zlacker

>>convex+(OP)
It's incredible how many of you alleged tech people think that Sam just wanted a world of safe AI while his actions suggest he wanted to make dump trucks of money.

He was the one who partnered with Microsoft and turned it from a non-profit to a for-profit company.

>>benkar+Dh
Honest question: How would he make money if he didn’t have equity in OpenAI?

>>bchern+Vl
Your forward-looking value to an organization is your value whether it’s realized in equity or not.

In the world where Sam Altman leads OpenAI to market dominance and eventual acquisition by Microsoft for $400B or whatever, he obviously would represent an important part of what Microsoft would be buying and would be compensated accordingly.

>>twoodf+Cu
No he wouldn't, if the CEO is substantially compensated for a $400B acquisition despite not owning equity that would be fraud. It's the CEO's fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of shareholders, if they take a $10bil cut for themselves that is $10bil that could've gone to the shareholders and hence not in their best interest.

It is the reason why CEOs (not Sam, apparently) are usually compensated in stock options. Golden parachutes are some sort of severance when the CEO gets fired immediately from the new company, eg. Twitter.

He's totally the guy who made OpenAI into ClosedAI, but money was clearly not his motivation.

>>n2d4+OA
Steve Jobs ended up handsomely rewarded for his return to Apple well beyond whatever equity he held in NeXT. That’s the kind of ultimate compensation I’m talking about.

Yes, it’s a strategy that would/did require—among other chancey things—Altman to make a big bet on himself rather than OpenAI on him.