It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. PG removed Sam Altman silently without harming his future. There is no reason to be enemies after the issue is solved. There may be deals to be made again.
100% agree with this, but it is productive to understand what was behind a business conflict. Personal like or dislike can change which alternative of a choice of equal alternatives, someone might make. As Tony Soprano would say, "It's just business."
When police departments do that to overly aggressive cops, it’s generally considered a bad thing.
Oh wait...
Or is this where we pretend that leading YC is even vaguely similar to being a rogue cop, in terms of potential impact on people’s lives?
If a cop shoots someone and kills them, it destroys that life and possibly the family of those around him, the legal system kicks in -- that cop gets ousted or thrown into prison.
how many lives have been destroyed by the mere existence of reddit and twitch, and by extension the human trafficking they help to support? how about victims of sexual exploitation that are enabled by platform payment services? how about the person drug below the Cruise self-driving car for 20+ feet? how about drug interactions caused by e-doctor prescriptions that have little over-sight or supervisory element?
how about the simplest and most common thing ever -- how many lives are fucked up when an acquihire or business movement of some sort liquidates 80% of the staff?
I think the fantasy of the reins-holder being pardoned for the sins of their business is a concept that needs to be re-evaluated; these elements do serve to do damage as well as social good.
a rogue cop constitutes a rogue element in society that is dealt with in fairly swift fashion, a rogue corporation pays the fines and continues until a senator or similarly powerful person speaks up and points a finger ; that opens the floodgates for abuse.
I’m sorry, are you familiar with the ACAB movement at all?
Do externalities not exist, or is the platform (and somehow, whomever leads YC) solely and completely to blame for the users? Why is Reddit to blame, rather than BBSes or Mosaic, without which a platform like Reddit wouldn’t have existed? Do you blame, say, Tim Berners-Lee for the fact that sex trafficking is enabled by the Internet, or only ephemeral “CEOs” and/or “billionaires”?
> how many lives are fucked up when an acquihire or business movement of some sort liquidates 80% of the staff?
Do you think getting laid off, typically with severance, is the same as getting shot or imprisoned? Do you think you are perpetually and permanently entitled to the specific job you currently have?
> I think the fantasy of the reins-holder being pardoned for the sins of their business is a concept that needs to be re-evaluated; these elements do serve to do damage as well as social good.
I think pretending losing or making money is the same as losing years of your life to prison is a weird progressive fantasy, that comes from people vastly to entitled to understand the consequences of the latter.
> a rogue cop constitutes a rogue element in society that is dealt with in fairly swift fashion
This is demonstrable nonsense, more so given that “rogue cop” presupposes cops who do egregious things, rather than simply cops who, for instance, over-police crimes or neighborhoods.
It isn't about blame. It's about impact.
> Do you think getting laid off, typically with severance, is the same as getting shot or imprisoned? Do you think you are perpetually and permanently entitled to the specific job you currently have?
In fact, layoffs and poor labor options do, in fact, lead to increased mortality rates: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02779....
So, while I'd rather be laid off than shot or imprisoned, the scale of impact of captains of industry on the economic circumstance of millions could have a body count far higher than any rogue cop.
It might be hard to imagine this, but it is possible that leading a company deploying billions of dollars might actually have a significantly larger potential impact on people's lives than a rogue cop.
I also think pretending you weren’t making a comparison is absurd - why post about the evils of big companies in this context if that were the case?
Saying “rich people are all bad and have hurt way more people” is specious. Implying that I can’t imagine it, when you are apparently incapable of being specific, is juvenile.
> Implying that I can’t imagine it, when you are apparently incapable of being specific, is juvenile.
I agree. I wasn't saying that, anymore than someone was saying "all cops are bad and have hurt way more people". I'm certainly not saying YCombinator or any of its companies have done something spectacularly bad. Besides that, the whole point in "bad cop who is let go without any harm to their future" metaphor would be about the subsequent work of any "bad employee" at YCombinator. I would point out though that this lack of transparency is why, is why neither you might not know of any misdeeds --and that's the problem.
OpenAI has access to massive amounts of capital & data, and has a pretty significant reach already, and it's just the beginning. Would it really be so absurd that Sam Altman couldn't have a far larger influence on the world, positive or negative, than a cop? If it is absurd, then we're either investing way too much in OpenAI or way too little in cops.
I agree. I wasn't saying that, anymore than someone was saying "all cops are bad and have hurt way more people". I'm certainly not saying YCombinator or any of its companies have done something specifically bad. Besides that, the whole point in "bad cop who is let go without any harm to their future" metaphor, as applied to YCombinator, would be about the subsequent work of any "bad employee" at YCombinator. I would point out though that this lack of transparency is why neither you nor I might not know of any misdeeds --and that's the problem.
OpenAI has access to massive amounts of capital & data, and has a pretty significant reach already, and it's just the beginning. Would it really be so absurd that Sam Altman couldn't have a far larger influence on the world, positive or negative, than a cop? If it is absurd, then we're either investing way too much in OpenAI or way too little in cops.
But of course, if one just wants to say snide things on the internet, yeah they're simply the same in every major respect, why bother thinking that hard about it.
Yes. There aren't a lot of rogue cops in a position to put billion dollar holes in the economy. Few of them are in positions to influence medical decisions for millions of patients. While a rogue cop might be able to influence parole board decisions for thousands of criminals, it'd be terribly difficult to impact millions.
Yes, in theory, the police have a unique monopoly on the use of violence in society, which leads to unique challenges and scenarios. However, the potential problems that stem from removing someone from a responsibility without impacting their future have nothing to do with said monopoly, as demonstrated empirically with teachers, religious leaders, doctors, politicians, and yes, business leaders. In specific cases, it might be the right thing to do, but if you think about it, the potential problems from systemic application of this practice can lead to terrible outcomes that are proportional to the amount of responsibility, not the nature of it.
...but why bother thinking that hard about it?
Believing that a person is not a good match for a certain business position is worlds apart from a public servant intentionally abusing his legally sanctioned monopoly on violence.
The first kind of person may be well a good match for another position, in another company; the latter is just a criminal in uniform.
It’s not a useful litmus test.
The more you reveal about yourself, the fewer people you will appeal to because very few people share your exact values. People tend to like people who share some obvious common values and they assume that the values that are unspoken are also a match. In reality, it's rarely so.
As people learn more about the world and themselves, they begin to realize that some values that they didn't consider before are very important and they may be shocked to find that certain people they used to like do not share those values which they took for granted.
All conflicts are Personal. It is only when you weigh your response and its consequences to short-term and long-term goals that you start spouting niceties like "It's not Personal; it's just Business". It is a question of balancing emotions vs. rational strategy/tactics; sometimes it suits the circumstances and sometimes it doesn't.
Kautilya/Sun-Tzu/Clausewitz are relevant here.
Years ago I was at an event talking to a colleague who was absolutely bashing someone (with good reason) and then another colleague walked up. Same person came up and my first colleague changed tone to "yeah, so-and-so is an interesting character."
Because I knew that the other colleague also hated the person, I called him on it. I wonder, though, how often that dynamic plays out where nobody will voice a negative opinion publicly - so people slide by without being called on behavior that shouldn't get ignored.
Exactly right. People are complicated and liking or disliking them is adjacent to whether or not they are 'good' at their job.
I've known people who sucked at their job, but doing the same job in a different environment were stars. That experience led me to disassociate what people do as part of their job from the person themselves. And I can respect someone for doing a good job, even when I find their personal attitude or motivations distasteful.
Complicated.
In the case of YC, removing him was better for PG and YC.
In this case, having Sam on top of OpenAI gets them better returns on their investment.
Maybe that unspecified thing is just corporate knife fighting and this time PG is happy he’s not on the other end of it.
And seeing as he’s going back into the company, it looks like he is better at dealing than most predicted.
- H.L. Mencken
Sam with his slick black hair, looking like Tom Hiddleston's Loki... "my ambition knows no bounds, I will build AGI and then you will understand my TRUE power."
It’s like they’re trying to make a TV drama out of nothing.
a) purely factual
b) not supportive
Uh, what on earth would count as explicitly supportive language?
Not saying pg is doing this, of course.
In other words, he's basically saying Sam is the best in the world at being a ruthless mofo in these situations and obliterating those who oppose him. "Admiring language", perhaps, but I wouldn't really call that "supportive language".
Exactly, it's not all that subtle, so I find it hard to even come up with an alternative interpretation.
What would count?
“I think Roy Sullivan is the man to be struck an eighth time. He’s the best at it. I hope he succeeds.”
When the fact is subjective to begin with?
I would even say “Roy Sullivan is the best in the world at being struck by lightning” is not a fact at all but an opinion.
And by giving an opinion you are passing judgement.
How can you claim saying something such as "Washington was the best president" is in some way a fact? Can you find it in reference books? Is it defined from the laws of nature? Does anyone even believe my quote?
Who cares that he got hit three times? Okay, he was hit the most times. That is a fact. I saw a video of a guy getting hit and he did it with grace and elegance - I think hes the best at getting hit. How is "something is best" ever a fact?
Acknowledging it does not mean supporting the person. It is just a factual statement.
Even Adolf Hitler was good at certain things like manipulating masses of people. Saying this absolutely does not mean I support Hitler. It is just a factual statement.
More to the point, some people are natural leaders, they can process many stressful complex situations in parallel without breaking a sweat. I know I can't, not long term, all the kudos to them.
At least some of them are also amoral a-holes, highly functioning sociopaths (these get more common the more power and money floats around till they become the norm).
Probably not true? It seems like Russia could use another Yeltsin (or Gorbachev) more than Putin for its current situation.
He did say best in the world, not best that can be imagined; so unless you are saying there is another Yeltsin or Gorbachev available...
OTOH, Putin is himself an active reason why alternatives aren't readily available.
It feels like this situation is exactly what they want (and likely an historical inflection point, where we pit east vs west again). Dropping the cold war was needed because they had no resources (surprise, socialism doesn't work!).
I'm waiting for Taiwan next and then I'd say we are completely *** (especially looking at our reliance on the east for manufacturing / energy and how useless our governments are).
Their response is to become dependent on China instead.
This is clearly entirely subjective. To prove otherwise, feel free to show me the list ranking how people in the world would deal with this kind of situation and explain why Sam Altman ends up on top of that list.
I didn't see anything in the article that there was bad blood, just that Paul fired Sam. Those are not the same thing.
Wow, not the kind of compliment I’d want to receive.
This situation is rotten with conspiracy, backstabbing, money-grabs, rumor, innuendo, etc.
This(?!) is what Sam is so great at?
Used to be a guy named David Ogilvy, who ran an ad agency called Ogilvy and Mather. I think he'd have beat Sam, in part because he made more of an effort to persuade himself that in fact he and his actions were wholly ethical. However, Ogilvy managed to persuade on a scale that I don't think Altman can possibly achieve. Maybe Sam's read his book, Ogilvy on Advertising. I would also recommend the book by Mark McCormack, which is exceptionally good on the subject.
Altman's far from unique. He just happens to be way more HN-adjacent than some of these people.
Nothing is worse than religious fanatics. While I am not implying she is so, for this kind of enterprise I would personally prefer scientific method of evidential support of Sam being this and that, rather then fanatical speaches how they like him.
Sam is very transparent in his self-interest, it's the "patriots" you should beware.
Fanatics and blindfolded admirers on the opposite side, say I trust him, I like him (and certainly those fanatical definitions have no substance besides blind admirations).
I find no peculiar reason to share the latter, however the former provides observer with evidence why person A is worthy of this and that.
Hope this clarifies a bit
If you know some scientific method to pick CEOs and it works
then patent it quickly and open it as SaaS or something cuz big companies are waiting with trucks full of cash
Btw her "believing" in him may be due to serious and measurable results, how is this religious?
Look up to the true geniuses that actually do the work and discover and invent rather than the ones who can only pretend to.
Yes, absolutely, AI will reach superhuman persuasion before it reaches AGI. Yes, that's an extraordinary threat. The reason it's a threat is that it's a weapon without self-guidance or direction: a paperclip maximizer, as it were. A gray-goo problem.
I still think Sam has access to exactly this, and panic about it is what caused his firing. Whether his use of his persuasion-weapon has played a role in what ensued is not as clear.
I get that huge swathes of OpenAI appear to have been persuaded, but I don't think this weapon applies as much to them, nor do I think it is unique and different in nature from what already exists. It's a way of short-cutting the process of persuasion and coming out with the answer right away. Everything superhuman persuasion can offer, has already been deployed by trial-and-error using tools like Google Analytics and whatever metrics Facebook offered, in recent (and not-so-recent) years.
Just because you can now push a button and get the killer argument to sway a demographic doesn't mean people haven't got to that argument more slowly in previous years, whether it's watching the results of persuasion campaigns in click-through feedback… or issuing radio broadcasts and observing the results.
Back in the day there was a man named George Wallace who spoke of the things he'd done in public service, and nobody cared, and then he began talking of something else 'and they stomped the floor'. AI persuasion is nothing more than a short-cut for getting to 'and they stomped the floor', and there's more than one way to elicit that.
Seems incredibly respectful and supportive, I'm not buying that there's a lot of bad blood there.