I think it's interesting to see an article like this every couple of weeks. The way I view it is that we're watching the five stages of grief (with regard to the "death of the office") play out in real time, at population scale.
At first it was denial - "everyone will be back in the office eventually!"
Then it was anger - "you will RTO or you will lose your job!"
Now it seems like we've finally hit bargaining - "you'll come in 3 days per week, wait, 2 days, wait, special exception for the last week of every month".
I wonder how long it goes on until we get to depression and acceptance?
Well, you may be waiting a while. Those "stages" models are fake news. Great myths have been built up around them, but they've never been validated. Anyone who works with grief can tell you, it won't work like that.
This would require spacetime to be quantized (presumably at the Planck length or something smaller) though, yes?
I've always thought entanglement makes more intuitive sense on a graph substrate of some kind, where the "spooky action at a distance" is actually just an anomalous edge in the graph connecting two vertices which would otherwise be more distantly separated. This begs the question of how the edges in the graph came to be or whether they're modifiable at all though.
I thought it yes but maybe not necessarily. There could be infinite nodes but the rule is such that at a slightly larger scale it can only result in near instantanious graduated shifts between states. Like a phase transition in material. Where below the scale that these phase transitions appear insufficient substrate complexity exists to support any other features, so youd just be better off setting your minimum abstraction level at the "discrete" one. Or maybe it is just discrete idk.
As for weird behaviour like far reaching spookiness.
Could be multiple overlapping substrates at different scales.
Or, the rule directly includes a mechanism for remote information transmission.
Different generations have different investment preferences, so the best hedges are going to be things Millennials want that Boomers do not typically own.
Baby boomer mass retirement. This will increase the selling of shares across the board, since boomers will need to liquidate their assets to finance their living expenses when they are no longer taking salaries.
Sounds plausible, any idea what proportion of the large index funds they are thought to own? In the same vein, I wonder if pension funds can pose a risk or if they are self perpetuating enough to not cause any fire sales.
Baby Boomers have been retiring for quite some time already. The Baby Boom was from 1946 to 1964[1], so the oldest Boomers are now 77 (well past the usual retirement age) and the ones in the middle are around 68 (many have retired already).
"Passive investing" is a largely beaten-to-death turn of phrase because you can't truly be a passive investor in anything. Every "passive investing" focused fund has some degree of selection bias, because the index itself is arbitrarily declaring that it's only buying the "top 500" or whathaveyou. So you're "passively" investing in the top 500 companies, which means "actively" choosing not to invest in the rest.
You can go one level up from there and buy VTSAX if you want to buy everything and truly "passively" invest in US stocks, but again, you'd be "actively" choosing not to invest in international stocks then.
You’re better off buying the whole market than picking stocks. You’re better off buying and holding than trying to time the market. Splitting hairs with regards to the definition of ‘passive’ doesn’t change these simple facts.
Passive investing remains the best path for the middle class to financial security and comfortable retirement. Spreading your ignorant navel-gazing on this matter could potentially do real damage to real people’s financial futures. Please stop.
Somewhat hidden beneath the huge headline of Altman being kicked out is that Brockman (chairman) is also out. Which could indicate something more systemically wrong than just a typical "CEO did something bad" situation.
> As a part of this transition, Greg Brockman will be stepping down as chairman of the board and will remain in his role at the company, reporting to the CEO.
Remember that Greg Brockman is a co-founder of OpenAI, and like Sam Altman, he is a main driving force behind the scene. Now both are gone. There must be something really really seriously wrong.
A coup wouldn't have him immediately fired. Instead he'd be placed in some advisory position while they transition in a new CEO. The immediate firing means scandal of some sort.
Brockman is off the board but not fired. Which is weird right? You'd think if he was involved in whatever the really bad thing is then he would be fired.
No, that sort of thing isn't that weird, in relatively young companies. Think of when Eric Schmidt was CEO of Google. Larry Page and Sergei Brin reported to him as employees of Google, and he (as CEO of Google) reported to himself-and-also-them (as the board), and all of them (as the board) reported to Larry and Sergei (as majority owners).
For another example, imagine if OpenAI had never been a non-profit, and look at the board yesterday. You'd have had Ilya reporting to Sam (as employees), while Sam reports to Ilya (with Ilya as one member of the board, and probably a major stakeholder).
Now, when it gets hostile, those loops might get pretty weird. When things get hostile, you maybe modify reporting structures so the loops go away, so that people can maintain sane boundaries and still get work done (or gracefully exit, who knows).
Turns out, there's no such thing as an LLM, it's all been a hustle with a low-paid army of writers in Kenya that Sama and gdb have been giving iv meth to.
> Worldcoin’s use of biometric data, which is unusual in crypto, raises the stakes for regulators. Multiple agencies expressed safety concerns amid reports of the sale of Worldcoin digital identities, known as World IDs, on virtual black markets, the ability to create and profit off of fake IDs, as well as the theft of credentials for operators who sign up new users.
is always about money, even immoral behavior falls down to potential economic impact.
my 2 cents that he lied about profitability, they should be expending massive money in operations, they need to cut cost to deliver an attractive business model for their service and from a shinny startup star boss that'd had to be a straight f.u.
On paper, Sam Altman would have made everyone on the board billionaires. For them to vote him out in this manner indicates that he must have done something egregious to jeopardize that.
Lying on P&L, stock sale agreements, or turning down an acquisition offer under difficult circumstances seems likely.
The thread seems to be got picked up only last month given the timestamps of majority of comments and reposts were made. If the board decided to make an investigation, it'd be the timing to fire Altman.
Elon was very upset that somehow a non-profit that he donated $100 million to suddenly turned into a for profit. I would not be surprised if there was something not totally candid with regards to how that went down.
In fact, I believe Altman was the only member of the board that held equity in OpenAI. There was some vague reference to a “previous VC arrangement” in the FAQ.
> Even OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, does not hold equity directly. His only interest is indirectly through a Y Combinator investment fund that made a small investment in OpenAI before he was full-time.
Please do not spout hyperbole on HN, and avoid spreading disinformation and engaging in uneducated speculation. You can visit Reddit if that is your style of participation.
While i agree, I'm curious why you choose this comment specifically to call out. This is the fastest growing hn thread I've ever seen with over 300 comments and 1000 votes in the first hour. Almost every comment is debating some pure speculation or another. The content of the link, the context of the company and individual, and absolute lack of clarifying details while presenting very strong indications that such exists make it so that there's basically no way anyone can do anything other than speculate. No one knows anything, everyone here is guessing
HN moderators aren't deleting any comments. (We only do that when the author asks us to, and almost never when the comment has replies.)
If you're referring to some other form of moderation that you think is bad or wrong, please supply links so that readers can make their minds up for themselves.
Showdead shows one comment that doesn't really bring anything of substance. How many comments can a mod even delete on a 10 minute old post (post origin to the time you wrote your comment)
First, this is an accusation made on OnlyFans. Second, he was 13 at the time. You'd have to connect this accusation to truth, and that truth to his adult life.
So I can't fathom her accusation having anything to do with anything.
They've made it clear that the issue has something to do with statements he has made to the board that ended up not being true. The question is of what those statements may be. Not about his potential childhood errors or his onlyfans "model" sister's claims.
So homosexuality isn't relevant here. But nor is what his sister claims.
These allegations date all the way back from 2021, and the sister has made some other dubious claims like Sam hacking her wifi which erode her credibility. I highly doubt that this was the cause of his removal.
It could possibly have to do with his sister's allegations. It's one of the top autocomplete results when you google "sam altman", so people are definitely talking about it.
I doubt that's it. In general sexual shenanigans in your personal life will get you a quiet departure from the company under the "X has retired to spend more time with family / pursue other adventures / start a foundation". Andy Rubin got a $90M severance payout from Google after running a sex-slave dungeon on his personal time.
The wording of this statement is the kind of thing a board says when the company has done something deeply illegal that they will all face personal jail time for, and so they need to immediately deny all knowledge of the offense and fire the people who did have knowledge of it.
"Shenanigans" would not be a remotely accurate way to characterize sexual assault on a minor. Not meant as a comment on the truth of these allegations, just on the accuracy of this way of characterizing them.
As far as whether this might be the cause, one possible scenario: the board hired a law firm to investigate, Sam made statements that were contradicted by credible evidence, and that was the fireable event. Brockman could have helped cover this up. Again, not saying that this is what happened but it's plausible.
BTW Rubin's $90M payout a) caused a shitstorm at Google b) was determined in part by David Drummond, later fired in part due to sexual misconduct. I would not use this as a representative example, especially since Google now has a policy against such payouts: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se...
Google didn't just pay Rubin $90M because they want to reward abusers. Rubin's contract had a huge component of his comp tied to Android's success. If Google tried to withhold that bonus, Rubin would have sued. People don't just walk away from a hundred million dollars without a fight. Imagine the disaster that would have transpired if Rubin won his case: Google would been seen as trying to cheat an employee out of bonuses with a false misconduct allegation. Imagine the hell it would have been to be the woman in that situation.
People who said Google should have withheld Rubin's compensation are operating under the assumption that Google would have prevailed in the inevitable lawsuit.
First, I didn't say that Google "wanted to reward abusers". I was simply countering the parent commenter's use of Rubin's payout as an example of what typically happens when an executive is fired for sexual misconduct. It is absolutely not representative, and Google changed its policy as a result of this: "Alphabet said Friday that it will prohibit severance packages for anyone fired for misconduct or is the subject of a sexual misconduct investigation."
But since you brought it up, the fact that Google changed their policies in response to the Rubin (and Drummond) situations and did not caveat their policy with "except in the case where there's a performance bonus, which we'll still totally pay out" implies that it was a choice to begin with.
Also, even if there was a performance bonus that Google felt they might be forced to pay in litigation they could still have fought it to demonstrate a commitment to not rewarding executives preying on subordinates and to preemptively address potential employee backlash, which was entirely predictable. Google has effectively infinitely deep pockets and did not need to preemptively surrender.
And in addition, Drummond and Brin were both involved in the decision and both had affairs with subordinate employees. So, while I wouldn't say that Google had an active goal of "reward abusers", it's quite plausible that the specific, small group of men making this decision on Google's behalf may not have been particularly inclined to punish behavior arguably similar to their own.
> Also, even if there was a performance bonus that Google felt they might be forced to pay in litigation they could still have fought it to demonstrate a commitment to not rewarding executives preying on subordinates and to preemptively address potential employee backlash, which was entirely predictable. Google has effectively infinitely deep pockets and did not need to preemptively surrender.
Again, you're tackling this from the frame of mind of being certain that Google would win. It's not about the money: $90 million is almost certainly cheaper than what this case would have cost. It's about the reputational damage: Rubin potentially winning a settlement against Google would have been immensely embarrassing.
It's all about doing what's in the best interest of the alleged victim. She would have probably had to testify at trial. And imagine the hell it would have been to have a settlement paid out to your alleged abuser, thereby implying that you're a false accuser. Juries can be unpredictable, its easy to see why Google decided to find acceptable terma to part with Rubin.
> In general sexual shenanigans in your personal life will get you a quiet departure from the company under the "X has retired to spend more time with family / pursue other adventures / start a foundation".
Dude, where have you been for the past decade?
> Andy Rubin got a $90M severance payout from Google after running a sex-slave dungeon on his personal time.
And hence the colossal blowback caused by that means it ain't ever happening again. Just 2 months ago a tech CEO was forced to resign immediately for egregious conduct, losing 100+ million in the process: https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/cs-disco-ceo-kiwi-camara-loses...
The "white cis man" stuff isn't an incisive comment, it's an academic's way of trying to get into an insult war with other academics.
Constantly calling out "cis men" is in fact transphobic, which is how you can tell they don't care about it. If you think cis men and trans men behave differently or are always treated differently, this means you don't think they're both men.
Also sama is not white. Although he does appear to have gotten a series of jobs with not a lot of experience by convincing Paul Graham to figuratively adopt him.
I mostly agree with your points but how is he not white? He acts like a textbook white person and I should know because thats also how I and most of the people I associate with act. Everyone of us would say he is white.
I thought Sam Altman was gay. The accusations of sexual abuse don't seem to line up. And her accusations that he is shadowbanning her on social media sounds mentally unstable.
Sounds more like some strategic difference of opinion.
My guess is that either they’re financially super hosed. Or one group wants to build skynet and one doesn’t.
A scandal would probably be something along the lines of either “we love him and wish him the best” (hidden) or “he doesn’t represent the values of our org and we love XYz” (embraced)
No, this passage tells me that the board wants to cover their ass: "he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board [...]. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI."
It's not just a "hey, we don't really agree on x or y so let's part ways". It's more "hey, this guy did something that could get us in jail if we don't cut tie immediately".
Alternatively: "We were implicitly aware of what he was doing, but he knew from the beginning that if it didn't work out, we'd publicly disavow knowledge of it. It didn't work out."
I have zero knowledge of the internals of OpenAI - just thinking out loud about what could have spurred such a statement.
Yeah I don't think the distancing is going to work in this case, you don't sign up to go make robots with eyeball scanner crypto boy and get to pretend you aren't willing to do stuff most people would consider incredibly shady.
I don't know about the Skynet because it has happened 26 years before [1] but I imagine NSA, the Military, and other government agencies approached the company.
His sister on Twitter made some pretty crazy abuse allegations against him a while back, but it didn't seem to get much coverage outside of the usual Twitter crowd.
TL;DR for folks is that they left a lot of debug information in the build. The C code was compiled with no optimizations (and included debugging symbols), and GOAL uses a string-based table for global functions/variables/types, so they're starting with all those for free. Plus they don't think the GOAL compiler did too much tricky-to-undo optimization either.
I like the notion of breaking job satisfaction into "motivators" and "hygiene factors" (Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory [1]).
Motivators actively cause job satisfaction. Things like finding personal fulfillment, meaningful work, and other top-of-Maslow's-hierarchy stuff.
Hygiene factors cause dissatisfaction in their absence, but aren't standalone motivators. Salary probably fits in this bucket - if you learn that you're underpaid, you're likely to feel demotivated and look for work elsewhere. If you learn that you're overpaid, that can cause dissatisfaction too (feeling like you have to serve out the rest of a prison sentence until your shares/options vest is pretty common in our industry).
Compensation isn't everything, but if it seems unfair, it's absolutely enough to motivate people to make changes. I think we're seeing a reevaluation of labor market expectations with the whole Great Resignation thing, where those who are in demand are realizing just how demanded their skills are (and getting pissed off that they're undercompensated in their $current_job), and the old generation you speak of is trotting forward with their fingers in their ears, blinded by normalcy bias to the fundamental shift happening in front of them - a big labor market awakening.
And the executive compensation, is available to every employee. The age where management claim to have no money , internally giving huge bonus to themselves cannot be pulled anymore.
