zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
I'd bet money Satya was a driver of this reversal.

I genuinely can't believe the board didn't see this coming. I think they could have won in the court of public opinion if their press release said they loved Sam but felt like his skills and ambitions diverged from their mission. But instead, they tried to skewer him, and it backfired completely.

I hope Sam comes back. He'll make a lot more money if he doesn't, but I trust Sam a lot more than whomever they ultimately replace him with. I just hope that if he does come back, he doesn't use it as a chance to consolidate power – he's said in the past it's a good thing the board can fire him, and I hope he finds better board members rather than eschewing a board altogether.

EDIT: Yup, Satya is involved https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1726025717077688662

>>gkober+z1
> I hope Sam comes back

Why? We would have more diversity in this space if he leaves, which would get us another AI startup with huge funding and know how from OpenAI, while OpenAI would become less Sam Altman like.

I think him staying is bad for the field overall compared to OpenAI splitting in two.

>>Jensso+i3
To be honest, as far as I can tell, the case FOR Sam seems to largely be of the status quo "Well, idk, he's been rich and successful for years, surely this correlates and we must keep them" type of coddling those in uber superior positions in society.

Which seems like it probably is a self fulfilling prophecy. The private sector lottery winners seem to be awarded kingdoms at an alarming rate.

There's been lots of people asking what Sam's true value proposition to the company is, and...I haven't seen anything other than what could be described above.

But I suppose we've got to be nice to those who own rather than make. Won't anyone have mercy on well paid management?

>>naremu+ia
> The private sector lottery winners seem to be awarded kingdoms at an alarming rate.

Proven success is a pretty decent signal for competence. And while there is a lot of good fortune that goes into anyone's success, there are a lot of people who fail, given just as much good fortune as those who excelled. It's not just a random lottery where competence plays no role at all. So, who better to reward kingdoms to?

>>ta8645+Gd
>Proven success is a pretty decent signal for competence.

Interestingly this is exactly what all financial advice tends to actually warn about rather than encourage, that previous performance does not indicate future performance.

I suppose if they entered an established market and dominated it from the bootstraps that'd build a lot of trust in me. But others have pointed out, Sam went from dotcom fortune, to...vague question marks, to ycombinator, to openai. Not enough is clear to declare him wozniak, or even jobs, as many have been saying (despite investors calling him as such)

Sam altman is seemingly becoming the new post-fame elon musk: the type of person who could first afford the strategic safety net and PR to keep the act afloat.

>>naremu+df
One key reason past performance cannot be used to predict future returns is because market expectations tend to price in expected future returns. Also, nothing competitive is expected to generate economic profit forever— in the long run things even out. In the long run, firms and stock pickers usually end up with normal profit.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t get some useful ideas about future performance from a person’s past results compared to other humans. There is no such effect in play here.

Otherwise, time for me to go beat Steph Curry in a shooting contest.

Of course there’s other reasons past performance is imperfect as a predictor. Fundamentals can change, or the past performance could have been luck. Maybe Steph’s luck will run out, or maybe this is the day he will get much worse at basketball, and I will easily win.