Zvi, I read this all the way through with mutters of wtf and finally a palm slap of the hand to the head. But all of this digging in the weeds stuff... wow, power to you; however, I think we need to start talking about the common psychosis shared between ALL of these tech bros. Altman, Musk, Sundar, et al. Then we need to continue to talk about the drivers, the money, the seduction of talking to Arab Sheiks about money, the Money that comes from places we should know about, that money that is driving all of this. What say u?
yes, that's what's driving me nuts (but I am close enough to walk). And the inspiration behind all of my stuff here. (herojig.substack.com). thx for the comment to the comment to the stack to the restack to the sub.
> Mr. Altman called other board members and said Ms. McCauley wanted Ms. Toner removed from the board, people with knowledge of the conversations said. When board members later asked Ms. McCauley if that was true, she said that was “absolutely false.”
Wow. So it was potentially McCauley he lied about. I guess it makes sense he would try to use her to persuade the others; my brain just didn't go immediately to her vs Ilya or Adam.
I really want OpenAI employees to acknowledge this. No matter how nice Sam has personally been to you, that doesn't mean he would resort to manipulative tactics to get what he wants. If you acknowledge this, why do you still respect him?
I mean, I say this knowing full-well that there's no way they can critique Sam publicly. But I do hope they are reading all of this with an open mind rather than blind loyalty.
It's Bret Taylor, not Brad. Interesting synthesis otherwise. Having been in my share of nonfunctional board dynamics in SV companies, I am not too surprised by most of it. Quite a number of corporate narratives can be described as what happens when naively idealistic young people that have never run anything run into a disciplined manipulator who will literally say anything to obtain money or power. EAs can be as self-deluded as e/accs, and asking the likes of Larry Summers to play Assistant Principal is not a hopeful sign for the future governance of this highly profitable non-profit's stated mission.
Man, all of this is he-said-she-said with no evidence from ANY side, and it's getting worse. Let's just wait for the actual lawyer statements, otherwise this is increasingly pointless.
By the way, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but Sam did an interview with Trevor Noah earlier this week. An ad (or wtv) for it has been on my Spotify app for a few days. Here's the link: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2WSPcEbWAj5XvAlXd0Cyxa
They go over some of the background of what happened, but not into too much detail for seemingly legal reasons (or because of the board?). Sam also vaguely corrects Trevor about being 'fired from YC' (essentially trying to claim that he was already focusing on OpenAI so it was ~vaguely~ ~kind of~ mutual but not really).
I thought it was insightful to know Sam's headspace and how he talks about the whole thing. And how he seems to be more and more pushing something like the "slow takeoff is good and the criticism of chatgpt speeding things up doesn't account for that" argument.
Overall, it's not high-priority so I wouldn't prioritize it, but you might find it helpful and notice things I didn't.
Lawyers will always tell you not to say anything in these situations. The skill as a layman is getting them to tell you how important the legal risk is, so you can balance it against other things. Here we can presume they messed that up, big time.
I dunno if I was told out of the blue I was fired by the way can you help your replacement get set up I’d probably be like yeah sure whatever to be cordial in the moment but I’d definitely walk out of the room fantasizing about all the ways I could trash the metaphorical hotel room.
It’s an absolutely lindy and an underdiscussed/underappreciated way of causing chaos to go to someone and tell them that X other person complained to you about Y person to manipulate that someone into punishing Y. People seem to be generally unwilling to actually go confirm the story with X. More people probably ought to be aware of this because it's definitely not a tactic limited to CEOs.
> If they had been discussing the issue for months, if Ilya had been not only onboard but enthusiastic for a month, I don’t get it.
Oh you sweet innocent finance child.
This kind of thing is normal for tech startup leadership. The industry is allergic to having disagreement and political wrangling out in the open (I would gloss it as a California vs New York culture difference). Therefore lots of decision making is based on, for lack of a better word, vibes. I don't have any firsthand experience of it happening at this level but lack of coordination for months because beliefs / positions weren't really out in the open doesn't surprise me at all.
And if you follow Brockman & Altman & Sutskever on Twitter, it's a name you'll recognize as they were praising him as one of the masterminds of GPT-4:
https://twitter.com/sama/status/1635700851619819520 Sam Altman (@sama): "GPT-4 was truly a team effort from our entire company, but the overall leadership and technical vision of Jakub Pachocki for the pretraining effort was remarkable and we wouldn’t be here without it"
Ilya Sutskever (@ilyasut): "Little known fact: Many of OpenAI’s key results, including the Dota 2 bot and the pre-training of GPT-4, are thanks to the brilliant Jakub Pachocki @merettm"
Not entirely clear from open work what makes Pachocki so brilliant. Maybe he was key to the mu-parameterization work?
" we get to find out to what extent Altman is truly aligned, wise and capable of resisting certain aspects his nature, versus the temptation to build and scale and seek power."
Interesting language.
He should go on Conversations with Tyler. It might shine some light on the hidden aspects of his character. I do not disagree with his decision to use (possibly) Machiavellic means to remove Toner. If people are dishonest and underhanded with you, it is often correct to repay the favor.
Huh. I had cached that he had signed, but it looks like he didn't. I agree that is a bad sign and makes me very sad if he ends up de facto in charge. I've edited to reflect that.
Zvi, I read this all the way through with mutters of wtf and finally a palm slap of the hand to the head. But all of this digging in the weeds stuff... wow, power to you; however, I think we need to start talking about the common psychosis shared between ALL of these tech bros. Altman, Musk, Sundar, et al. Then we need to continue to talk about the drivers, the money, the seduction of talking to Arab Sheiks about money, the Money that comes from places we should know about, that money that is driving all of this. What say u?
The consistency of the pattern is striking. Nice comment
yes, that's what's driving me nuts (but I am close enough to walk). And the inspiration behind all of my stuff here. (herojig.substack.com). thx for the comment to the comment to the stack to the restack to the sub.
I found this really interesting, reading as an ignoramus. Reminds me of chickens fighting over who gets the higher roost.
"so we have at least one very clear cut case of Altman saying that which was not."
The fact that you can count those cases is pretty impressive for someone in his position.
> Mr. Altman called other board members and said Ms. McCauley wanted Ms. Toner removed from the board, people with knowledge of the conversations said. When board members later asked Ms. McCauley if that was true, she said that was “absolutely false.”
Wow. So it was potentially McCauley he lied about. I guess it makes sense he would try to use her to persuade the others; my brain just didn't go immediately to her vs Ilya or Adam.
I really want OpenAI employees to acknowledge this. No matter how nice Sam has personally been to you, that doesn't mean he would resort to manipulative tactics to get what he wants. If you acknowledge this, why do you still respect him?
I mean, I say this knowing full-well that there's no way they can critique Sam publicly. But I do hope they are reading all of this with an open mind rather than blind loyalty.
It's Bret Taylor, not Brad. Interesting synthesis otherwise. Having been in my share of nonfunctional board dynamics in SV companies, I am not too surprised by most of it. Quite a number of corporate narratives can be described as what happens when naively idealistic young people that have never run anything run into a disciplined manipulator who will literally say anything to obtain money or power. EAs can be as self-deluded as e/accs, and asking the likes of Larry Summers to play Assistant Principal is not a hopeful sign for the future governance of this highly profitable non-profit's stated mission.
Man, all of this is he-said-she-said with no evidence from ANY side, and it's getting worse. Let's just wait for the actual lawyer statements, otherwise this is increasingly pointless.
By the way, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but Sam did an interview with Trevor Noah earlier this week. An ad (or wtv) for it has been on my Spotify app for a few days. Here's the link: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2WSPcEbWAj5XvAlXd0Cyxa
They go over some of the background of what happened, but not into too much detail for seemingly legal reasons (or because of the board?). Sam also vaguely corrects Trevor about being 'fired from YC' (essentially trying to claim that he was already focusing on OpenAI so it was ~vaguely~ ~kind of~ mutual but not really).
Was not previously aware. Will put into the queue. Sounds like it doesn't break news, let me know if I need to prioritize it.
I thought it was insightful to know Sam's headspace and how he talks about the whole thing. And how he seems to be more and more pushing something like the "slow takeoff is good and the criticism of chatgpt speeding things up doesn't account for that" argument.
Overall, it's not high-priority so I wouldn't prioritize it, but you might find it helpful and notice things I didn't.
Mutters 'this must be some strange use of the word slow that I wasn't previously aware of' but yeah, I see what is trying to say.
The most important question now is what those "legal reasons" were. it still makes no sense to me the board remained silent.
Lawyers will always tell you not to say anything in these situations. The skill as a layman is getting them to tell you how important the legal risk is, so you can balance it against other things. Here we can presume they messed that up, big time.
I dunno if I was told out of the blue I was fired by the way can you help your replacement get set up I’d probably be like yeah sure whatever to be cordial in the moment but I’d definitely walk out of the room fantasizing about all the ways I could trash the metaphorical hotel room.
It’s an absolutely lindy and an underdiscussed/underappreciated way of causing chaos to go to someone and tell them that X other person complained to you about Y person to manipulate that someone into punishing Y. People seem to be generally unwilling to actually go confirm the story with X. More people probably ought to be aware of this because it's definitely not a tactic limited to CEOs.
No doubt it happens quite a lot. And also seems very clearly like a case where you should be pretty pissed if you catch someone doing it.
Absolutely; I'd kind of like to be on Altman's side on this whole thing but that particular part of the story hits a little close to home.
> If they had been discussing the issue for months, if Ilya had been not only onboard but enthusiastic for a month, I don’t get it.
Oh you sweet innocent finance child.
This kind of thing is normal for tech startup leadership. The industry is allergic to having disagreement and political wrangling out in the open (I would gloss it as a California vs New York culture difference). Therefore lots of decision making is based on, for lack of a better word, vibes. I don't have any firsthand experience of it happening at this level but lack of coordination for months because beliefs / positions weren't really out in the open doesn't surprise me at all.
Who are they talking about?
> Mr. Altman promoted another OpenAI researcher to the same level as Dr. Sutskever...
Gwern gives the name Jakub Pachocki, in the linked comment on Hacker News.
Pachocki's promotion (from something to apparently 'director of research') was actually one of the *first* things we learned about, all the way back in 2023-11-18: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/technology/open-ai-sam-altman-what-happened.html
And if you follow Brockman & Altman & Sutskever on Twitter, it's a name you'll recognize as they were praising him as one of the masterminds of GPT-4:
https://twitter.com/sama/status/1635700851619819520 Sam Altman (@sama): "GPT-4 was truly a team effort from our entire company, but the overall leadership and technical vision of Jakub Pachocki for the pretraining effort was remarkable and we wouldn’t be here without it"
https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1697713317660500407
Ilya Sutskever (@ilyasut): "Little known fact: Many of OpenAI’s key results, including the Dota 2 bot and the pre-training of GPT-4, are thanks to the brilliant Jakub Pachocki @merettm"
Not entirely clear from open work what makes Pachocki so brilliant. Maybe he was key to the mu-parameterization work?
" we get to find out to what extent Altman is truly aligned, wise and capable of resisting certain aspects his nature, versus the temptation to build and scale and seek power."
Interesting language.
He should go on Conversations with Tyler. It might shine some light on the hidden aspects of his character. I do not disagree with his decision to use (possibly) Machiavellic means to remove Toner. If people are dishonest and underhanded with you, it is often correct to repay the favor.
An interesting market I would put up is 'who will Zvi think he learned more about from this conversation, Altman or Cowen?'
> Both Altman and Brockman signed the CAIS letter
This is false, Altman did, Brockman didn't. I'm sure that Brockman was invited to sign, so I imagine this was deliberate.
Huh. I had cached that he had signed, but it looks like he didn't. I agree that is a bad sign and makes me very sad if he ends up de facto in charge. I've edited to reflect that.
Seems to be a typo: "Also the board had now already made an explicit bluff threatening to quit. The board called"