(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.)
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.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/163570439893983232...
... 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'm not saying this happened or it didn't. But just that it could absolutely be more than enough to fire anyone.
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.
Does anyone know what that’s about?
This is a good point. Everyone has been accused of rape by a homeless drug addict, it is like taxes in its consistent applicability to every person.
perhaps not that, but everyone is a multimillionaire, and in the media, and therefore vulnerable to threats.
no, that’s not quite right.
sama is garbage but so is your argument.
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.
Its investigation of misconduct?
Sources and rights to training data?
That the AGI has escaped containment?
In the words of Brandt, "well, Dude, we just don't know."
All kinds of reasons.
Tech isn't like other industries where people in power tend to get away with this stuff with mostly impunity.
If you need evidence that this is sufficient for dismissal, merely stating that impropriety exists is apparently enough to get my first flag on hn after 12 years.
Something to happen immediately would require overwhelming evidence on hand in the meeting. So it could be something that has been uncovered as part of the due diligence with the MS investment
Its more likely to be fabrication of numbers, or misappropriation of funds, rather than something "dramatic" Think musk at paypal being monumentally incompetent, rather than planned misdeeds.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38311627
PDSCodes 27 minutes ago | unvote | parent | context | flag | favorite | on: OpenAI's board has fired Sam Altman
Turn that on it’s head - was he standing in the way of a commercial sale or agreement with Microsoft!
He may not be the villain.
But who knows, it feels like an episode of silicon valley!
DonHopkins 22 minutes ago | prev | edit | delete [–]
I can do anything I want with her - Silicon Valley S5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29MPk85tMhc
>That guy definitely fucks that robot, right?
That "handsy greasy little weirdo" Silicon Valley character Ariel and his robot Fiona were obviously based on Ben Goertzel and Sophia, not Sam Altman, though.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SiliconValleyHBO/comments/8edbk9/th...
>The character of Ariel in the current episode instantly reminded me of Ben Goertzel, whom i stumbled upon couple of years ago, but did not really paid close attention to his progress. One search later:
VIDEO Interview: SingularityNET's Dr Ben Goertzel, robot Sophia and open source AI:
I was commenting on reasons for dismissal generally and not trying to impune this particular guy's character
Swift dismissals are likely motivated more by transgressions than performance but that's where the facts stop for me
The entire final storyline is about an AI trying to take over -- if you haven't watched it, you should! But many of my friends who live and work in Silicon Valley can't stand watching it, because it strikes too close to home, not because it isn't funny.
I think it's much more likely that Elon Musk fucked a robot, after having mistaken it for a human being in a robot suit.
Actually I normally would have detached it from the parent, especially because it's part of a top-heavy subthread, but I specifically didn't do that in this case because of the principle described here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....
* normally we wouldn't do that, but in threads that have a YC connection we moderate less, not more - see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Also, they did it around 3:30 Eastern, 30 minutes before the closing bell (Microsoft is majority owner). It was so urgent they couldn't wait until after the market closed.
You bury bad news on Friday afternoon.
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 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.
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.
It doesn't looks like he has a hint about this:
> I am super excited. I can't imagine anything more exciting to work on.
He is probably in shock.
Anyway, I suppose we're reading tea leaves and engaging in palace intrigue. Back to building.
It was just posted but was filmed on November 1st.
Sam Altman spoke at an APEC panel on behalf of OpenAI literally yesterday: https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1725318771454456208