[HN Gopher] OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft ___________________________________________________________________ OpenAI employees did not want to go work for Microsoft Author : apsec112 Score : 192 points Date : 2023-12-07 18:40 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.businessinsider.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.businessinsider.com) | catchnear4321 wrote: | > We all left these big corporations to move fast and build | exciting things... | | sama found a flock. this will go poorly. | greenyoda wrote: | https://archive.ph/hgoST | sylware wrote: | ... and after the latest openai episode, we now know that msft | was pulling the strings in the "shadows" (the "nah! I am just | supporting without doing anything..."). | | It is not conspiracy anything to think it is certainly happening | elsewhere. | | And there is so much critical open source stuff on github... that | said, github is at least noscript/basic (x)html friendly for its | core functions. | schemescape wrote: | Sadly, viewing source code no longer appears to work without | JavaScript... | | Edit: tested in w3m | chollida1 wrote: | > ... and after the latest openai episode, we now know that | msft was pulling the strings in the "shadows" (the "nah! I am | just supporting without doing anything..." | | Do we? | | What evidence is there that Microsoft was "pulling the strings | in the shadows"? | | As far as we know Microsoft only found out a minute before Sam | did that he was being fired. | rossdavidh wrote: | Well, we found out that Microsoft is able to reverse | essentially any decision they feel strongly about, which is | essentially what "pulling the strings" means, in common | usage. | chollida1 wrote: | > Well, we found out that Microsoft is able to reverse | essentially any decision they feel strongly about, which is | essentially what "pulling the strings" means, in common | usage. | | What specific decision did Microsoft reverse? | | We already know that they had no say in Sam's firing or any | specific pull in his rehiring. | | Or is there any proof we have that Microsoft forced the | reversal of Sam's firing? | whatshisface wrote: | Microsoft is a billion dollar company, they could hire | away everyone at a McDonald's restaurant and buy the | location if they didn't like how it was being run. They | arguably have less power over OpenAI than they do over | the average startup because they could probably buy any | given startup outright but they ended up with nonvoting | shares in OpenAI. | VirusNewbie wrote: | "No one wanted to go to Microsoft." This person called the | company "the biggest and slowest" of all the major tech companies | -- the exact opposite of how OpenAI employees see their startup. | | Lol. I was wondering about this... | ausbah wrote: | they didn't want to leave because of OpenAI's great compensation | packages ($300k+) | | I do think it is a little unfair to characterize MSFT as "slow | and boring" when they've been the ones to make the fastest pivot | to supporting generative AI as a product line | soulbadguy wrote: | I think the deal was for employee to keep their OpenAI | compensation even after moving to MSFT | jandrese wrote: | Even if they did you know the annual performance review would | go something like: | | "You did a great job this year and met or exceeded all of the | metrics we measured, but your compa ratio is just too high so | instead of a raise we are going to give you a lump sum | instead." | | Big company culture vs. startup culture is a known issue. | People choose to work for startups to avoid that big company | culture, so if a big company buys you out then it's time to | move on. | gwern wrote: | OP discusses this and how it was a hollow promise. Even if it | was kept in the full spirit of the nonbinding verbal | agreement (which would utterly infuriate MS staff and | demoralize them), it would be a bad deal to swap ultra-hot | private OA PPUs for the same nominal (but low-growth) amount | of MS stock and then have to work at MS. | andy99 wrote: | These are all people who could make good money anywhere. Few | are presumably there solely because it's the best paying job. | Part of it is certainly identity, OpenAI or $hot_startup sounds | way cooler than Microsoft to a lot of people. And part would be | wanting to work at a startup and not a legacy SaaS company and | all the baggage that entails. Whatever carve-out they were | going to get, there's now way you'd be as unconstrained working | at MS as you would at OpenAI. It's precisely because the money | isn't that important that a lot would have probably bailed if | they all were absorbed into Microsoft. | boringg wrote: | Have you looked at MSFT corporate record and the current state | of their bread and butter products? | Racing0461 wrote: | Everyone already knew that. It was just to get sam on the board | with as little chaos as possible. | kvee wrote: | pg talks about how Sam Altman is the most powered person he's | ever met. Seems we have a super powerful psychopath running | perhaps the most important company in human history. | | I do think he legitimately believes he's doing the right thing | though all throughout, which maybe makes it more scary. | | Sorta like how Mark Zuckerberg seemed to truly believe in | Facebook's mission and wound up having all sorts of negative | externalities for the world. Mark Zuckerberg just isn't quite as | effective as Sam Altman, and it's easier to be suspicious of his | motives. | | Not to say that psychopaths are necessarily bad. Peter in Ender's | Shadow turned out great! | | But it does seem dangerous for 1 person to hold so much power | over the future of humanity. | | Sam Altman's reasoning for him having all the power, I think, is | that "short timelines and slow takeoff is likely the safest | quadrant of the short/long timelines and slow/fast takeoff | matrix." | | If you believe that and believe that Sam Altman having complete | control of OpenAI is the best way to accomplish that, everything | seems fine. | | I'd personally have preferred trying to optimize for long | timelines and a slow takeoff too, which I think might have been | doable if we'd devoted more resources to neglected approaches to | AI alignment-like enhancing human capabilities with BCI and other | stuff like that. | superb_dev wrote: | There's a lot to be said about Altman, but calling him a | "psychopath" is just wrong. It's a legitimate medical term and | should not be used for hyperbole | miraculixx wrote: | Look up Annie Altman. | replwoacause wrote: | Are you saying this because of the diddling accusations or | for some other reason? | throw_away_584 wrote: | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam- | altman... | encoderer wrote: | Everything else aside - in what world is Sam Altman "more | effective" than Zuck? How do you even define effective? | kvee wrote: | In this case I think I just mean more effective at seeming | good to others. | | I think they both believe they are good and doing good. | | People tend to be more suspicious of Mark Zuckerberg's | motives than Sam Altman's. | | Sam Altman himself even said he can't be trusted but that was | ok because of the company structure and then, when he needed | to, overpowered that structure he claimed was necessary: | https://x.com/tobyordoxford/status/1727624526450581571?s=20 | ben_w wrote: | I think you're using the word "psychopath" when you're talking | about something different, though I can't guess what. | | Psychopathy is a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of | lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, | heedlessness, arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual | promiscuity, low self-control, disregard for morality, lack of | acceptance of responsibility, callousness, and lack of empathy | and remorse. | | (Which, now I read it, is disappointingly pattern matching the | billionaire who invested in both OpenAI and also a BCI startup | currently looking for human test subjects). | | I can see arguments for _either_ saying Altman has delusions of | grandeur _or_ lack of acceptance of responsibility depending on | if you believe OpenAI is going too fast or if it 's slowing | things down unnecessarily, but they can't both be true at the | same time. | kvee wrote: | You may be right here. | | However, there seems to be a decent amount of evidence that | Sam has done exactly what you're talking about. | | He manipulated and was "not consistently candid" with the | board, he got all the OpenAI employees to support him in his | power struggles, he made them afraid to stand up to him (http | s://x.com/tobyordoxford/status/1727631406178672993?s=20), he | exhibited delusions (though I guess they were correct) of | grandeur with pg with a glint in his eye making clear to pg | that he wanted to take over yc, he did little things like | made it seem that he was cool with Eliezer Yudkowsky with a | photo op but didn't really chat with him, etc. | | Again, I am not sure this perspective is necessarily right | (and I may be convinced just because he's such an effective | psychopath). | | In any case, I think this is a pretty good explanation of | this perspective: | https://x.com/erikphoel/status/1731703696197599537?s=20 | gwern wrote: | > (Which, now I read it, is disappointingly pattern matching | the billionaire who invested in both OpenAI and also a BCI | startup currently looking for human test subjects). | | Elon Musk actually matches several of those poorly, and | matches bipolar disorder _much_ better (most of those are | also bipolar or billionaire symptoms, while psychopathy is | inconsistent with many Musk symptoms like catatonia): | https://gwern.net/note/musk | miraculixx wrote: | Look up Annie Altman. Be seated. | wintogreen74 wrote: | One old guy in a bubble thinks says another young guy in same | bubble (who he just happened to mentor) is "the most powered | person he's ever met." | zlg_codes wrote: | That whole first part disgusted me. "most powered person he's | met"? Good lord does that come off as tone deaf, almost | groveling. | | And the most important company in human history? The hell is | that guy smoking, because I've got good shit and that's some | serious hyperbole. | | Is the hype machine in the room with us right now? | tester756 wrote: | >perhaps the most important company in human history. | | holy shit, hype is unreal :D | JohnFen wrote: | > I do think he legitimately believes he's doing the right | thing though all throughout, which maybe makes it more scary | | I really think the opposite. I think he's after the biggest | payday/most power he can get, and anything else is a secondary | consideration. | gkoberger wrote: | I think you can fairly ascribe a lot of negative attributes | to Sam, but an unnatural thirst for money isn't it. Nothing | about anything he does makes me think he's motivated by | increasing his personal net worth. | kvee wrote: | He has said in podcasts he is motivated not by the money | but by the power he has at OpenAI | gkoberger wrote: | Do you have an actual quote? I've listened to him talk a | lot, and this feels like a misquote or misinterpretation. | (I'm not saying it's not true; I just don't see Sam | saying he personally likes power) | kvee wrote: | Here are a couple I could find in notes I took while | listening to podcasts, though there are more - | | "I get like all of the power of running OpenAI" "I don't | think it's particularly altruistic. Like it would be if I | didn't already have a bunch of money. The money is gonna | pile up faster than I can spend it anyway." | | Those I think are either from | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sWH2e5xpdo or | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hpuPi7YZX8 | kvee wrote: | Just went to the first video and got the following from | 1:36, here's a link which starts at that point: | https://youtu.be/3sWH2e5xpdo?si=bmum-8B02FLoVkWj&t=96 | | "I mean I have like lots of selfish reasons for doing | this and as you've said I get like all the power of | running OpenAI, but I can't think of anything more | fulfilling to work on and I don't think it's particularly | altruistic, it would be if I didn't already have a bunch | of money, yeah, the money is gonna pile up faster than I | can spend it" | | Some other fascinating and relevant stuff in that video | too. | gkoberger wrote: | To me, that sounds like he acknowledged his power but | disagreed with the person who said it. He's just | repeating the question but shifted to it being fulfilling | (and not about money). Without the question being | included, I think it's hard to use this quote as proof. | | He's also said something similar in another interview: | | "One of the takeaways I've learned is that this concept | of having enough money is not an idea that's easy to get | across to people. I have enough money. What I want more | of is, like, an interesting life, impact; access to be in | the conversation. So I still get a lot of selfish benefit | from this. What else am I going to do with my time? This | is really great. I cannot imagine a more interesting life | than this one and a more interesting thing to work on." | kvee wrote: | I think I can see how you interpret it that way. | | I certainly didn't interpret as him disagreeing with his | statement "I mean I have like lots of selfish reasons for | doing this" | | It's the "as you've said" part of "as you've said I get | like all the power of running OpenAI" that would make me | inclined to think what you wrote here. | | But I do think there's a greater chance that he is saying | that he does like the power. | | There's also another quote either in this video or the | other one I shared I think where he's asked why he's | doing this, or what motivates him, or something like | that, and he responds with something like "I'd be lying | if I didn't say I really like the power" | JohnFen wrote: | I don't claim to know what motivates him. I don't know him | and have no view into his thinking. I'm just going by what | his actions look like to me. | | I can't distinguish between a thirst for money and a thirst | for power because above a certain level, they're | essentially the same thing. | Laaas wrote: | > This person called the company "the biggest and slowest" of all | the major tech companies | | Could not be further from the truth. | soulbadguy wrote: | why ? | Nthringas wrote: | because IBM is both bigger and slower? | nostrebored wrote: | I don't think IBM is something that comes to mind when | people are talking "Major tech companies" anymore. | zlg_codes wrote: | They ought to, considering they acquired Red Hat a while | back. | xcv123 wrote: | The Red Hat deal was relatively small at $34B. | | Microsoft has a market cap of $2.8 Trillion. | | IBM is only at $146 Billion. But IBM still has a higher | head count. | eikenberry wrote: | Not after the Redhat acquisition. | satvikpendem wrote: | IBM is not "major" anymore in the sense of major tech | companies that the person above meant. | soulbadguy wrote: | I don't think IBM is a "major tech companie" in the modern | lingo | airstrike wrote: | Hard to argue IBM is bigger | Nthringas wrote: | I'm factoring in their legacy and history | | i.e. since they're older they're bigger | xcv123 wrote: | Microsoft is now 20x bigger than IBM in terms of market | cap. | ethbr1 wrote: | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6L-FlfeaI | hughesjj wrote: | IMHO, today, Google takes the cake for slowest. Meta is still | probably the most agile, and Amazon is super hit or miss (so | most variance) | | Idk where Microsoft would fit in that hierarchy, like Amazon | it's kind of hit or miss but with less variance and extrema. | From what I've seen and heard, both Gaming and Azure are | pretty darn competent these days from an engineering and | product perspective. Not perfect of course, but nothing is. | valine wrote: | Sounds about right to me. They missed the entire smartphone | revolution because they were too slow to adapt their OS | (literally their main product) to run on mobile devices. | Laaas wrote: | They didn't miss the cloud revolution, and certainly not the | AI revolution either. | | Microsoft is doing absolutely great under Satya Nadella. | soulbadguy wrote: | > and certainly not the AI revolution either. | | The AI revolution is still underway, we don't know who | missed what yet. In term of research output. Most of the | ground breaking work did "not" come from msft. They just | bough they way in. Valid strategy, but definitely not | novel. | valine wrote: | That's more down to dumb luck partnering with OpenAI. | | You have a point with the cloud computing. I'd hesitate to | call it a revolution though. I'd never willingly use a | microsoft cloud product if I wasn't forced to by my | employer. | ipaddr wrote: | They were not first in either areas. They leveraged | existing products like office to catch up. | Infinitesimus wrote: | Apple has taught us time and time again that you rarely | have to be first to the market. Executing well and | keeping people locked in are pretty important | zlg_codes wrote: | Weird, Microsoft's been invisible to me since the early | 2000s. I don't think they could sell me anything. Their | whole corporate image is just slimy. Like that one friend | that wants you to set up an account on something he's got | going, or wants you to join him on an investment. You can | _totally_ trust him. You 'll have a site, some cloud | storage, office software, the works. And the investment? | Yeah dude it'll rocket any year now. | | There's just a _feeeew_ things. Yeah, we 're gonna tell you | when to restart, we'll update it for you. We'll tell you | what you can and can't run on your own machine. We'll | "protect you" by trying to keep you inside the Microsoft | Store, so you can adjust to buying all of your software | instead of getting anything for free. Freedom is bad! | | What can Microsoft do for a programmer who self-hosts and | doesn't trust proprietary software? They co-opted GitHub | but that really just reduced trust in GitHub more than | anything. And GitHub itself is proprietary software built | on top of Git. VS Code is a laggy mess. Azure has nothing | to hook me. LLMs are toys or another privacy invasion | vector to "analyze". I don't trust them to store my e-mail. | | Everything MS touches dies a slow death. Look at Skype. | djur wrote: | > What can Microsoft do for a programmer who self-hosts | and doesn't trust proprietary software? | | Ignore them and market themselves to the remaining 99% of | programmers. | constantly wrote: | *99.95% of programmers | zlg_codes wrote: | that's a funny assertion. Why was Microsoft chasing WSL | and PowerShell if they weren't trying to appeal to | markets that were smaller than the existing market but | might still be worth revenue? It's not as stark and | simple as 99/1 split. They've tried hard to prove they're | friendly to free software and yet there's still plenty of | people that don't trust them. | | Many people use proprietary software because they're | forced to for work or social circumstances (i.e. banking | and messaging apps), not by choice. In other words, | they're socially engineered into it. Why trust software | you can't inspect? Because it has a big brand behind it? | Because no software company has ever betrayed the trust | of its customers? Companies never do deals with shady | partners that end up betraying _them_ , and in turn their | customers too? Transparency fixes this, and it can | mitigate a company going rogue on its own product and | customers. | | Libre software can certainly suck in some areas of the | stack, but at least I can do more than send an e-mail to | an unmonitored inbox at a corporation where my ass | doesn't matter as soon as they have my money. I'll get a | form letter containing a response to what some random bot | _thinks_ I 'm talking about, and my concern will not be | addressed, even as a paying customer. In a world of | software that I can inspect the code of, I might be able | to research my way out of a tech issue. The contention is | that even as a customer, I can't count on Microsoft | addressing any problems I encounter. If you're already | coming at me with "get ignored, go away" then what's the | incentive to engage at all? | | You're right that some sectors _are_ ignored, probably | because they believe they should be paid for providing | certain things. Fair to have that opinion, but it 's also | fair for me to disagree with it, criticize it, and share | that criticism. | | I still give Microsoft software a shot from time to time, | to make sure my understanding of it is at least semi- | recent. But by and large, I don't enjoy my interactions | with their ecosystem. Setting up Minecraft Realms and | mitigating differences between Java and Bedrock was a | PITA. The migration from Mojang was a pain. I _did_ enjoy | getting Bedrock for free with my transfer. That was a | solid move that showed they understood it was a pain and | were willing to part with a little revenue in the short | term in the hopes I 'd buy content in the long term. (I | did, for the record.) | | But that's video games. I don't mind them being | proprietary because I'm there to have fun. As long as | it's not chatting over the network or doing analytics and | other shit, I'm fine with a game not coming with source | code. But I also love that gzDoom, darkplaces, TADS, | LOVE2D, TIC-80, and other open engines exist where people | can bring their own creations to life in a non-profit | environment. Microsoft itself started in a bougie garage, | they ought to appreciate the spirit of DIY. | | I've paid for things so it's not like I won't buy | _anything_. My experience and view is not any less | deserving of expression simply because it 's less | popular, though. There are plenty of people out there | similar to me in distrusting Microsoft and other big tech | companies' software. Minecraft isn't perfect, it has | analytics and a forced word filter, and no way to self- | host a Bedrock server. None of those were a thing when I | bought it back in 2011 or so. They want me to pay for a | Realm for that. And I did, for a little while, due to | family members wanting to play, but I realized I could | host it for cheaper. Eventually we stopped playing | anyway, so I didn't have to worry about it. | | Most people simply don't care about software freedom, and | chide and ridicule those who do. Unsurprising, but still | no less disappointing when encountering it among those | who like to develop an air of distinction and taste but | come up lacking in conversation. If they care so little, | why be shitty to those who do? | chrisoverzero wrote: | > Why trust software you can't inspect? | | Because for nearly everyone, that's _all_ software. | nijave wrote: | >They didn't miss the cloud revolution | | Imo they barely kept pace largely by leveraging existing | software and repurposing it for cloud. They still seem to | be playing catch-up with multiple solutions to the same | problem--some deprecated, some preview. | | Take for instance Postgres. Azure had Single Server built | on Windows containers. They acqui-hired Citus to build out | distributed and they released Flexible Postgres as a Linux- | based replacement for SS. Flexible still doesn't have | feature parity with Single Server and doesn't have feature | parity with other cloud vendors (pg_wait_sampling roll-up | is missing last time I checked a few months back). | | To make matters worse, their data migration tools are | sorely lacking as well. | John23832 wrote: | You realize that was literally 20 years ago? | valine wrote: | More like 10 years ago, that's when Microsoft dropped the | ball. | chimeracoder wrote: | > Sounds about right to me. They missed the entire smartphone | revolution because they were too slow to adapt their OS | (literally their main product) to run on mobile devices. | | Remember the whole antitrust thing? Microsoft was under a | consent decree that expired between 2007-2009 (different | provisions expired at different times). | | That decree, combined with the material threat of additional | action during that time window, limited their ability to | compete (because that's, well, the entire point of a consent | decree motivated by an antitrust settlement). | | There's a reason that you see a notable difference in | Microsoft's market position and strategy from 2012-present | compared to the previous decade (2001-2012). The timing of | the Ballmer-to-Nadella transition is not coincidental; it's | indicative of the larger shift the company made as they | repositioned themselves to aggressively expand again. | baz00 wrote: | Actually they did build a really competent smartphone | operating system that was as good as iOS at the time quite | frankly and was affordable. | | The issue is they went and rewrote a chunk of it, breaking | APIs and fucked all the developers off, then abandoned it. | | The only thing they are is fucking stupid morons. | duped wrote: | Windows was running on smartphones back in 2002. | | The failure of Windows Mobile, and later Windows phone, had | little to do with being "slow." | tfehring wrote: | My impression is that it's pretty true of Microsoft in general, | but not of the AI research teams I'm familiar with. As with any | tech company of its size, there's lots of variation from team | to team. | baz00 wrote: | Yeah I mean I can think of a fair few better nouns that are | applicable to MSFT than biggest and slowest... | gwern wrote: | It doesn't need to be true, just needs to be what a nontrivial | number of OAers think. And given how many people I still see | putting down 'M$', I can absolutely believe a dislike of | Microsoft is widespread. | zer00eyz wrote: | During that whole mess it seemed to slip out that MS has access | to all the IP up to AGI. And that has a definition that might be | "replacing people at work", so not passing the Turing test fully | but close enough. | | There are some problems that need to get cleared up for that to | happen. The system needs to loose the cutoff date, be a bit more | deterministic and still function. The whole quagmire around | copyright needs to get resolved. (Because it looks like the | output of LLM's is immediately in the public domain) | | If I worked at OpenAI, I would be looking for that contract and | reading it myself. Because giving away all the IP for the half | assed runway where you have to get to AGI... doesn't sound like | it ends in a massive pay day. MS may have cleaned up its public | image in the recent years, or been displaced by things people | hate and fear more. But there is this: | https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/microsoft-ai/ and the | underlying tos looks a like like old school M$ and shady | dealings. | joe_the_user wrote: | Your implication that OpenAI has "AGI" is unsupported and | implausible imo. | | LLMs are impressive, can increase productivity for certain | workers in certain industries etc, yes but avoid reaching like | that please. | zer00eyz wrote: | I don't imply they have it. I imply that their deal with MS | has a definition that we would not call "AGI". One that has | implications that may make cutting them (MS) off impossible. | | From: https://openai.com/our-structure ... | | "While our partnership with Microsoft includes a multibillion | dollar investment, OpenAI remains an entirely independent | company governed by the OpenAI Nonprofit. Microsoft has no | board seat and no control. And, as explained above, AGI is | explicitly carved out of all commercial and IP licensing | agreements." | joe_the_user wrote: | Sorry, | | I see how your post could be read as you state but the | simplest reading is what I said. | the__prestige wrote: | TFA talks about a tender offer, which allows employees to sell | their shares at almost a 3x valuation compared to earlier this | year. This already is a "massive pay day". | zer00eyz wrote: | The only time that 3x trade would be a good deal is if you | think that's the best you're going to do. IF you think your | gonna be the next amazon/Facebook/google then selling is | foolish. The MS deal may limit or wreck that possibility. | ghaff wrote: | Is it actually news that 70% (or whatever) of the employees at a | hot startup wouldn't go to work for Microsoft even if they kept | their compensation packages (which would probably have a lot of | asterisks attached) because of executive suite drama? | andy99 wrote: | It's "business insider". Don't underestimate how poorly | management understands "technical resources". I can certainly | see lots of leadership just assuming that pay is the only | relevant variable and ignore culture entirely during an | acquihire, assuming people are fine doing whatever as long as | they're paid. | JohnFen wrote: | To be fair, there are a lot of devs for whom compensation is | the only thing that really matters -- they are | overrepresented here on HN, even. It would be pretty easy to | assume that's the majority point of view. | | It also may be that's exactly the sort of person that | Microsoft prefers, too, but I don't know. | ghaff wrote: | It's an open question whether moving to Microsoft would | have been a good deal or a bad deal. But I'm pretty sure | that most people seriously contemplating a move were | definitely considering the dollars, even if not | exclusively. (Although I expect most people signing a | petition were not actually serious.) | ElevenLathe wrote: | Even from a compensation point of view, they presumably have | a better chance for a big exit of some kind at a startup vs | as a Microsoft employee. | rob74 wrote: | It's not just the compensation however, the article explains | that by switching to Microsoft they would have lost their | equity packages, which are worth even more than their salary... | ghaff wrote: | _Potential_ equity packages. But hence my comment about | asterisks. Maybe moving to Microsoft would be a good | financial deal, maybe a bad deal, but certainly a different | deal. Especially in the absence of a formal deal. | hardlianotion wrote: | I dunno, the company had already demonstrated its ability to | drastically affect its value to the downside. | gweinberg wrote: | How does crap like this get published? Not a shred of evidence is | given for its assertions, and they sound pretty preposterous. | Nobody actually wanted to go to Microsoft, and they didn't even | think Altman was that great as a CEO. So why did they all sign | the letter threatening to quit? Mysterious unspecified | "pressure". Why did Microsoft claim it was willing to hire the | OpenAI team at their current compensation levels, pissing off | their own employees, if it really wasn't? Umm, no reason. | ghaff wrote: | >So why did they all sign the letter threatening to quit? | | I probably wouldn't in an employment situation where it could | come back to bite me. But lots of people sign, virtually or | otherwise, petitions in the heat of the moment because emotions | or it's just the path of least resistance. And "at current | compensation levels" wasn't a contractual promise and would | probably have had plenty of strings attached. | mschuster91 wrote: | > How does crap like this get published? | | That is easy to answer: BI belongs to the infamous German media | conglomerate Axel Springer [1], hosting one of Europe's most | vile, disgusting and scandal-ridden [2][3] tabloids called | "BILD" and its barely veiled sister publication "WELT". | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider | | [2] https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/70-jahre-bild-zeitung- | zwische... | | [3] https://de.statista.com/infografik/2588/publikationen-mit- | de... | sgift wrote: | Lol, really? BI is Axel Springer .. wow. And I always | wondered why I felt iffy about their articles. That makes it | clear. Into the "ignore this garbage" list they go. | gwern wrote: | > and they didn't even think Altman was that great as a CEO. | | There are plenty of people who think that. Even the OA | executives apparently weren't nearly as enthused with Altman as | all those social-media hearts might lead one to assume. See the | Time article yesterday: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38550240 specifically | The board expected pressure from investors and media. But they | misjudged the scale of the blowback from within the company, in | part because they had reason to believe the executive team | would respond differently, according to two people familiar | with the board's thinking, who say the board's move to oust | Altman was informed by senior OpenAI leaders, who had | approached them with a variety of concerns about Altman's | behavior and its effect on the company's culture. | xazzy wrote: | Am an employee, signed the letter. | | I can't read the article so maybe the content is more nuanced, | but the framing irks me. | | This all happened really fast and the offer was informal. I can | only speak for myself but I do have a lot of respect for modern | MS, and would have seriously considered the move if that's what | kept the team together and comp was reasonable. I would be | surprised if most people felt differently. | wintogreen74 wrote: | >> and comp was reasonable | | A lot of complex issues and perspectives packed into those few | words... | replwoacause wrote: | I thought the offer from MSFT, albeit unofficial, was that | anyone who made the switch kept their current salary. | shwaj wrote: | A big part of the comp is in equity, and since OpenAI has | an uncommon equity structure it is unclear how that would | translate to Microsoft stock. | rgbrgb wrote: | i would guess a lot of OpenAI employees are sitting on some | pretty valuable stock/options if the company doesn't | implode | imjonse wrote: | Hence the overwhelming number of hearts in the Twitter | messages asking for the return of Sam Altman. | dmazzoni wrote: | What about the non-salary part of comp? | | For most employees, their OpenAI stock would have been | worth even more than their salary at its current valuation, | and it has the potential to potentially be worth quite a | bit more in the future. | | Replacing it with Microsoft stock would have made it a sure | thing - but also with much less growth potential. | | I'd be really curious to hear if Microsoft actually got so | far as to figure out what to offer OpenAI employees in | terms of an equity offer. | vthallam wrote: | > >> and comp was reasonable | | there's no way you guys would get the same comp though? like | not even close. MSFT irrespective of how much it wants you is | not going to honor the 10X increase in valuation from the | upcoming $90 billion valuation. | | Even if they do, you will miss on the upside. MSFT stock is not | going to 10X but OpenAI's might. | anupsurendran wrote: | 100% vthallam. The upside for OpenAI is much higher. | smileysteve wrote: | .... Unless Sam Altman, major research leaders and 50%+ of | the employees had transferred to Microsoft | blagie wrote: | I think if things went that far, OpenAIs valuation would very | quickly pop to zero. | | Real MSFT stock beats a theoretical could-have-been with a | 10x upside. | ponector wrote: | Don't forget that with new rounds and new valuation there is | also a dilution of shares. | | If the valuation goes up x10 after next round average | developer probably will have the same money locked in | rsu/options. | aetherson wrote: | Uh, what? Are you claiming that if a company experiences a | 10x (!) increase in valuation, that the dilution fully | destroys that upside and the average developer experiences | no increase in their comp? That is not even vaguely close | to true in my experience. | filoleg wrote: | > Are you claiming that if a company experiences a 10x | (!) increase in valuation, that the dilution fully | destroys that upside and the average developer | experiences no increase in their comp? | | Not the person you are replying to, but it depends on how | diluted it gets. If they print 9x of currently | outstanding shares as the value goes 10x, it would result | in those original shares being worth exactly the same as | before the 10x jump. | | But I agree with you overall, in terms of the actual | reality. I don't think any company with half a brain | would do that. | IshKebab wrote: | > Even if they do, you will miss on the upside. MSFT stock is | not going to 10X but OpenAI's might. | | I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that due to the | existence of leverage. You can make MSFT have the potential | to 10x (or /10) if you want. | zamalek wrote: | > there's no way you guys would get the same comp though? | | Nadella was directly involved and he's way smarter than that. | Comping one the best ML teams in the world correctly is | child's play compared to undoing Balmer's open source mess. | capableweb wrote: | LinkedIn data says ~44% of the OpenAI team is | "Engineering", the rest is operations, human resources and | sales. | | So most likely, if most of the employees moved over to | Microsoft, they wouldn't get the same comp, at most 44% of | the company would. | zamalek wrote: | > 44% of the OpenAI team is "Engineering" | | Yes, the "you guys" average HN demographic per the gp | comment. | HWR_14 wrote: | Why wouldn't MSFT honor the increased comp? They are still | investing money in OpenAI at that multiple. | | They would have to create some kind of crazy structure to | avoid wrecking their levels. But of course it could be done. | mrtksn wrote: | Obviously MS does some great things but I wonder what do you | think about their culture? | | MS is trying to make me use Edge Browser by randomly refusing | to let me use Bing chat in any other browser. This makes me | think that MS is still evil and will force me to do things the | moment they can. I gave up Bing Chat because of this and was | using Perplexity.ai instead, until Bing got integrated into | ChatGPT. | | Another thing is the feel of the MS products is very different | than OpenAI. For example, Bing chat again, would have a strange | UX where it counts down my message allowance on the topic as I | keep asking follow up questions as if it was designed for their | convenience and not mine. OpenAI products on the other hand | feel much more pleasant to use and don't stress me out even | when things don't work as expected, which makes me think that | the approach of product design is very different than MS. | | Same tech running in the Azure servers, completely different | product experiences. IMHO this points to completely different | mindsets. | staunton wrote: | > MS is still evil | | All big corporations are "evil", as in, their decisionmaking | is scaled and institutionalized enough to effectively | implement the goal of "maximizing shareholder value" above | what's good for you or society. | mrtksn wrote: | No, not all companies try to exploit their strength in one | area to make me use some other product that I have no | interest in. | | I'm not talking about "hey, we have this product that you | might like", I'm talking about "if you want to use this | product, you must also use this product". There's also no | technical reason for it, sometimes they will let me use it. | | Not O.K. | kbenson wrote: | > No, not all companies try to exploit their strength in | one area to make me use some other product that I have no | interest in. | | I'm not sure of any large one that doesn't. The | incentives are aligned such that it's hard for them not | to. It's easy to find examples of similar (sometimes | almost identical) behavior from most large companies. | mrtksn wrote: | Okay, what other company does it? You may say Apple & App | Store but that's not the same. | andsoitis wrote: | the conversation in this thread makes me wonder about whether | the right incentives for OpenAI should be to make tons of | money. | | Personally, I prefer to make tons of money, but as someone who | will not have a say in whether to participate in an AI-driven | world, I would prefer if there were non-profit counterweights. | Perhaps governments will have the wherewithal to steer things | but I am somewhat concerned. | strangattractor wrote: | Smart - If it ain't written down it is not an offer. | VirusNewbie wrote: | If you're ok with sharing, did you sign it because you are more | aligned with the productizing of GPT etc, or is it that you | truly believe Sama is the CEO to follow? Or a combination of | both? | port515 wrote: | Microsoft will be the leader in AI with or without OpenAI. Mark | my words, you can take that to the bank. Come back to this post | in 5 years, you'll see I predicted the future. | miraculixx wrote: | Apple more likely. Or some other co we don't know about yet. | OpenAI is going to crumble. Microsoft will be challenged for | trust. We'll see what happens. | replwoacause wrote: | Apple? They seem to be asleep at the wheel as far as AI goes. | I thought their focus was hardware. Siri is a piece of junk. | catchnear4321 wrote: | apple only has one focus. ecosystem. that is the reason for | the slow movements and the appearance of sleep. different | scale. different game. | neilv wrote: | > _A scheduled tender offer, which was about to let employees | sell their existing vested equity to outside investors, would | have been canceled. All that equity would have been worth | "nothing," this employee said._ | | > _The former OpenAI employee estimated that, of the hundreds of | people who signed the letter saying they would leave, "probably | 70% of the folks on that list were like, 'Hey, can we, you know, | have this tender go through?'"_ | | If that one person's speculation is true, does the non-profit | have an alignment problem, with employees who are doing the | technical work -- that the employees are motivated more by | individual financial situations, than by the non-profit's | mission? | | (Is it possible to structure things such that the people doing | the work don't have to think about their individual financial | situations, and can focus 100% on the actual mission? Can they | hire enough of the best people for their mission that way? And | maybe also keep key technical talent away from competitors that | way?) | CaveTech wrote: | I think it's relatively easy to prove that the main motivation | for the majority of employees is not mission alignment, simply | by the fact that salaries within OpenAI are in the top few | percentile of the field. | | I don't believe this is necessarily in conflict with the | mission though. Employees are mercenaries, it's up to | management/leadership to enforce the mission and make sure | employees contribute to it positively. The employee becomes | forcefully aligned with the mission because that is the key to | their personal enrichment. They are paid to contribute, their | personal beliefs are not all that important. | JohnFen wrote: | > it's up to management/leadership to enforce the mission and | make sure employees contribute to it positively. | | But surely, the primary tool that leadership has to do that | is by selecting employees who are on the same page as them. A | purely mercenary workforce is very undesirable unless the | company is also mercenary. | neilv wrote: | > _Employees are mercenaries, it 's up to | management/leadership to enforce the mission and make sure | employees contribute to it positively. The employee becomes | forcefully aligned with the mission because that is the key | to their personal enrichment. They are paid to contribute, | their personal beliefs are not all that important._ | | I think that might be the norm, but it's sounds like an awful | dynamic. | | It's also unfortunate if you want to do something better. We | have many mercenaries companies that have appropriated some | of the language we might use to characterize something | better. | | So, say you're trying to found a company with grand ideals, | made up of people who care about the mission, you actively | want a diversity of ideas, etc., and almost every sentence | you can think of to communicated that a bunch of candidates | nodding, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, we've heard this a hundred | times, just tell me what the TC is, for the 18 months I'll | stay here". | dragonwriter wrote: | > If that one person's speculation is true, does the non-profit | have an alignment problem, with employees who are doing the | technical work -- that the employees are motivated more by | individual financial situations, than by the non-profit's | mission? | | Yes, and moreover they've created a compensation structure | which actively creates incentives that are _contrary_ to the | charity 's mission. | | This was probably the easiest way to attract talent that had | high paying alternatives and weren't particularly interested in | the charity's mission, but that was always a fundamental | problem with choosing a for-profit entity with that kind of | needs as the primary funding vehicle for the charity _and also_ | the primary means by which it would achieve research, etc., | directed at its charitable purpose. | | The problem -- taking OpenAI's stated charitable mission at | face value [0] -- is that there was nowhere close to enough | money available from people concerned with that mission to pay | for it, and OpenAI's response was to go all-in on the most | straightforward path of raising sufficient funds given what | resources it had and what the market looked like without | sufficiently considering the alignment of its fundraising | mechanism with the purpose for which it was raising funds. | | [0] which I should emphasize that I do for the sake of | argument, not because I necessarily believe that it represents | the genuine purposes of the people involved even initially. | ghaff wrote: | >Is it possible to structure things such that the people doing | the work don't have to think about their individual financial | situations, and can focus 100% on the actual mission? | | Mostly no. People may not only care about money. But money is | pretty important--at least until you get into pretty large | numbers. And then it's still a pretty important keeping score | metric. | reso wrote: | I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has explained | how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and then simply | changed their minds a few days later. | | I have to assume that the individuals involved are under a mix of | social and legal pressure to not talk about the circumstances. | richbell wrote: | The speculation seems to be that Sam was being duplicitous and | trying to oust a board member he didn't like. Members of the | board compared notes and realized he had misrepresented his | conversations with other members in an attempt to build | concensus. Throw in the rapid expansion of OpenAI | (commercialization being in conflict with the board's vague | mandate to do what's best for humanity) and the rumored (now | confirmed) deal he was arranging with a company that he had a | financial stake in, and they felt like they needed to remove | him. | | However, by trying to do so swiftly and not allowing him a | chance to retaliate they pissed off Microsoft and the | employees. At that point, they were basically forced to | reinstate him or the entire company would collapse -- and if | they do that, they can't also go on record clarifying why he's | bad. | | * this is my vague recollection based on reading past | discussions. I'm on my phone right now and unfortunately don't | have any sources I can link, take this with a grain of salt. | | Edit: a few links | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38559770 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38548404 | JumpCrisscross wrote: | Their communication strategy was also juvenile at best. | ethbr1 wrote: | Thanks for the citations. | | That was my guess... but only because it was the only | scenario I could think of where the board being curiously and | obviously intentionally vague about 'why' in the | announcement, but still saying more than nothing, made sense. | pixelmonkey wrote: | This recent TIME article lays out the saga pretty | straightforwardly and makes it a bit less confusing. | | https://time.com/6342827/ceo-of-the-year-2023-sam-altman/ | | At least, that was how I felt after reading it. | | Basically, within the span of a year, OpenAI transformed from a | research lab inside a non-profit that was pursuing a seemingly- | Quixiotic dream of artificial general intelligence (AGI)... | into one of the fastest-growing for-profit software companies | of all time via its creation of the chat-based generative AI | category (aka ChatGPT) and its consumer/enterprise SaaS and API | offerings. | | The board -- or, at least, its 4 remaining non-CEO members -- | thought that this was too much, too fast, and too soon, and | that there was a narrow window of time where they could slow | things down and refocus on the original non-profit mission. | They also felt that Altman was a bit of a force of nature, had | his own ideas about where OpenAI was going, and treated "board | management" as one of his CEO skills to route around obstacles. | | Once a board loses trust of their CEO, unfortunately, there is | usually only one blunt and powerful tool left: firing the CEO. | | And this happens pretty often. As the investor Jerry Neumann | once put it, "Your board of directors is probably going to fire | you."[1] Boards have very few ways to actually take action when | they are worried about a company or institution; firing | management is one of the few "course correction" actions they | can take quickly. | | In OpenAI's case, if they had a for-profit board, that board | would probably have been ecstatic with Altman and the company's | progress. But this was not a for-profit board. It was a non- | profit (mission-oriented) board meant to oversee the safe | rollout of AGI. Those board members weren't sure the best way | to do that was to become one of the world's largest for-profit | software companies. | | I'd speculate that it was probably an emotional decision and | the full implications were not entirely thought through until | it was too late. I'd also speculate that this explains why Ilya | Sutskever felt some immediate regret, because his goal wasn't | to destroy OpenAI (or inspire an employee revolt) but to put | its non-profit mission back into focus. I like to practice the | principle of charity[2], and, in this case, I think the non- | profit board was not acting maliciously but simply did not | realize the knock-on effects of trying to replace a CEO when | everything at the company seems to be "going right." | | I suspect Altman thought the best way to roll out AI was via | iterative product development and fast revenue growth to | finance the GPU demands, utilizing corporate partnerships | (Microsoft), viral word-of-mouth marketing, and SaaS/API fees | (ChatGPT). Running out of data center compute started to become | a primary concern, so it wouldn't surprise me if safety took a | backseat to this. Remember, all this growth happened in the | span of a year. Perhaps Altman thought he was satisfying the | safety concerns simply by talking to regulators, making | iterative releases, and going on a speaking tour about it, but | the board thought the only way to go safely was to go slower. | I'm sure we'll learn more after some books are written about | the episode. | | [1]: https://reactionwheel.net/2021/11/your-boards-of- | directors-i... | | [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity | dmazzoni wrote: | I think that all makes sense. | | Things would have played out very differently if the board | was more experienced and thoughtful. Their hearts might have | been in the right place, but their actions were reckless and | ultimately backfired. | JoshTko wrote: | Interesting how you don't place any blame on Altman on | understand addressing board concerns. A more experience CEO | would have read the tea leaves. | alecst wrote: | That's a great summary, and I feel less confused after having | read it. Thanks. | tivert wrote: | > I am still so confused by this whole saga. No one has | explained how or why the entire board decided to do a coup, and | then simply changed their minds a few days later. | | I don't know how anyone can call the board's action a "coup." | Calling it that seems to be a propagandistic abuse of the term. | | The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a | subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the | board ousted. | darkerside wrote: | I think the coup is on the part of other employees who | advocated for the board to fire Altman. No judgement in | whether that was justified or not. | tivert wrote: | > I think the coup is on the part of other employees who | advocated for the board to fire Altman. No judgement in | whether that was justified or not. | | The GP was pretty clear that he thought "the entire board | decided to do a coup," which does not fit that | interpretation. | | But even the scenario you describe isn't something that can | be properly described as a "coup." In that case, the | employees are just appealing to a _legitimate_ higher | authority, which is a totally OK thing to do (e.g. it 's | not wrong to report a bribe-taking boss to the company | ethics hotline). IMHO, a coup is where subordinates | illegitimately _usurp and depose_ the highest authority | from below. | PepperdineG wrote: | >I don't know how anyone can call the board's action a | "coup." Calling it that seems to be a propagandistic abuse of | the term. | | >The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a | subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the | board ousted. | | The CEO was a member of the board and the ones that fired the | CEO also fired the Chairman of the Board, so the board went | from 6 to 4. So far there's been even less of an explanation | for the firing of the Chairman of the Board - who they | offered to let remain as a regular employee - than there has | been for Altman, though I see the removal of the Chairman as | potentially the most egregious and coup-like. | bogomipz wrote: | There was a bit of insight today from a board member on her | perspective. See: | | https://archive.is/Sy3Xm | nicce wrote: | > No one has explained how or why the entire board decided to | do a coup, and then simply changed their minds a few days | later. | | Board's job is to hire or fire CEO. Technically CEO made the | coup since he managed to throw his bosses out of their | positions. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | > Given the absence of interest in joining Microsoft, many OpenAI | employees "felt pressured" to sign the open letter, the employee | admitted. The letter itself was drafted by a group of longtime | staffers who have the most clout and money at stake with years of | industry standing and equity built up, as well as higher pay. | They began calling other staffers late on Sunday night, urging | them to sign, the employee explained. | | What a clusterfuck. I feel bad for anyone who supported the | board. | Tenoke wrote: | This isnt the board though. This is the against the board side. | what_ever wrote: | That's why they feel bad for those who supported the board as | the ones that opposed the board may not have just done it | based on the board's actions. | staunton wrote: | Anyone who supported the board was in a situation where they | deemed they could afford to go against the peer pressure. This | is a combination of acting according to their beliefs/values | and economic security. Those people should be envied, not | pitied. | kbenson wrote: | We should envy people that stand firm on their beliefs and | are vindicated, not those that may experience backlash in the | future because people that had a different view won in the | end. Suffering hardship for doing what you think is right is | not something to envy. | | Don't envy martyrs, wish for a world without the need for | them. | fwungy wrote: | As if OpenAI employees would have any problem landing a new | gig... | | Going from an agile startup environment to an F50 is a huge leap | culturally. It's like going from Summer science camp to the army. | wolverine876 wrote: | > As if OpenAI employees would have any problem landing a new | gig... | | They'd have problems landing new gigs where they worked on | OpenAI, with OpenAI's resources, team, etc. | badrabbit wrote: | You know, I was just thinking how if I was a google exec I'd | poach openai and/or attempt to gain some controlling shares if | the org by throwing money at sam/board. | simplypeter wrote: | Why would OpenAI employees want to jump ship to Microsoft, | especially when Microsoft's been slashing jobs and freezing pay? | Doesn't really add up for me. | slantedview wrote: | Even in normal times, Microsoft does stack ranking. It's not | great. | wvenable wrote: | I might be wrong but Microsoft ended stack ranking in 2013. | Havoc wrote: | Not sure that part actually matters? | | The message of the letter was clear and the gun being held at | boards head was credible. And what 90%+ supported on paper? | | Even if many of the 90% are lukewarm & half-arsed, from a | leadership perspective that's conclusively game over. | Crosseye_Jack wrote: | Well that's the benefit then you have multiple entities bidding | for your labor. You just need to say Company A will give me the | same terms (if not better), not need to list A, B, C, D, etc even | if you just want to stay where you are, you are still in the | position to cherry pick who you want to work for. | | Heck I've done it myself, Was happy where I was, but wanted a pay | bump, shopped around, went back to my employer and said if you | will pay (highest bid + percentage) I'll stay, but otherwise I'm | out the door. They paid up. | | Its the gamble you take. Granted when most off the staff also | have the same demands it puts the company more on the back foot. | | Just a note, I've also taken work for less pay, but (imo) better | working conditions. It all just depends on what you want your | working conditions to be and what your willing to accept in terms | of comp. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-07 23:00 UTC)