
| investments. It doesn't need to be 'disclosed'. What's next,
| someone will be surprised warren buffett owns some stocks
| outside berkshire?
| chrishare wrote:
| If you are a CEO, especially of a quasi non-profit, and you
| start a for-profit investment vehicle as part of this
| organisation, you should tell the board that.
| ameister14 wrote:
| There is a huge difference between 'I have private
| investments' and 'I own a controlling interest in a fund I
| have been telling you is independent'
| vasco wrote:
| > He owns no stake in the ChatGPT developer, saying he doesn't
| want the seductions of wealth to corrupt the safe development of
| artificial intelligence, and makes a yearly salary of just
| $65,000.
|
| > "A growing number of Altman's startups do business with OpenAI
| itself, either as customers or major business partners. The
| arrangement puts Altman on both sides of deals, creating a
| mounting list of potential conflicts in which he could personally
| benefit from OpenAI's work."
|
| If nothing else this idea that a person that is positioned to
| lead such a company is willing to do it for just $65k for
| altruistic reasons, backfired. Clearly the person has many
| incentives to go find profits somewhere else.
|
| edit: added second quote to clarify
| wslh wrote:
| Altruism?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Altman isn't an Effective Altruist.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I'm struggling to understand what backfired
| chrishare wrote:
| He's saying the attempt to virtue signal, via the low salary,
| is invalidated by these deals. The virtues would be mostly
| altruism I guess, that the AGI mission was important enough
| to humanity for him to sacrifice opportunities to build
| personal wealth and so on. I think that's overblown
| personally, but certainly Altman would often repeat the line
| about having low salary and no equity.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| > If nothing else this idea that a person that is positioned to
| lead such a company is willing to do it for just $65k for
| altruistic reasons, backfired.
|
| In my first draft "backfired" is the exact word I used too but
| thought it would come off as too targeted language against Sam,
| so I changed it.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| The cat is out of the bag now, and the Toyota Corolla trick was
| evented, but I think he could have used it, or a less Miami-esque
| version of it.
|
| Like the other Sam, his bank account has not been inflating by
| accident, and him insisting that he is not that much interested
| by money should be taken, at least, with a reasonably sized pinch
| of salt.
| ajross wrote:
| So... not entirely joking: at what point do we declare that
| "OpenAI" the non-profit was basically a scam? It's clear it isn't
| now what it originally presented itself to be, and it's
| increasingly looking like it was never meant to be. The public-
| face of an open non-profit was, what, just a recruiting tool to
| be able to hire folks who otherwise wouldn't want to leave
| academia?
| eigenvalue wrote:
| It really seems like criticizing Sam is the new hot thing to do,
| with tons of people jumping on the bandwagon. Whether it's hiring
| a voice actor who sounds like ScarJo, having non-disparagement
| clauses in separation agreements (something basically all big
| companies and institutions tend to do), being associated with a
| crypto project (Worldcoin), "lying" to OpenAI board members, etc.
| No one is perfect, and when you are put under a microscope, just
| about anyone can look bad in the wrong light.
|
| Ultimately, I ask myself, is my life better because Sam was born
| and did what he did? And the answer is 1,000 times "yes!" because
| the introduction of ChatGPT changed so much and enabled so much
| creation and learning for me personally. And I have a strong
| suspicion that if the Helen Toners of the world had their way, it
| never would have been released at all. And without all that money
| and prestige floating around OpenAI, I doubt they would have been
| able to create such a dream team that allowed the thing to happen
| in the first place. And I think all of that comes down at least
| in large part to Sam's vision and scrappiness and willingness to
| just do stuff and not get stuck in institutional morass.
| chrishare wrote:
| Tech loves drama just like anyone else, haha. But this recent
| pattern of drama that follows Altman is of his own making,
| although perhaps he is under more scrutiny than most,
| reflecting OpenAIs importance in our industry.
| artwr wrote:
| > It really seems like criticizing Sam is the new hot thing to
| do, with tons of people jumping on the bandwagon. Whether it's
| hiring a voice actor who sounds like ScarJo, having non-
| disparagement clauses in separation agreements (something
| basically all big companies and institutions tend to do), being
| associated with a crypto project (Worldcoin), "lying" to OpenAI
| board members, etc. No one is perfect, and when you are put
| under a microscope, just about anyone can look bad in the wrong
| light.
|
| True, but it's hard to start something as big as OpenAI and not
| warrant a little scrutiny. At least, I think there is plenty of
| public interest here, in particular because of the chosen
| mission statement for the company.
|
| > Ultimately, I ask myself, is my life better because Sam was
| born and did what he did? And the answer is 1,000 times "yes!"
| because the introduction of ChatGPT changed so much and enabled
| so much creation and learning for me personally.
|
| Which is a very reasonable position, but is the fact that your
| life is better negate concerns that applications of ChatGPT may
| actually make other people's lives worse? And that the lack of
| transparency around conflicts of interest raises reasonable
| concerns about both judgement and the ability of the
| organization to deliver on its mission?
| eigenvalue wrote:
| That's just it-- I really don't think ChatGPT and Sam have
| harmed anyone besides possibly a very few people who
| disagreed with Sam and tried to resist him and got
| outmaneuvered by him. But I think many tens of millions of
| people have greatly benefitted from him. And to ignore that
| in the calculus of "is Sam worth of reproach?" seems silly.
|
| And I also don't feel like I am somehow owed a huge amount of
| transparency around the exact details of how Sam may or may
| not benefit financially from his association with OpenAI, or
| the legal agreements they had with departing staff. Even if
| he does benefit, is that really so horrible? They have a for-
| profit division now so they are paying taxes. And the
| fortunes made from OpenAI stock with be taxed for sure. And
| the people who left are rich and got to work on a world
| changing product.
|
| Where is all the harm? It's really hard to point at any real
| harm from my standpoint. But the benefits and gains are
| palpable, and they are obvious to anyone without an agenda to
| push or axe to grind.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Unpopular but true: if you don't have conflicts of interest, you
| aren't really in the game. I don't know any serious business
| person who doesn't have conflicts. Some manage them as honestly
| and fairly as possible, others not so much.
|
| Having conflicts doesn't make someone bad.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| It's not even _specifically_ about the conflicts of interest --
| although that isn't great -- it's about the obfuscation of that
| information, and the direct contradiction with public
| statements and 'mission goals'.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| >> Having conflicts doesn't make someone bad.
|
| What if someone is willful opaque about their conflicts?
| ml-anon wrote:
| Paul Graham comes off as such a gormless chump.
|
| Trying to hand wave away a 10M stake in OpenAI taken when they
| were valued at <1Bn and then trying to weasel out by saying
| profit is capped. Why yes it is Paul, at 100x initially with the
| cap raising by 20% a year. And _then_ trying to claim that the
| PPUs aren't liquid despite regular liquidity events being the
| entire reason we know OpenAIs current valuation.
|
| Didn't think I'd see the founder of YC try the "I'm a moron who
| doesn't understand how investments work" defense.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| The author here, just want to clarify:
|
| The post is not a "hit-piece" on Sam, nor am I calling him a bad
| person or anything of the like.
|
| It's a discussion of the direct contradiction between publicly
| stating someone is without financial biases and the hard facts of
| clear financial entanglements.
|
| I'm happy to hear any criticism on how I could've written it
| better to explain my position! :)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-03 23:02 UTC)