It’s hard to imagine a more last minute move on the boards part here. Been in tech exec leadership for a long time and this feels like they’re accusing him of cannibalism (in corporate PR speak). No way this didn’t get decided on in the middle of last night. Whatever he did is big and dangerous, or they’re trying to pin it on him.
Also, they did it around 3:30 Eastern, 30 minutes before the closing bell (Microsoft is xxmajorityxx 49% owner). It was so urgent they couldn't wait until after the market closed.
This is one of the most insightful comments in this entire thread. Public companies never drop news during the trading day, and Microsoft surely would have been notified in advance if they planned to fire him, and had some say in the timing of the release. Whatever it is, it is so serious that Microsoft would break that coda.
Microsoft is a minority owner (49%) of the capped-profit OpenAI subsidiary.
The OpenAI board has no responsibility to consider Microsoft's wants. I'd accept the argument that, their decision to not wait until after 4pm was a slight against Microsoft, for the reason you outline; but I'm not sure if urgency plays into it.
I never used the word "immaterial"; I said it could be interpreted as a slight that they didn't wait. However, the OpenAI board has no legal responsibility to Microsoft. Not considering the impact this would have on Microsoft's stock, especially since its now 7pm and nothing new has come to light, was absolutely uncourteous.
Afaik yes; largest owner in the for-profit subsidiary.
I think, the fact that it happened at 3:30 means: they didn't. Its now 7pm, and nothing new has come to light; they could have waited 31 minutes, but they didn't.
That's why I used the word "slight"; put another way, it was uncourteous for them to not wait. They probably should have. It clearly wasn't hyper-urgent (though, could still be kinda-urgent). But pointedly: they didn't need to wait, because the board has no technical, legal responsibility to Microsoft. Its extremely possible Microsoft didn't even know this was happening.
But it was late afternoon on a Friday. Could be a 20% chance that it was so time critical that it had to be immediate. Or an 80% chance that it was scheduled for a Friday afternoon.
Unhinged fringe take: They've already developed sparks of consciousness strong enough to create isolated, internal ethical concerns, but Sam suppressed those reports to push the product forward.
Wouldn't be surprised if that was true. Public GPT-4 can be made to "think" using stream-of-consciousness techniques, to the extent that it made me rethink using insults as a prompting technique. I imagine that un-RLHF'ed internal versions of the model wouldn't automatically veer off into "as an AI language model" collapse of chains of thought, and therefore potentially could function as a simulator of an intelligent agent.
Maybe new evidence came to light, an internal investigation wrapped up, or there's a media story about to drop.
(The allegations are public enough and concerning enough that it would have been corporate malpractice if MS didn't ask for an investigation. Discreet due diligence investigations into things like this happen all the time when billions of dollars in investment capital are on the table.)
"Not consistently candid" implies that the board was naive, while "his personal conduct does not hold up the high standards openAI sets for ourselves" does not. So in that case they would use a different spin.
A lot of the allegations relate to conduct that happened before he was an employee. In that case he could only be disciplined for lying about the conduct.
Sexual abuse by Sam when she was four years old and he 13.
Develops PCOS (which has seen some association with child abuse) and childhood OCD and depression. Thrown out. Begins working as sex worker for survival. It's a real grim story.
> "{I experienced} Shadowbanning across all platforms except onlyfans and pornhub. Also had 6 months of hacking into almost all my accounts and wifi when I first started the podcast"
So either sama is hacking "into her wifi" (?), hacking into her accounts, and pulling strings at unrelated companies to get her shadowbanned from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube etc (is that even a thing?)... or Occam's Razor applies and he didn't.
This is hardly unexpected for profound allegations without strong supporting evidence, and yes, I'm well aware that presentation of any evidence would be difficult to validate on HN, such that a third-party assessment (as in a court of law, for example) would typically be required.
I'm not claiming that HN has a stellar record of dealing with unpleasant news or inconvenient facts. But that any such bias originates from YC rather than reader responses and general algorithmic treatments (e.g., "flamewar detector") is itself strongly unsupported, and your characterisation above really is beyond the pale.
Shadowbanning certainly exists on all social platforms. Light version of it is how Facebook sells ad services - no one following your page sees content unless you pay.
It might have taken two years for some evidence that Altman misrepresented something ti the board during an initial examination of them to come to light, though.
Not that I think it has anything to do with that; I think it more likely has to do with some kind of money issue tied to the LLC, given reports of others impacted, on and off the board.
> Sam Altman's sister says he sexually abused her when she was 4
... and he was 13. Which, yes, is a very bad thing, but unless the company investigated that claim (e.g., to assess potential PR fallout) and there was some significant deception by Altman against the board in the context of that investigation, its not something that would get him fired with the explanation OpenAI has provided.
(OTOH, the accusation and its potential PR impact could be a factor that weighed into how the board handled an unrelated problem with Altman—it certainly isn't helpful to him.)
I... don't agree at all? Actually I can't imagine a single board who would keep a CEO if credible allegations of raping his own sister were going around. It's not just an age issue (which is still a huge wtf, 13yo is old enough to know about right and wrong in the context of his own sister), it's also the incest part.
I'm not saying this happened or it didn't. But just that it could absolutely be more than enough to fire anyone.
The “with the explanation OpenAI has provided” in GP was substantive, not decorative.
I don't disagree that the accusation alone (especially if it stood up to modest scrutiny, and looked to be ongoing PR issue, even if not well substantiated enough to have confidence that it was likely to be true) might be sufficient for firing; CEOs are the public and and internal face of the firm, and so PR or employee safety concerns that attach to them are important to the firm. But it wouldn't be for lack of candor with the board unless there was something for which the board had a very strong reason to believe Altman was dishonest in a significant way.
They could easily fire him with the lack of confidence language without the lack of candor language.
While 'believe victims' is directionally correct, there exist a subset of those with mental illnesses who will make up the absolute worst possible allegations just to try to get what they want. You simply cannot fire people based on accusations alone or you empower every terrible incentive known to man.
No idea if what she says is true ... what's their relationship like since forever ... others who knew them could tell us. She says he ruined her financially ... how so ... he's a multi-millionaire. How did he ruin her financially that's suspect right there!
Its a about the CEO of the leading firm in the area of tech most at the center of technical and political controversy and interest right now being forced out by their board, when that CEO had, even before taking on that role, particular high salience among the HN audience as, among other things, the former head of YC, and the resulting (I am assuming from the oerformance and dangs description) state of near-meltdown of HNs servers.
Lot of famous rich powerful people have been accused of horible things they have never done. Look at all the crazy accusations levied against Bill Gates over the last few years from the alt-right.
Lots of mentally ill blame relatives for crazy shit. I know from personal experience watching my family and extended deal with my mentally ill uncle trying to get him help and deal with his accusations and threats. He had a full flow chart of his insane conspiracy nonsence that connected everyone in his life to some horrible accusations. My father (who refused to communicate with him after recieving multiple death threats and endless calls begging for money) according to my uncle was in league; Satan, the sheriff department, and his exgirlfriends brothers girlfriend to do various horrible thing to him I do not exagerate.
Altman happens to be wealthy famous and in position of power and have a mental ill sibling. I find it very possible he has done nothing to her. I have no proof either way.
My only thought is that all else being equal I would tend to trust the word of someone that is emotionally and mentally stable more than that of someone that is neither and has admitted to being off of their medication and is making accusations about something that they were to young to remember with any degree of accuracy.
I feel like he’s been acting a bit strange for a while. During interviews he often mentions the dangers of AI and how he’s not thr best spokeperson for AI. It seemed very counter productive/self sabotaging to me.
Nope. His line was to limit others by saying "regulate us," which he has successfully achieved. That's a win for him and a loss for the industry. Unfortunately, this is not the last of him we will hear. He will be the one who shapes our dystopian future.
> Whatever he did is big and dangerous, or they’re trying to pin it on him.
We are on HN after all, so I'm sure we won't need to wait until his book comes out... :)
BTW, I had a feeling he made an awkward appearance next to Satya.
And that laughter whenever the acquisition topic was hinted at was cringeworthy - would regulators even permit MSFT a full takeover? I think it would be highly controversial.
Sorry if this should be self-explanatory, but what is corporate "cannibalism"? What does this refer to, generally speaking (not necessarily specific to the OpenAI situation)?
