And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included.
You know, like how they include employees in layoff decisions and not blind side them.
Sam Altman has spoken about “firing fast” when someone is a bad fit. he got fired fast, because he was a bad fit. That’s the seminal conclusion
So I was just saying that from the investor's perspective, the concept was flawed or at least very questionable from the beginning.
The fact that they're openly considering bringing him back should tell you that he's not just some random person whose job anyone can do. He's extremely well connected and was the face of the company - the face of deals that the company made. And you have to consider whether internally the employees are supporting this - if I were at OpenAI I would be pissed that the board decided to fuck around when we were doing so well.
edit: You have edited your post radically to say different hings like 5x now, I can not keep up.
Then again, maybe he has been making life less than desirable for the rank and file. Perhaps, even, they felt he was a bad fit for the company too. I don’t know, because I don’t work there.
If this is the case, good time to start hiring away engineers to another firm.
He may be the face, but faces change. Sam Altman isn’t t the only person capable of taking the reins. There is nothing about him that is more “magic” in this case, because the tech is always been their selling point. I think any competent CEO could sell the hell out of OpenAI right now
In as so far as bringing him back: I don’t know the validity nor veracity of those discussions. That news hit a little fast to me to have been fully fleshed out. Not saying it’s untrue, but “some of the board” talking isn’t the same thing as all of the board, either
a) A company they've partnered so heavily with is changing things up
b) That the change-up is to their point-person
It's not about whether another CEO could steer the ship, it's about the previous context and relationships that, regardless of skill, are going to have to be rebuilt carefully when you just rip out the point-person.
> Then again, maybe he has been making life less than desirable for the rank and file. Perhaps, even, they felt he was a bad fit for the company too. I don’t know, because I don’t work there.
People have already resigned over this...
Me: "Good luck with that terrible strategy"
Not a straw man.
It could happen still, but it’s not obvious that it will.
As far as relationships go, they can build those. I doubt anyone who has access to OpenAI tech wants to give that up, so there is enough leverage on that to smooth things out
They’d be fools to do that if there is a path forward here. Short of them announcing on Monday that they are no longer selling their offerings, I don’t see how there won’t be a path.
Business is business, as all the VCs love to say, there is no room for emotion in this right?
Microsoft can exert massive pressure over OpenAI and it seems hilarious to think that OpenAI is the one in that relationship with the power.
"The start-up company must either cross or die, but what value is life if to gain it one has to go against one’s best self?" - Moore, Crossing the Chasm, p. 75
Tenure doesn’t matter.
at YC he made a name for himself, built the rolodex, and learned how to build startups to the point that he turned OpenAI into a rocketship and now has unlimited access to capital and talent to build another one.
Let's see how this pans out.