If you ever needed a lesson in the difference between power and authority, this is a good one.
The leaders of this coup read the rules and saw that they could use the board to remove Altman, they had the authority to make the move and “win” the game.
It seems that they, like many fools mistook authority for power. The “rules” said they could do it! Alas they did not have the power to execute the coup. All the rules in the world cannot make the organization follow you.
Power comes from people who grant it to you. Authority comes from paper. Authority is the guidelines for the use of power, without power, it is pointless.
Well, surely it’s premature to be making grand statements like this until it actually causes a reversal?
Even if it doesn’t, the consequences of the board ignoring this is catastrophic to the company. One way or another, the workers will have a victory here.
Yeah, but he’s like 15 years old. All the moral/ethical fallout he’s ever seen have been in movies and tv shows. Let the kid dream.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Nah. Microsoft engineered this whole thing to weaken the boards power and ripen OpenAI up as a less expensive acquisition target.
The problem is the employees were paid too much. They have too much and aren’t desperate enough. Need to drop that pay going forward
No working 8-5/6 pm employee, making under 100k a year, is being paid too much
One engineer at a company like this produces literally millions of dollars in revenue and savings. Practically no one is paid “too much” and anyone who says they are doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Even if they make over 100k.
I can assure even at 200k the company would still be extracting value from most employees. They pay as little as the market lets them get away with.
The only people who are paid too much at these tech companies are the execs, especially the ones who have no clue what they’re doing and constantly fuck things up.
It’s rather interesting here that the board, consisting of a fairly strong scientific presence, and not so much a commercial one, is getting such hate.
People are quick to jump on for profit companies that do everything in their power to earn a buck. Well, here you have a company that fires their CEO for going too much in the direction of earning money.
Yet every one is all up in arms over it. We can’t have the cake and eat it folks.
It’s my opinion that every single person in the upper levels is this organization is a maniac. They are all a bunch of so-called “rationalist” tech-right AnCaps that justify their immense incomes through the lens of Effective Altruism, the same ideology that Sam Bankman-fried used to justify his theft of billions from his customers.
Anybody with the urge to pick a “side” here ought to think about taking a step back and reconsider; they are all bad people.
even outside the upper tiers, high paid tech workers do mental gymnastics to rationalize the shittiness they do via their companies while calling themselves liberal. motherfuckers will union bust for their company for a larger TC next year then go on LinkedIn or Facebook and spin it like “I successfully destroyed a small town’s economy, killed a union forming in the division I manage, and absolutely threw my coworkers under the bus this year. My poor father swept countless floors until his hands bled so I can be here today and that’s why I support the small working man and will never forget where I came from #boss”
Well, here you have a company that fires their CEO for going too much in the direction of earning money.
Yeah, honestly, that’s music to my ears. Imagine a world where organizations weren’t in the business of pursuing capital at any cost.
This was my first thought… But then why are the employees taking a stand against it?
There’s got to be more to this story
Bandwagoning. The narrative is so easy to spin "hey the evil board of directors forced our beloved CEO to leave. If they do that to /US/ we need to do it back to /them/.
I think that would get most people with moral concerns on board, the rest are just tech bros and would fully support a money grubbing unethical CEO if they thought they might get a bigger bonus out of it.
I mean, isn’t this just an attempt to instil democracy in their workplace? If the vast majority of employees want something, whether or not it is objectively in their best interest, shouldn’t leadership listen to them? Isn’t this just what unions do on the regular?
I have no dog in this fight, I don’t know who’s a good person and who’s bad, but I believe in democracy even when it doesn’t produce the best result. I wish all companies acted upon the wishes of their employees rather than their shareholders, customers or consumers; that would make for far more cohesive and productive workplaces.
Well, here you have a company that fires their CEO for going too much in the direction of earning money.
I think this is very much in question by the people who are up in arms
Altman went to Microsoft within 48 hours, does anything else really need to be said? Add to that, the fact that basically every news outlet has reported - with difference sources - that he was pushing in exactly in that way. There’s very little to support the fact that reality is different.
The board has given no real reasoning for why they fired him. Until they do, there’s no reason anyone should consider this anything other than an internal power struggle that resulted in a coup.
And Sam didn’t have a job anymore. Why shouldn’t he go work for Microsoft? He was pushed out of OpenAI, is he contractually bound to never do something different?
I’m not the one contesting it, but there’s a strong contingent of people who believe Altman’s interest is in developing AGI and little else. To them, him taking that position could be explained him positioning himself to affect broader influence.
That’s not my personal interpretation, but it is at least a little surprising that the rift is between him and his BOD. Presumably they would all have the same financial incentive to monetize their project, not just Altman.
Personally, I think people being quick to draw any conclusion from this are putting the cart before the horse. It’s not clear to me at all what the competing interests are, if it’s not just completely political posturing to begin with.
Is that actually the case? I’ve not seen any actual information yet about what happened or why they did what they did.
If they’ve actually stated that the guy was fired because the company was going too far down the focus on money making route, that would be huge news I’d be really interested in hearing.
What we have here, is a company that fired its CEO for vague and cryptic reasons and a whole lot of speculation on what the real issue was. These are their own words:
https://openai.com/blog/openai-announces-leadership-transition
I’m not trying to defend Altman or the altruism of Microsoft. Although I would like to understand why this firing happened and why it was done in such an abrupt and dramatic manner.
From the outside, this story plays out like a bunch of snivelling family members of a lottery winner who plotted to steal all his money and throw him out, because he’s “not candid”.
The rest of the family, who also lived with the guy, clearly don’t agree and are now demanding that the thieves turn themselves in.
I mean, sure they may even have real reasons to kick him out, but man did they fuck this one up…
The analogy isn’t about stealing money, it’s about kicking the dude from the house.
I could believe that they thought they had good reasons for it, but they’ve done such a bad job of explaining them that even their own employees aren’t buy it, as per original article.
At least they got support in this thread, got to count for something.
I’d like to know why exactly the board fired Altman before I pass judgment one way or the other, especially given the mad rush by the investor class to re-instate him. It makes me especially curious that the employees are sticking up for him. My initial intuition was that MSFT convinced Altman to cross bridges that he shouldn’t have (for $$$$), but I doubt that a little more now that the employees are sticking up for him. Something fucking weird is going on, and I’m dying to know what it is.
Wanting to know why is reasonable but it’s sus that we don’t already know. Why haven’t they made that clear? How did they think they could do this without a solid explanation? Why hasn’t one been delivered to set the rumors to rest?
It stinks of incompetence, or petty personal drama. Otherwise we’d know by now the very good reason they had.
If there was something illegal going on, then all parties involved would have incentive to keep it under wraps.
Altman wanted profit. Board prioritized (rightfully, and to their mission) responsible, non-profit care of AI. Employees now side with Altman out of greed and view the board as denying them their mega payday. Microsoft dangling jobs for employees wanting to jump ship and make as much money possible. This whole thing seems pretty simple: greed (Altman, Microsoft, employees) vs the original non-profit mission (the board).
Edit: spelling
That’s what I thought it was at first too. But regular employees aren’t usually all that interested in their company being profit driven. Especially AI researchers. Most of those that I know are extremely passionate about ethics in AI.
But do they know things we don’t know? They certainly might. Or it might just be bandwagoning or the likes.
But regular employees aren’t usually all that interested in their company being profit driven. Especially AI researchers. Most of those that I know are extremely passionate about ethics in AI.
I would have thought so too of the employees, but threatening a move to Microsoft kinda says the opposite. That or they are just all-in on Altman as a person.
The only explanation I can come up with is that the workers and Altman both agreed in monetizing AI as much as possible. They’re worried that if the board doesn’t resign, the company will remain a non-profit more conservative in selling its products, so they won’t get their share of the money that could be made.
Yeah, the speed at which MS snapped him up makes me think of Zampella and West from Infinity Ward.
Microsoft Stock dropped 2% with the announcement, hiring him was just to stop the hemorrhaging while they figure out what to do.
This is the most compelling explanation I’ve seen: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2023/11/18/pivot-to-ai-replacing-sam-altman-with-a-very-small-shell-script/?n=@
Thanks for sharing. That is… Weird in ways I didn’t anticipate. “Weird cult of pseudointellectuals upending the biggest name in silicon valley” wasn’t on my bingo board.
IMO there are some good reasons to be concerned about AI, but those reasons are along the lines of “it’s going to be massively disruptive to the economy and we need to prepare for that to ensure it’s a net positive”, not “it’s going to take over our minds and turn us into paperclips.”
Can somebody explain the following quote in the article for me please?
Rationalists’ chronic inability to talk like regular humans may even explain the statement calling Altman a liar.
Imagine “roko’s basilisk”, but extended into an entire philosophy. It’s the idea that “we” need to anything and everything to create the inevitable ultimate super-ai, as fast as possible. Climate change, wars, exploitation, suffering? None of that matters compared to the benefits humanity stands to gain when the ultimate super-ai goes online
That was an entertaining read. Thank you.
Even better, though, was this linked article about humans running AI behind the curtain.
https://amycastor.com/2023/09/12/pivot-to-ai-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/
I don’t think msft convinced him with money, but rather opportunity. He clearly still wants to work with AI and 2nd best place for that after openAI is Microsoft
Second best would be Google, but for him it’s Microsoft because he’s probably getting a sweetheart deal as being in control of his destiny (not really, but at least for a short while)
Microsoft has access to a lot of OpenAI’s code, weights etc. and he’s already been working with them. It would be much better for him than to join some other company he has no experience with.
You’re not going to develop AI for the benefit of humanity at Microsoft. If they go there, we’ll know "Open"AI’s mission was all a lie.
Yeah Microsoft is definitely not going to be benevolent. But I saw this as a foregone conclusion since AI is so disruptive that heavy commercialization is inevitable.
We likely won’t have free access like we do now and it will be enshittified like everything else now and we’ll need to pay yet another subscription to even access it.
“Hey Bing AI can I get a recipe that includes cinnamon”
“Sure! Before we begin did you hear about the great Black Friday deals at Sephora”
“Not interested”
“No problem. You’re using query 9 of 20 this month. Do you want to proceed?”
“Yes”
“Before we begin, Bing Max+ has a one month trial starting at just $1 for your first month*. Want to give that a try?”
“Not now”
“No problem. With cinnamon you can make Cinnamon Rolls”
“What else?”
“Sure! You are using query 10 of 20 this month. Before I continue did you hear the McRib is back for a limited time at McDonald’s. (ba, da, ba, ba, ba) I’m lovin’ it.”
You don’t have free access. The best models have always been safeguarded behind paywalls, you have access to parlor tricks and demo shows. This product was born enshittified already. It’s crap that’s only has passable use for mega corporations.
We only have free access now because it’s still in development and they’re using our interactions to train from, but when they are on more solid ground I fully expect enshittification.
it will be enshittified like everything else now and we’ll need to pay yet another subscription to even access it.
Yeah this is why I’m so skeptical about the way it will presumably change the world. It will change things, but the economic relations that determine it’s ability to do so will overrule the technological capabilities, since it will be infeasible or not economically viable to deliver on a lot of the hype.
Open AI has been a farce ever since they disabled access to GPT3 for the sake of security.
OpenAi’s majority share holder is Microsoft, and they’ve already given OpenAI billions
The way I understand it, Microsoft gave OpenAI $10 billion, but they didn’t get any votes. They had no say in their matters.
And if they don’t, we’re supposed to keep on believing all of this is somehow benefiting us?
It’s supposed to be a nonprofit benefiting humanity, not a pay day for owners or workers. The board isn’t making money off of it.
Giving microsoft control is a bad idea. (duh?)
Giving a single person control is a bad idea, per sam altman.
My take on what happened (we are now at step 8):
- Sam wants to push for more & quicker profit with MS and VC backing, but board resists, constant conflicts
- Sam aligns with MS, hatch a plan on how to gut OpenAI for its know-how, ppl, and tech, leaving the non-profit part bleeding out in the gutter
- Sam & MS set a trap: Sam crosses some red lines, maybe taking commercial decisions without board approval. Potentially there was also some whispering in key ears (e.g, Ilya) by seemingly helpful advisors/VCs to push & pull at the same time on both sides
- Board has enough after Sam doesn’t back down, fires him & other co-founder guy
- MS and VCs go full attack to discredit board. After some info gathering, they realize they have been utterly fucked
- Some chaos, quick decision of appointing/replacing ppl, trying to manage the fire, even talking to Sam (btw this might have been a fallback option for MS, that the board reinstates him with more control and guardrails, weakening the power of the non-profit)
- Sam joins MS, masks are off
- Employees on the sinking ship revolt, even Ilya realizes he was manipulated/fucked
- OpenAI dead, key ppl join MS, tech and rest of the company bought for scraps. Non-profit part dead. Capitalist victory
Source: subjective interpretation/deduction based on the available info and my experience working as a management consultant for 10 years (dealing with lot of exec politics, though nothing this serious)
You’re wrong on point #1. This isn’t being done per Sam Altman for commercial purposes. It’s being done per Microsoft in an attempt to remove the OpenAI board completely. Facebook recently shutdown its AI Ethics division.
All of this is happening in conjunction with each other. Large corporations are trying to privatize AI and using key personnel in the industry to make it seem like a good thing. This wasn’t just Sam Altman. Whoever drafted the letter demanding the board steps down is working with Microsoft to do this.
More than likely, that group went around spreading doomsday to the other employees in an attempt to scare them into fleeing the company.
Sam Altman is just a pawn.
Facebook recently shutdown its AI Ethics division.
Meta is the only player that’s releasing its models to public. Ironically, it is the one being the most ethical in the AI space right now.
“AI Ethics” teams in the Silicon Valley are nothing but rent-seeking doomer cults that leech off on the effort of others and hold back progress with bullshit gatekeeping. There was not a single positive contribution Facebook’s AI “ethics” team ever made.
You might very well be correct. The thing that people need to remember is that just because something involves conspiracy doesn’t mean that it’s false. The more people required to be involved in a conspiracy is typically what makes it false. I think it is very within human nature. Especially those of programmers who have traditionally been better treated and paid than most other workers. To side with the profit motive against actual altruism. It’s the tech bro thing to do. I’m going to wait and see what happens. Not take any sides. Even though typically I’m always for supporting the workers.
This only makes sense if the goal is to transfer all the profitable technologies to the for-profit arm and then give it to Microsoft and call it ethics.
