A lot of people here bending over backwards to try to interpret this maximally negatively.
Probably because the "Sam Altman is an amoral, power hungry mastermind who was run out of all his previous gigs" is a more interesting narrative than whatever is actually happening.
I start a side gig and my employer tells me to choose the side gig or my employment. I choose side gig and lose employment. I am fired.
I live in Germany, a country infamous for its strong employee protections. It’s very hard to fire someone here. Yet, I don’t see how this is in any way unjust. Your employer pays you for putting your skills and time to their use.
If you start working on a side gig, that will take up a chunk of your time and invariably occupy your brain; thus, your employer doesn’t get their full value out of you anymore. Up to a certain degree, employers (have) to tolerate this—in Germany, that would be when your performance at your job starts to suffer from it. But once your commitment to the side gig increases so much that you’re about to become CEO, there’s no reasonable way to claim you can still carry out your contractual duties to your employer.
If your employer then offers you to either step down from that side gig or lose your employment, that is completely reasonable and frankly something you should expect?
Put differently, if you pay me to paint your shed, and after finishing the front side I went off and painted my own house with the rest of the paint, you certainly wouldn’t consider the job done or full payment to be justified.
If you do your side gig out of work hours, and it doesn’t affect your work (and you aren’t competing…) then what of it?
Then you are dreaming (because of course running a second demanding company will affect your work, in some way, not necessarily negatively) but, more importantly, people might disagree about the impact and either side would have a hard time proving anything. So probably be upfront about the rules and make a choice, when you have to.
Well in Germany specifically it's a legal issue (and some other EU countries), because there are labour market laws stipulating the maximum amount of time someone can work per week (48hrs).
Sure, you can fly under the radar if you're working on your own business/start-up by simply lying about the hours worked, but if you're doing paid work for another employer it will be obvious, and they would not be legally able to employ you if total working time goes above 48hrs/week.
That may work if you’re coding in you’re spare time on a side project that may turn into a business at some point. But even then, you’re going to be more tired and drained at your main job—humans just aren’t capable of working two jobs for a prolonged amount of time without one of them being negatively affected. Sure, you might be the one out of thousands that manages. But most are not.
And we’re not talking about creating a small online T-shirt store, but being CEO of a venture backed organisation to evolve the state of AI. There’s just no way to pull that off.
If you start working on a side gig, that will take up a chunk of your time and invariably occupy your brain; thus, your employer doesn’t get their full value out of you anymore.
It's the same if you have a family, an interest, or any semblance of a life really.
That’s true, but a generally accepted fact of life employers have to cope with. They don’t have to cope with employees taking on another responsibility next to their existing job and family.
What if someone doesn't have a family? Can they take a second job then?
As long as it doesn’t interfere with you performing your contractual duties to your employer? Sure. Although that can include showing up to work tired because you spent your night tending a bar, using knowledge acquired at your primary job for your side gig, or being unfocused in meetings because you constantly think about the other venture.
So instead, you might just want to check with your employer beforehand and talk about what they’re cool with. Something Sams could have chosen to do, but did not, apparently.
As you live in Germany, you know that many members of boards and C-Levels serve so in multiple companies. There is a difference in being a regular employee and C-Level/Board level.
There’s a huge difference between c-level and board responsibilities. I think it’s generally not wise for c-levels to be at multiple companies. Board is a totally different role
This is common the world over. Board roles typically aren't meant to be full time. However executive officer (chief or otherwise) roles typically are.
I'm sure people can manage doing one of both (so long as there is no conflicts of interest). Heck, now that I think of it, technically I'm a chief science officer of a startup and a casual employee of a university...
I wish we would hold these standards to politicians with their many side-gigs.
PG clarified (on the thread) that if he chose the other way (staying on YC) it would have been fine with them as well
That phrasing struck me as oddly limp. They would have been “fine” for their president to stay At his job? That’s not exactly a strong statement of support. If my boss told me they’d be “fine” if I stayed at my job I’d be pretty worried.
You're overanalysing something that wasn't the actual word used, and is an accurate word. We might all be a bit used to hyperbole, but the lack of it doesn't imply anything. Stop reading into it.
Indeed, and consider that pg is British. Not all nations share the American need for hyperbole. Some even look down on it.
If my boss told me he was "fine with me staying at my job", I'd take it to mean that they were fine with me staying at my job.
Yeah I agree with this. And you probably know when it's time to move on for one reason or another
It's also the kind of thing you'd say if you knew that their heart isn't in it.
I don't think this press release (is it that?) does a very good job of dispelling the rumors that it wasn't entirely mutual, though. He ought to have said something like "delighted to have him stay".
That is the exact scenario covered in the post you are replying to.
pg disputing the narrative that Sam was forced out for being dishonest is totally valid, there is just some real interesting language parsing here to rule this not a “firing”. He lost employment at his employer’s behest and it wasn’t a layoff.
I think Sam has amassed a net worth enough to live comfortably not having to work another day in his life.
To me that changes the meaning of "fired". I'd read it as "co-entrepeneurs parting ways". Yes one of the co-entrepeneurs has more say in who stays and who goes. But even if there was an employment contract, I'd see it more as a good/bad leave clause when no body loses their much required primary source of income.
Wouldn't the same be true of him getting fired from OpenAI then? He was never fired since he was independently wealthy?
I'm not saying he's technically fired or not (i think "fired" is a term with a law-definition).
I'm saying that he prolly has a deal at OpenAI with some stock and a good/bad leaver agreement, and a salary. Getting fired in this cases is not the same as firing someone who has zero stock and needs the jobs to put food on the table.
It just does not carry the same weight for me, regardless of the lawful definition.
pg disputing the narrative that Sam was forced out for being dishonest
Yet he doesn't do that (in this tweet) as it's only an alternative reason and does not address those accusations.
It does indeed sound a lot like firing. But what if the conversation went like this:
PG: Quit your second job or be fired
Altman: You can't fire me, because I quit
PG: Great, as thanks for going quietly I'll tell everyone you "weren't fired"
It's a firing for all practical purposes, sure. But technically Altman voluntarily resigned.
This is actually somewhat common when firing people - if you ever find yourself in a disciplinary meeting with HR and you know you're about to get fired, you can just resign right then and there, one second before they tell you you're fired, and they'll accept. You sacrifice the right to sue for unfair dismissal, in exchange they'll tell future employers that you left voluntarily and weren't fired.
They can and will tell future employers that you suck and aren’t eligible for rehire though. And you lose unemployment benefits
They can and will tell future employers that you suck and aren’t eligible for rehire though.
I believe that's increasingly uncommon, I believe due to legal risk. I think it's usually the case that HR will only verify the bare objective facts of employment: dates of service, title, salary, etc.
I also know of at least one company where policy states everyone who leaves involuntarily is not eligible for rehire, and that includes people who were laid off due to downsizing/site closures/etc. So "not eligible for rehire" my not indicate any performance or behavioral issues.
You also sacrifice unemployment benefits in many cases, which costs businesses time to administer and risks fines and higher insurance rates. So, a lot of businesses will pressure you to quit instead of being fired, since it's easier for them.
If your employer previously tolerated your side gig then it's different.
An employer who forces employees to stop working from home or leave the company isn't firing them, for example.
I don't think an employer can legally force that, can they? They can request that employees stop working from home, and they can fire them if they refuse. Forcing them to come to the office would be kidnapping.
It was involuntary that is the point . It was not Sam idea to leave YC at the time
Your remote work example is not different companies ask a performance improvement plan they are saying improve your performance or leave. That “ or leave” doesn’t always mean you get fired legally , some companies would be more generous with severance if you resign voluntarily, but it doesn’t alter the fact you were asked to do so and effectively were fired.
Senior management typically leave by mutual agreement even if they “asked to resign”.
His employment was not terminated by YC legally yes , that would be rare and would happen if there is no trust left that he would do so properly when asked to resign, like it happened in OpenAI for him .
It's a bit of stretch to compare a side gig with someone becoming the CEO of a for-profit subsidiary.
How so? Aren't all side gigs solo entrepreneurial activities?
A side gig is something on the side, not your "main gig".
"I choose to be fired" is quitting in my books. There aren't enough hours in a week to work two 40-hour-a-week jobs if you also want to eat and sleep
These are not factory jobs, most of the job is about making consequential high stakes decisions.
It doesn’t take 40 hours of work all the time, especially if you can delegate well.
Yeah. The provided explanation certainly sounds like firing to me. If he had been performing at a level worthy of his continued employment he wouldn't have gotten the ultimatum.
It doesn't sound like he was incapable of doing that - just incapable of doing that while also running OpenAI.
Not that I’m looking to take any side here, but they could see it as a conflict of interest, especially given YC may wish to invest in competitors, which wouldn’t have anything to do with performance.
You chose to be fired, basicly quit.
(this whole terminology debate is so futile and useless, mental food for the bored. WTF cares which exact colorful sticker we put on disagreements and the consequent parting. It's over, carry on.)
No, you resigned. It’s completely possible to have adult conversations and to part ways without being terminated for cause (which “fired” is a euphemism for).
Important in this context is the board members insinuation that sam was unwanted. According to pgs account, that was not the case.
Perhaps we can agree that "firing" is a fairly fuzzy term, and maybe not entirely fit to meaningfully contain, both:
a) me losing my job because I am (apparently) not creating enough value for the company
b) me losing my job because I am not willing to split time between my current main gig and my unicorn startup
Departure by mutual agreement can be a secret way of getting fired, but if both parties go out of their way to deny it was a firing, then I've no reason to doubt them. Even silence by one or both, which allows doubts to remain, isn't enough to be positive evidence that it was actually a firing, owing to the legal implications of different causes of departure in different jurisdictions.
I've had several job contracts which say I'm not allowed to have another job at the same time unless I have written permission, which they can't say no to without good reason — "This has become a conflict of interest, pick one" or "both of these are now full time, pick one" seem like reasonable grounds to for an employer to rescind permission.
(It's also one of the ways Musk gets flack, given how many companies he's CEO/CTO/president of).
Then your employer makes a diplomatic tweet, because you are known to be a Silicon Valley billionaire with grunges...
I ran a multi-million dollar a year non-profit and had a full-time job. It's not unusual to chair or "run" a non-profit and have a regular job, non-profits are actually set up to make this easy to do. If that non-profit somehow mystically turned into a for-profit enterprise, for a multitude of reasons (some less obvious) I would have clearly had to pick one or the other. If said non-profit had commercialized transformer as a service, I'd have quit DigitalOcean (double so if I was well vested).
Just to make it fair with the situation: I honestly don't know if I would have proactively quit one or the other. Depending on the workloads, I may very well have tried to moonlight both for a while, I'm unsure.
I don't think this tweet by Paul is weird at all.
multi-million dollar a year non-profit
At 24 I ended up as the chair of a not for profit that stood on top of $30 million of real estate _because no one else wanted to_. Getting quorum was impossible because we needed three out of five board members to show up to a meeting.
People have this idea it's mustache twirling villains running these things. It's usually the idiot thats about to burn out.
It's usually the idiot thats about to burn out.
99 times out of 100 it's that idiot. The only time it's not is when it is someone that has figured out how to truly benefit themselves from the appointment. Whether ethically or no.
Everyone wants to be Mitchell Baker.
Baker was the CEO of the Mozilla Foundation.
For what it's worth, the above comments are talking about serving on the board of directors of a foundation -- which is most often part-time and not paid.
Baker is the Chairman of Mozilla Foundation and is (was) the CEO of Mozilla Corporation.
From your link: “Executive Chair of the Board, Member of the Nominating and Governance Committee”
As Chairwoman of Mozilla for the last two decades, Mitchell Baker...
Also from my link
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/leadership/#mitchell-bak...
Yes, but for what it's worth, I was reading the above comment as being about the large compensation package that Baker received as the CEO of Mozilla Foundation.
A compensation (as CEO of Mozilla Corporation) which is set by (I imagine) the board of the Mozilla Foundation.
Happy to hear that my experience in non-profits was not unique.
One of these days I should write a book about it.
Question: It's 2 am, a dead opossum is stuck in the main drain for the property and the water is rising during a once in a decade storm. What do you do?
Answer: Wade neck deep into the water, with a stoner tripping on mushroom holding a light, then stab it with a crowbar until the water pressure flushes it down.
And the stoner tripping on mushrooms was you, but you didn't realise it wasn't someone else at the time? :)
Maybe you could turn it into a movie script, something like 'Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas'?
Was that part of chairman duties?
“One of these days I should write a book about it.”
Please do!
Glad to know you didn't get sucked down too, neck deep water draining has some crazy strength. I'm sure that was quite a magical experience for Flashlight Stoner as well!
as another idiot about to burn out, it's not unique. :)
Genuine question: Why did you include "about to burn out" in the description?
Is it because the chairing the non-profit is enough work/burden that it causes folks to burn out, or does this role tend to attract people who are already on the path to burning out, or some other thing?
I thought that was a really interesting detail to include but couldn't quite figure it out on my own. :)
Thanks in advance!
It's often people who have a hard time saying no who end up spread thin over a number of gigs - this leads to burn out. Or not showing up to meetings... The 3/5 of the board who can't be rounded up are also signed up for too many things.
When I was chair of a small non-profit (currently still a board member after a hiatus for a few years), I'm not sure I'd have described it as burnout but increased lack of engagement and interest definitely became a problem over time. When we did require in-person votes/quorums, that did become a problem because it usually required traveling for most board members 2 or 3 weekends a year.
At some point, while I was on hiatus, the board did change its rules to allow telephone and, later, Zoom attendance which has been IMO something of a mixed bag but probably inevitable especially post-COVID. I'd like people to get together in person more but it's harder than when the board skewed younger; people have more family responsibilities at this point and, of course at this point, a lot of people just have less patience about getting together physically when business can mostly be taken care of over a couple hour Zoom call.
Fortunately, the non-profit's regular activities and finances have been on a pretty even keel so the board mostly just keeps an eye out for problems.
IME: because the people who are ok with abandoning things are gone, and people who are not ok with abandoning things are stuck there due to some kind of fucked-upness (in the grandparent, lack of quorum) that makes it impossible to 'properly' depart until they just can't do it any more. I chaired an organization for four years (in a planned term of two years) and had nobody interested in being my successor. Finally I said "I can't be involved in this any more" and basically disappeared on them.
Not sure if it's what was meant, but an HOA board isn't too far off of that description. In my experience, the job is necessary but relatively thankless and uncompensated. No one wanted to volunteer their time, and I was interested in cash flow and a building improvement so I served for a year. The only other board members ran uncontested and also had very demanding jobs outside of the association. Everyone else was happy to let us take care of all the minutiae of coordinating maintenance, budget, property management, etc. It was a lot of work.
So to answer your question, I've observed that it attracts people who are already ambitious in other aspects of their life (and maybe a little too generous with their own time), and the extra work it entails compounds with their other commitments which can lead to burnout.
amusing, private foundations + a donor advised fund is way better, have you tried that?
They didn't seem to mind him running Worldcoin though. Doing two (several) jobs problem came later and this explanation doesn't really address this.
Personally I don't care if pg is completely honest or if sam was fired or not. It doesn't have meaningful impact on my view of either.
The tweet specifically says "if he was going to run OpenAI full-time ..". Sounds like they were fine with him moonlighting other projects, Worldcoin, OpenAI as a non-profit, but if YC wasn't going to be his primary "full-time" focus then he would need to choose.
Feels entirely reasonable.
Sounds like they were fine with him moonlighting other projects
Even that’s not quite right. OpenAI had been a research project inside YC. So there was no “moonlighting” about it (and Worldcoin started around the same time Sam left YC).
It seems everyone accepted that things qualitatively changed when OpenAI stopped being a non-profit research project inside YC to becoming a for-profit venture, and they just had an adult conversation about it.
Was OpenAI at all affiliated with YC? I think they were entirely independent organizations.
OK, it was independent but established with funding from YC Research and Jessica (among others including Sam himself and Elon) and initially operating from YC office space.
So it was always something that was closely linked to YC and his involvement with it was generally accepted as being harmonious with his role running YC, until it became for-profit.
Details here:
https://www.wired.com/2015/12/how-elon-musk-and-y-combinator...
They didn’t seem to mind him running Worldcoin though
He left YC in March 2019. Worldcoin was formed in 2019.
Crunchbase says the WorldCoin seed round was January 2019.
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/worldcoin/investor_f...
Right, so, no evidence that they had no problem with him running Worldcoin. It could all have been part of the “Sam now has too much on his plate to adequately focus on YC” conversation.
I haven’t ever heard of worldcoin but ChatGPT has actually made it to the average person’s lexicon, and been covered in the NYTimes repeatedly. Surely some non jobs take more effort than others…
Sometime things becomes a problem when they start having practical impacts.
Not everything is a matter of principle
For context, Helen Tonor [0] was a board member of OpenAI before they tried to fire Sam Altman. She claimed that Sam was fired by YC in a recent interview [1]. In the interview, she implied that Sam's firing at YC was kept quiet and that there was something underhanded about it.
I read there was additional drama related to Sam leaving YC; unilaterally declaring himself Chairman of YC, including a YC blog announcement that was quickly deleted. [0]
Of course theres additional drama and context. PG is retconning it to make himself look less incompetent and absent.
Paul Graham would have been officially retired from YC at the time. Jessica Livingston still worked full-time at YC for some years after Paul Graham hired Sam Altman to replace him as president and hired Dan Gackle to replace him as moderator. If Paul Graham had not been retired, this entire conversation wouldn't exist. His retirement is why Altman was president of YC.
Accusing Graham of being "absent" sounds silly.
And yet here he is talking about how he was making the decisions.
No, we're talking about Jessica Livingston making a decision. It's right there in the statement.
Lol no in the statement he says "we" in the wsj its just his wife. The buck stops...somewhere?
Well, if you want to read it tendentiously, I guess your choices are the buck stopping with Jessica, with Paul, or with Jessica and Paul. Seems straightforward to reason about.
He was still one of the two main founders and married to the other main founder. He wasn't totally uninvolved with the company.
He still did Office Hours, at least for a time. He described that as "ten percent of what he did" and hired at least two people to divide up the other 90 percent.
I imagine he and Livingston discussed the company over breakfast/dinner and a lot of decisions were likely joint decisions privately hashed out. It's a company founded by a dating couple who later married. There is probably no clear, bright dividing line between "her" decisions and "his."
What does it mean to be officially retired in the YC firm world view anyway... if you have a significant ownership stake are you actually ever really retired? Are major decisions not vetted by the stakeholders? YC was founded by JL and PG (I'd assume equally). And this decision is now described as a JL decision.
Anyway, there's a Hollywood movie in this drama... maybe I'll write a script using ChatGPT... :)
As a guess: It means he got to see his kids grow up instead of working 100 hours a week.
He handed off a lot of the day-to-day scut work. He didn't go "I'm just a shareholder who reads the annual report and counts my pennies from the DRIP."
But the original post says otherwise, who do I believe?
I would give more credibility to the firsthand account (PG & Jessica) rather than speculations from a fired board member.
I think that the split seems amicable, but from a 10k view “we had a convo telling Sam he couldn’t do both at once” leading to him leaving rhymes with a firing. Sometimes this stuff can be amicable!
He had a choice to either go to work the next day or not as he preferred. That isn't a firing in the usual sense of the word. As described it is an amicable end to his time at YC that was agreed on by both parties.
If people really want to describe that as "fired" there is no stopping them. But it isn't. PG is more correct than that quadrant of the backseat managers.
Paul explicitly states they wanted him to stay.
Firing implies you want somebody gone.
and a fired board member who didn't have anything to do with YC
Jessica and by extension PG are early investors in OpenAI.
So it's not like they are impartial parties either.
No one, it's all PR game at play here, and there's no reason that anyone is being fully transparent.
To be fair to Helen Toner, she was probably was going off the Washington Post/WSJ articles that were discussed here 6 months ago.[0] And pg has been trying to de-sensationalize the issue ever since, and often doing a pretty terrible job at it by complimenting Altman without directly denying certain statements.
The WP article implied that there was a drop in Altman's performance and hands-on presence due to multi-tasking of his other interests including OpenAI, whereas pg seems to imply that jl gave the ultimatum to Altman before there were any performance complaints.
It's also a little strange that pg doesn't mention the for-profit Worldcoin at all, which announced a 4 mil seed round a few months prior to Altman exiting YC and for which Altman was already CEO.
I'm not sure pg is aware how much he's risking, or how much he's putting Jessica's reputation at risk. He often posts touting Jessica as being a great judge of character.[1] The world is witnessing in real time just how great a character his prince really is. But at least he had the courtesy to mention that Jessica was the one that gave Altman the ultimatum.
There was something missing in his post though. He forgot to add "Sam and Paul" at the end of his statement.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216
[1] To be fair, it's usually for determining whether the person has characteristics that make a good startup founder, like resilience or co-founder compatibility. "Having moral fiber" might be at the bottom of the list in terms of priority.
“To be fair Helen was going off of “articles” from WaPo” is some kind of defence. What kind of competence did she have if she just forwards stuff without thinking or investigating first? I would say this solidifies why she wasn’t fit for the job
The WaPo article states unambiguously that Altman was fired from YC for dropping the ball. It apparently cites three anonymous sources from YC, not pg. Why would she bother investigating whether that was true or not when she was already fired from OpenAI? You would only know that was disputed if you were actively following pg's twitter account, or somebody quoting pg's tweets.
Honestly, I thought her Ted ai interview was balanced and reasonable. I don't recall her mentioning yc, but I might have missed it.
That said, the interviewer tries to sensationalize the upcoming interview as much as possible in the intro, so I didn't love that
I was fired from Taco Bell as a kid and I would talk trash about the management and the company to anyone who asked.
I can't imaging being fired from a company like OpenAI and being asked my thoughts about the people responsible and the company and people taking it seriously! LOL
The comments here and on Twitter are really weird. I don't like the guy either but surely anyone has to agree that there's a difference between being told, "We don't want you on as CEO anymore", and being told "We want you as CEO but we need a CEO who's only focused on one company"? It seems weird to describe the situation where Altman is asked to choose and chooses OpenAI as "he was fired from YC".
There is definitely a difference to discuss, but simplified it still states "Unless you change your behavior, you need to go", as suck, I don't feel that "fired" is inaccurate.
This feels reductive. He was asked to choose between two jobs, and told that he couldn't have both. He chose one of them. Describing that as being "fired" is whack. "He was fired for choosing to work somewhere else instead of here", really?
In layman's terms, we call that "quitting"!
I would call it an ultimatum.
Quitting: You decide that it's time to go.
Firing: Your boss decides that it's time for you to go.
Ultimatum: Choose between these options, or it's time for you to go.
The only part that might not be right is the tone. I think "ultimatum" sounds a bit adversarial, whereas PG is describing something more cooperative in nature.
You’re not “fired” if you were given an option to continue in the job.
How so? If my boss tells me that I have to stop my out-of-work political activism or he he'll fire me, what would you call that?
Both scenarios involve a loss of control over one's professional destiny, not by choice but by external forces...
Are you making the argument that "every situation which involves losing control over one's professional destiny is by definition a situation in which one is fired"? If so, I disagree. If not, I don't see the relevance.
Are you making the argument that "every situation which involves losing control over one's professional destiny is by definition a situation in which one is fired"?
No, I am saying these two are similar.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is that trying to pull an Elon Musk one...Has relevance to the professional ethics of the current manager of the OpenAI new safety team...
Aha so you're saying you agree with me, calling this a firing isn't appropriate. It's just similar to a firing in that both involve not working at a place anymore. Cool
Ah..ah..nice try:-) That is like those cheating husband arguments.
- You are not leaving me...I am leaving you!
Person A to person B: "Hey I love you, please stay with me but you have to choose between me and person C"
Person B: "okay I choose person C, bye"
Person B left
---
Contrast with:
Person A to person B: "I'm leaving you because you have a relationship with person C"
Person A left
---
It's really not complicated, and I seriously don't understand why so many people here don't get it... whether you're fired or resigning, and whether you're the person leaving or the person being left, depends on who has the agency. If you're making the choice, you're resigning. If you have no say, you're being fired.
People leave their jobs all the time because their job requires something from them that they don't want to give. That's not being fired, that's resigning. (If the job requires something which you're unable to give, such as if you're doing as good of a job as you can reasonably do but your employer requires you do better still and you're just not good enough, then you don't have the agency; you're being fired.)
Now, I'm done with this conversation, if you have a counter argument then try to think hard about what I would say in response. You can handle both sides of this conversation from here. I have been clear enough.
The comments here and on Twitter are really weird. I don't like the guy either but surely anyone has to agree that there's a difference between being told, "We don't want you on as CEO anymore", and being told "We want you as CEO but we need a CEO who's only focused on one company"? It seems weird to describe the situation where Altman is asked to choose and chooses OpenAI as "he was fired from YC".
But maybe not as big a difference as some make it out to be. A PIP is technically a statement of "we want you to be an employee, but we need you to change X to stay," but someone doesn't meet the PIP requirements you'd still say they were fired.
If someone can't meet the PIP requirements, then they're fired.
If someone could easily meet the PIP requirements, but decides to leave instead, then they left.
In my mind, the entire question is about who has agency.
A PIP is almost always a formal nothingburger as a paperwork enforced means to get someone fired. Very often the goals of PIPs are either ridiculously high or nonsensically vague as to be interpreted in whatever way that would please the person doing the firing.
It gives a false sense of "agency" for the employee. In reality, the employee was already fired 3 months ago in the mind of the manager.
Right. So there's no real agency, so it's a firing. Unlike the case where you're just asked which of the two companies you want to be CEO of.
No, it's not a simple binary like that. PIPs aren't about ability, they're about performance (as in "doing the thing"). For instance, someone who can meet the PIP requirements can still choose not to meet them yet also choose not to resign. Those choices will probably lead them to be fired.
Like if I say to my boss, "Hey I want to reduce my position to 50% to spend 50% of my time working for this other company", and they respond with "Sorry, we don't want part-time employees", and I respond "ok I quit", who in their right mind would describe that as me getting fired?
Did he actually ask to reduce his position? As far as I'm aware, being a CEO is never based on hours worked, and there are plenty of other CEOs with multiple commitments.
The way the tweet is phrased makes me think he was asked by the board to choose, so I guess a more appropriate analogy would be:
I'm employed by a company, I start a side gig which I spend 50% of my productive time on, my boss eventually tells me that they need someone in my position to be a proper full time employee and I need to choose. I respond, "okay, in that case I resign".
There's no difference between the two analogies in my eye, they're the same except that the first is about asking permission while the second is about just doing it.
I suppose you also think all these executives really quit to be with their family?
That's a completely different question. You're alleging that Paul is lying, which might very well be the case. I'm just saying that if everything Paul said is correct, I don't think the word "fired" is appropriate.
Fired generally implies that the employee was removed because they were not needed or they were adding negative value. It does not appear to be the case here.
Sam was given an option to continue with YC but he chose a bigger project.
Fired means forced to quit employment. It's not illegal to have two jobs, they made him choose, thus firing him. I don't know why Paul is so defensive about this.
they made him choose
Correct.
thus firing him
Not correct, because he was free to keep the YC job by leaving OpenAI.
Firing is when you aren't given a choice.
Firing is when you aren't given a choice.
Actually, that's not what it is.
Your boss can be like, "Hey, you can continue working here but you will need to take a 50% paycut." You say, "Uh, no." So, you end up leaving the place.
Were you fired? Yes, that's being fired. They were renegotiating the terms of your employment - just like they were with Sam. The terms of his employment now became contingent on not working at another company - which weren't the terms of his employment before.
Were you fired? Yes, that's being fired.
No, it's not. It's getting a (horrific and generally unrealistic) pay cut. In more realistic terms, things like 10% pay cuts sometimes do happen when a company is struggling, and nobody calls those "firings". Because they're not.
Words have meaning. Being fired has a specific meaning, which is a different meaning from being laid off, and is a different meaning from quitting/resigning when you don't like how your job has changed.
(Also, terms of full-time employment often are contingent on not working full-time at another company -- this is a pretty standard clause. So the terms didn't necessarily change at all -- what changed was Sam became CEO of another for-profit company. That was his choice.)
Oh cool. I'm not firing any of my employees then. I'm just saying, "Hey, you can continue working here as long as you work for free! No benefits either, haha! You're totally not fired though - just gotta work for free! Definitely don't try to file anything with the unemployment office because it won't work! You're totally not fired!"
Also, terms of full-time employment often are contingent on not working full-time at another company -- this is a pretty standard clause
This is also not in any contract that I've ever signed and I've been in SV for a decade.
Your example is nonsensical. There are minimum wage laws. And if somebody is not getting paid at all, then of course they are fired. You've completely changed the example to where they clearly are fired, so I don't know what you're trying to argue.
This is also not in any contract that I've ever signed
Are you sure you've looked? It can also be implicit in standard clauses such as the company owns all rights to all of your work. In which case starting a second job would be fraudulent.
But of course it's also one of those things that's so common sense it doesn't need to be written into a contract in at-will employment countries (although it often is). There's the expectation in a full-time salaried professional job that the employer is getting all your productive professional work. It's mentally impossible to give 100% to two full-time jobs simultaneously. There's no reasonable expectation that anyone should be able to hold a second full-time CEO job. Nobody is "changing the terms" when the terms are commonly understood. If you start showing up to work shirtless and it wasn't in your employment contract that you're required to wear a top, complaining that they're "changing the terms" is missing the point entirely.
Considering a shit ton of employees in SV are working on their own projects in their spare time, start their own companies, and moonlight - I don't think this is as common in contracts as you're making it out to be.
The example is in the headline.
No, a great deal of that is explicitly prohibited.
If you work for Google, they own anything you develop on the side. They're actually nice in that they have a review process where they will give you your rights back if they decide it isn't competitive with any of their lines of business.
A lot of other companies don't even provide that. If you start a business on the side, they own all of its IP. Period.
This is extremely common. Both with large corporations as well as with startups. You just might not be aware of it.
Why are you trying to make this argument with a hyperbolic and/or inapplicable definition? Working for free would mean no job or slavery. It's not an effective way to make an argument in this case.
So if I go to my boss and say I have another job X, they say choose, and I say no thanks I'll keep both. What's going to happen? They essentially fired him, but with different paperwork. Paul is being pedantic.
Making him choose isn’t generally considered firing.
No, you still had the choice of quitting the job at X and keeping the one with your boss.
Therefore it's not firing.
Words meaning things isn't being pedantic. It's that words actually have meaning and you can't just change them to mean what you want -- not if you want to be understood when you communicate.
It's no different from if your office moves to a different building 5 minutes away and your boss says you have to show up at the new address and you say no thanks I'll only go to the old address. You're not "essentially fired but with different paperwork". You're being unreasonable and choosing to quit.
Expecting to keep a full-time position at one company while also being a full-time CEO somewhere else is being unreasonable and Sam chose to quit.
Two things: first, you could choose to prioritize the first job whereas firings are unilateral, second, consider yourself in a similar situation making a similar choice and then someone describes you leaving as being fired. You would likely feel badmouthed because of the specific connotations that word has.
Oh probably worth considering that we can describe the last position you voluntarily left as being fired - you weren't going to show up anymore, so what was going to happen? You got fired but with different paperwork.
Easy to understand why he would want to make it look smooth Sam has now generated an incredible amount of power since being at YC. Also most people when they part ways with an organization want to smooth any differences in case there is some way to work together in the future.
Also FWIW it just sounds like PG needed someone full time at YC - Sam couldn't and thus he went elsewhere. The length of discussion on this thread is quite long given the banality of the content. Yes I realize by commenting I am adding to that length.
I was given an option to improve my performance, but I chose a different path.
Look if this was dave from some no name company, there would be no real debate about what happened.
Altman isn't special, he's just rich and well connected.
Altman was booted from YC because he shouldn't have been making money from his side gigs. He broke the rules, and had some level of consequence.
Now that he's rich, and famous, he's not going to get much consequence, unless he vaporises a lot of money from the wrong people. But then he might be WeWork cult leader good and get away with it.
Sam was already rich, famous, and well-connected when he worked for YC.
He is still chasing money so clearly he doesn't see himself as rich enough.
In risk capital businesses making money from side deals/gigs has long been acceptable, but there has always been a line and Sam danced right over even the most generous conception of it and was duly removed.
Agreed. Hard to say he was "fired" when he had a chance to stay if he decided to leave his other project. Like, "You are fired -- but you can stay if you want."
If you don't stop your side gig, we're going to have to part ways.
If you don't stop spitting in the food, we're going to have to part ways.
Sam didn't want to leave but had to leave.
No you’re twisting meanings here. If it was just “stay if you want” that wouldn’t be firing but saying “if you want to remain here you have to stop doing X” is firing someone full stop
or they were adding negative value
It seems pretty clear that PG thought Sam was distracted from his YC job and forced him to choose.
That would imply that Sam was adding negative value to YC, and PG replaced him as a result.
The weirdest part for me in how this is worded is that Paul G learned about OpenAI’s for-profit arm through an announcement and wasn’t something that Sam sought his or Jessica’s advice on. For what it’s worth that alines pretty closely with Helen Toner’s narrative that he kept the board in the dark and they (or she) learned about things through announcements.
Also strange that PG didn't know that Sam had invested in OpenAI through YC until today.
I didn't see that in the OP, are you referencing some other information?
Oh right, the twitfuckers don't display threads anymore. Thanks.
Can you elaborate on what 'twitfuckers' means in some nuance?
If you're signed in you'd see threads, right?
Do you think it's bad or unreasonable they try to fight against at least unsophisticated bots and mass scraping attempts?
Somehow the bot problem got much worse since Elon took the helm.
It’s bad and unreasonable to link to deep web content on a different site.
If you're using a secure browser, Xitter doesn't even display single tweets any more. Just:
Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection (Strict Mode) is known to cause issues on x.com
(lovely inversion of responsibility gaslighting, too)
And obviously it wasn't influencing me, since I found out about it 5 minutes ago.
"Obviously".
Is it? They state they've funded 5000 companies since 2005[1], and if that was evenly spread per year, that's about a company a day. Maybe pg only pays attention to the ones that other people bring to his attention given that amount, and maybe he "knew" about OpenAI in that it was in some report he skimmed or was mentioned but maybe it was seen as entirely handled since it was a project for someone else there. It could entirely have been out of mind within a week or two of him "knowing" it and then it's quickly forgotten, and may seem like new information when it comes up years later.
Is it?
Yes.
Weird that he wouldn't know about a company YC invested in that has an 80B valuation? Yeah... that does seem weird.
Yes! I think Sam was always Paul and Jessica’s goodest boy and if they found this out by announcement it was likely quite hurtful and explains how rumors spread that he was fired for it.
and explains how rumors spread that he was fired for it.
And maybe why PG apparently put no effort into dispelling those rumors for months despite being asked to comment on them by places like the Washington Post and there being plenty of discussion about them here and on Twitter.
He obviously knew about the rumors and he had plenty of time and opportunity to clarify things previously. But it wasn't until some other external party starts criticizing Altman in the press and we seemingly get an "only I can pick on my little brother" type response.
Because that timing is the weirdest thing to me. If PG really cares and respects Altman as much as he always seems to claim, why allow these rumors to persist for so long and suddenly choose this moment to dispute them?
Perhaps because some things a out how sama did the Apple deal rattled even Microsoft
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-ceo-cements-c...
why PG apparently put no effort into dispelling those rumors
$100bn is a good motivator!
I suspect the truth is he was fired but Paul is afraid to say that so has come up with a counter narrative. Paul is very clever like that.
It doesn’t necessarily mean he is lying though. Our brains change our memories such that it fits our current narratives.
"Maybe it's better/a good time you leave" as part of a conversation is one such way to recommend someone leave rather than a likely alternative.
I don’t understand. Do you care to explain?
That kind of phrasing often carries an undertone of "and if you don't leave voluntarily, we will fire you".
I understand that. Thanks.
I just don’t know how this relates to what I wrote.
A talk with YC head like Paul or other, a "read the room" situation, the writing is on the wall, etc.
That's what offering someone an ultimatum is. "You either change your behavior or you stop working here." The encoded threat is that if you do not comply we will simply remove you.
It's somewhat mealy mouthed. "We didn't fire him. We just reached the penultimate step before having to fire him."
If I quit a job because they want everyone to return the office, was I fired?
Depending on the circumstances, it could be construed as constructive dismissal. Creating unfavorable ultimatums allows companies to 'lay off' people without having to pay severance.
Yes, and if you have a union you should talk to them about unemployment protection.
Yeah both their reputations are kind of screwed at this point so I don't really believe what they say based on just this
I wonder if he could be subpoenaed for Elon's lawsuit to testify under oath, with potential evidence gathered?
I don't get this speculation.
Lots of comments saying "it was still a firing", which makes no sense to me. Firing is not normally used to include situations where the outcome is totally under control of the person who is "fired".
And you say "Paul is clever like that", which just comes off as ridiculous shade to me. Paul may be clever, but he outlined some factual info that, if not true, would just be outright lying, which I don't think he would do. He fundamentally said the decision was always Altman's to make.
Also, I hate how this has become yet another case of using semantics disingenuously. Say what you will about the true meaning of "firing", but nearly everyone would interpret that as Altman got canned and YC didn't want him back. That's not what happened apparently. So all the people saying "it's still a firing" feels like the "I'm not touching you" game that 5-year-old siblings play.
I think it's pretty clear from all Sam's interviews that I've seen that he is a sociopath. I wonder why Paul didn't see it.
Can someone quote the whole thing here? Not everyone has a twitter / X account.
It's one tweet with an attached image; you can see it all without needing to be logged in.
[…] you can see it all without needing to be logged in.
No, you can't, Twitter is degenerating further:
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.
[Try Again]
/!\ Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection (Strict Mode) is known to cause issues on x.com
This just means that there are exceptions for twitter.com that haven't been switched to x.com. I use uBlock Origin with all scripts and third party resources blocked by default and got this page when they switched to x.com, but it works once you unblock the same stuff on x.com that was unblocked on twitter.com.
The exception is that some accounts still require login to read. I'm not sure why but I'm guessing that it might be a per account setting that won't be set by accounts that haven't logged in for a long time (I don't have an acount to check). Actually, worble and ploum's comments below would explain what I see, I usually don't try to check the same content twice (or anything all that often) so I wouldn't notice if it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
So that's why I couldn't access Twitter while using FF. Interesting. That notice wasn't there before.
Sometimes twitter just decides that it's had enough of you and won't show anything. I can't figure out what triggers this but one day you'll find you can't see anything, and then the next day you'll be able to view it just fine.
Twitter is quickly becoming as bad as discord for siloing information.
We can't know before clicking whether it's a single image, single statement, or 800-tweet essay that should have been a blog post. (Unless someone tells us, as you did here).
All too often it's the latter, meaning anyone without an account can't see the content, meaning it has zero value. No way in hell am I creating an account. So the conclusion is twitter links are now useless.
YMMV : sometimes, X seems to force being connected. Sometimes not. And when not, it sometimes bury the tweet in lot of popups to ask you to connect which makes it very painful to access the information.
So, yeah, if people could stop assuming everybody can read X/Linkedin/Facebook, that would be nice…
I use one of the few remaining nitter instance:
Be careful to never drop the subdomain on that one, there are some real fun types of people there.
I was a curious cat - what a weird place. Lots of discussions about "jews", anime and how hard white people have it. Feels a bit like *chan displayed on a Twitter-like UI.
Paul Graham (@paulg):
I got tired of hearing that YC fired Sam, so here's what actually happened:
People have been claiming YC fired Sam Altman.
That's not true. Here's what actually happened.
For several years he was running both YC and OpenAI,
but when OpenAI announced that it was going to
have a for-profit subsidiary and that Sam was going
to be the CEO, we (specifically Jessica) told him
that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAI,
we should find someone else to run YC, and he
agreed. If he'd said that he was going to find
someone else to be CEO of OpenAI so that he could
focus 100% on YC, we'd have been fine with that
too. We didn't want him to leave, just to choose
one or the other.
People have been claiming YC fired Sam Altman. That's not true. Here's what actually happened. For several years he was running both YC and OpenAI, but when OpenAI announced that it was going to have a for-profit subsidiary and that Sam was going to be the CEO, we (specifically Jessica) told him that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAI, we should find someone else to run YC, and he agreed. If he'd said that he was going to find someone else to be CEO of OpenAI so that he could focus 100% on YC, we'd have been fine with that too. We didn't want him to leave, just to choose one or the other.
So the YC board found out Altman would be CEO of a for-profit OpenAI when it was publicly announced, just like the OpenAI board found out about ChatGPT when it was publicly announced. Thanks for the clarification!
What in earth are you talking about? PG is clearly saying he was running both for years, everyone knew, everyone was happy, but when openai became a for profit, it was time to choose.
Nothing nefarious, nothing sneaky, no tricks, nada, ziltch.
The immense bias, bull, made up junk, and outright maliciousness in some of these replies is beyond disgusting.
Your employer found out you were planning on having two "real" jobs, you pretend you did not notice...and accuse others of maliciousness?
You left out the part where PG wrote that Altman had already been doing two jobs for several years ("For several years he was running both YC and OpenAI").
OpenAI the non-profit was partly funded by YC or at least affiliated with "YC Research." So it is still odd for them to find out about the quasi-conversion to for-profit like that.
Your comment reads as if you think I'm Altman.
In English “you” can be used as a generic, impersonal pronoun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
CEO isn’t that kind of job. I don’t have any love for Altman but this reasoning doesn’t fly. You can be CEO of multiple companies at once, and apparently he had been for some time.
You can be CEO of multiple companies at once
PG did not think so....
You are quick to characterize the comments but you don’t demonstrate any evidence that you are following the argument to which you replied.
Try reading again both there original tweet and the comment you replied to, slower this time.
>PG is clearly saying he was running _both_ for years,
Friendly clarification about "both" because the OpenAI structure is very confusing and muddies up the narrative.
(1) first in 2015, there was the 501c3 non-profit OpenAI entity. From the public statements, this was more of a "idealistic research & development" organization to create truly open and publicized machine learning data & algorithms so humanity wouldn't be beholden to big tech like Google "controlling AI". This is the entity that Elon Musk and others (including YC Jessica Livingston) donated $40+ million to and the one that Sam was "running for years" along with YC. Maybe this non-profit R&D gig seemed more like a "part-time" job to PG.
(2) then in 2019, OpenAI created a new for-profit OpenAI company (a subsidiary) to raise money and build proprietary products. Sam was then tapped to also run this for-profit company. This new entity is not part of the "running both for years". That's where PG said Sam needed to choose where to be full-time. The additional responsibilities of being the CEO for the new for-profit company was a change in circumstances.
Nothing nefarious, nothing sneaky, no tricks, nada, ziltch.
"When OpenAI announced that it was going to have a for-profit" clearly indicates it wasn't something that was communicated beforehand to YC.
The immense bias, bull, made up junk, and outright maliciousness in some of these replies is beyond disgusting.
Imagine if you were in a classroom and some new students entered the room and all sat together in a group and were wearing walkie talkies, and then started shouting out comments non-stop at the teacher that seemed to have some non-constructive motive.
You would see something was up immediately.
On the Internet this is harder to see.
Why is the text in a picture typewriter style? Is he trying to project formality?. Odd person
It's a monospaced font and he's a computer programmer. Probably a screenshot from emacs or whatever text editor he uses. Not that weird.
I expect my aging parents who were working full time before personal computers existed to know how to copy and paste text instead of taking a picture of a screen, and my bar for managing a technology incubator/fund is higher than that.
Perhaps it was intentional to make it not copy pastable as text.
You’re aware that OCR-copying text from images is a builtin feature of smartphones and even some desktop OSes nowadays?
Respectfully, what in the world would be the point of that? It's not like it's impossible to reproduce the text if you can't copy/paste.
That’s what I came to ask. Why is it a picture at all? A screen shot of text rather than the actual text? If it’s posted from his own account why post a screen shot of something he wrote? That frankly makes it less authentic and more weird.
The font itself is weird. It’s not a programming monospaced font it’s a typewriter font which has weird kerning and other aspects that make it both noticeable and less useful than a console font.
What an end to end bizarre post.
That's just courier, which was originally developed by IBM in the 1950s for their typewriters, but is perfectly fine as a programming font. Heck, you can find it in use as a programming font (in books, reports, papers, etc) probably going back to the 1950, so it's been a "programming font" for nearly 70 years.
I’m not saying people didn’t use this font for a terminal but it’s not a font designed for terminals it’s designed to optimize the strike of a typewriter. Using it on a modern terminal is anachronistic at best, but using it to provide the content of a tweet in an image is bizarre.
Is he perhaps implying something nefarious about a typewriter? Maybe his typewriter disappeared and he's suspecting Sam Altman? Very suspicious.
You have said the actual truth
I thought the coveted "blue check" allowed long Tweets? Even less reason to post an image of text.
Who cares
Open your eyes, what do you see?
The cult of personality.
To expand further, to the tune of "you're welcome" from moana:
Okay, okay, I see what's happening here
You're face to face with greatness, and it's strange
You don't even know how you feel
It's adorable
Well, it's nice to see that humans never change
Open your eyes, let's begin
Yes, it's really me, it's Altman
Breathe it in
I know it's a lot
The hair, the bod
When you're staring at a demi-god
to the tune of "you're welcome" from moana
It's usually not necessary to indicate what tune the words are set to when you haven't changed more than one of them.
Or maybe I was assuming that not everyone reading this would be familiar with Disney show tunes.
I think you'll find that humans do many things that aren't necessary, particuarly when they're trying to convey something and it helps the reader understand
Now, I don’t regret my daughter adores Moana. As I can enjoy the joke thoroughly!
That is such a great album with some prescient messages. I know what I'm listening to today.
Please, make it the top comment already.
WTF is Sam Altman, asks a random busy folk from the other side of town not really interested in personal fame but common progress.
My sentiments exactly.
CEO of one of the most insert your chosen adjective here tech companies and formerly ran YC which runs Hackernews. I can't imagine a topic that this website would care about more…
Was it firing was it not? It's all semantics, people on both sides of the fence have legitimate reasons to choose one over the other. Get over it.
The real interesting bit, is that Paul Graham somehow thought it was worthwhile to stick his neck out and improve Sam Altman public image by clarifying he was ever fired from YC.
It was, obviously, not a firing.
A: Hey B, you must stop doing this thing or we'll need to replace you.
B: Ok, I can't do that. You can replace me
B proceeds to be replaced and no longer works there
Some time later...
T: obviously, B was not fired.
I don't know what any of this is paraphrasing. Here's what Graham actually said:
People have been claiming YC fired Sam Altman. That's not true. Here's what actually happened. For several years he was running both YC and OpenAI, but when OpenAI announced that it was going to have a for-profit subsidiary and that Sam was going to be the CEO, we (specifically Jessica) told him that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAl, we should find someone else to run YC, and he agreed. If he'd said that he was going to find someone else to be CEO of OpenAI so that he could focus 100% on YC, we'd have been fine with that too. We didn't want him to leave, just to choose one or the other.
He literally directly says they did not fire him and did not want him to leave.
Oh come on, both pg and Jessica are way too intelligent to not know what the choice is going to be coming into that conversation.
If you want to say Altman quit YC, I fully agree! That is clearly what he did.
Naturally. Same way samurai committed seppuku on their own volition too: it was clearly a way to part amicably, no need to call security.
This whole thread is so weird. It’s like people really want to say “yeah, Sam Altman was fired from YC”.
Like if "this thing" had been "doing drugs during the workday", would you have considered the scenario a firing?
Just like Ilya wasn't fired from OpenAI right, he just left slowly, amicably, and very thankfully
Of course all these people were fired, it's just in the world of very important VC and tech guys, just like in the world of politicians and bureaucrats you can't say that, because 'being fired' is for the desk clerks and floor moppers. Very important executive Bob of course wasn't fired, he choose to spend time with his family
If tweets had titles, the title of this one would literally be "YC in no sense fired Sam Altman", so really this is just Message Board Calvinball.
People have been claiming my wife left me. That's not true. Here's what actually happened. For several years I was sleeping with both her and another woman ...
It’s actually fine to sleep with multiple people over the same time span as long as everyone knows about it and everyone consents. It’s only a violation of trust when one of the people is under the impression they’re sexually monogamous with the person who has multiple sexual partners. Then that person has broken an agreement.
Sometimes in these situations, one party who was consenting to non-monogamy decides that they want to be monogamous. When that happens, their partner is asked to make a choice as to whether they want to participate in monogamy with that person or go their separate ways.
That’s what this is like.
You’re assuming “it’s a violation of trust!” is the hazard in this situation but that’s a very shallow, naive understanding of why having two “partners” is almost universally frowned upon. See the sibling comment for a full write-up.
The human psychological and interpersonal aspect is the real hazard. You either A) don’t find two other people that can emotionally handle it or B) do find two other people that can emotionally handle it but suffer from the trauma they’ve experienced that numbed them enough to be able to emotionally handle it, which is a hazard in itself. Either way, it just doesn’t work in the long run.
Only a sith speaks in absolutes. There exist numerous cultures, and world views
It’s actually not fine to do this regardless of if some people do so and pretend everyone’s fine with it
I mean literally yes? It's a weird analogy but if you decide to leave your wife for another woman then that's you leaving your wife, not your wife leaving you?
If you decide to leave one company to focus on working for another company then that's not the first company firing you, that's you leaving the first company?
"For several years I was sleeping with both her and another woman" generally implies that the wife left him, not that he left the wife. The guy in that scenario is pretty clearly fine not leaving his wife.
"For several years I was sleeping with both her and another woman" generally implies that the wife left him
No it doesn't.
"For several years, I was sleeping with both her and another woman, she eventually had enough and filed for divorce" means that the wife left.
"For several years, I was sleeping with both her and another woman, she eventually had enough so she asked me to choose between her and the other woman. I chose to leave her for the other woman" means that the husband left. He could have chosen to stay with the wife, but chose not to.
Did you commit to your company for the rest of your life, to have and to hold in sickness and in health?
I have some bad news for you
This is a terrible analogy that implies all instances of “doing two things at once” are somehow immoral. You would compare someone eating both steak and potatoes for dinner to an adulterer.
No, it's more like... People have been claiming I left my wife. That's not true. She had a guy BFF but then this guy publicly announced that my wife and him would start dating. So I said it's me or him. She chose him and we thereafter divorced.
but when OpenAI announced that it was going to have a for-profit subsidiary and that Sam was going to be the CEO
If anything (in case you're looking for a scoop), PG implies that YC found-out about Sam's raising the stakes on OpenAI through a third-party ("OpenAI announced"), which does not look good for Sam. There's even a subtle "but" in there. The firing versus resigning discussion is irrelevant, the focus is probably (and arguably) the lack of clear communication on Sam's part regarding a conflict of interest for both parties, YC and Sam.
As a counter-argument, OpenAI was a running show anyway, which YC was on the know and apparently openly allowed and the for-profit thing was just a matter of time.
Sometimes a topic comes up that you not only don’t care about, that you can’t even conceive of a way to incentivise yourself to care about it. It’s not that you harbour some hidden like or dislike, it’s just that to the extent humanly possible, you really REALLY don’t care.
Reading the replies and the tribal colours / flag waving is fascinating. I suppose This tribalism happens for every topic but it’s just hard to be gifted this perspective on topics your career is invested in.
It’s been fun reading clearly fabricated explanations that don’t base themselves on any objectivity but on the posters inner desires.
I have heard the term "wish casting" used to refer to this phenomenon. When people are deeply emotionally charged, they start asserting facts they want to be true, and ignoring the line between fantasy and reality, as if saying something enough makes it real
I see it almost exclusively online, and people don't seem to notice what they are doing.
Plus whenever powerful people are involved they get treated as these great masterminds, always conspiring, and it’s a given there’s more to the story than the plebs will never know about. So with that assumption people’s minds start filling in the blanks with all the things that are REALLY happening behind the scenes and anyone who doesn’t assume the same is naive at how the powerful operate (just look at Twitter discourse for anything related to the British monarchy).
IRL the vast majority of the time they are just flawed humans like the rest of us. Sometimes people take on more responsibilities in life than they can realistically handle. And everyone needs to be challenged and questioned whether they’re being honest with themselves at various points in their lives.
Yeah, there is a deep human drive to both form opinions on topics and fit them to narratives. Most people are deeply uncomfortable admitting that they don't know, cant know, or will never know something.
As a result, random people on the street form strong opinions on everything, from Sama's psychology and internal narrative to nuclear reactor design.
It is wildly delusional when you think about it.
This is self-referential right?
I think everyone is prone to it. Personally, i've been trying to be more selective about what I form opinions and stake claims about.
I’m highlighting the irony of your first comment. It’d make a great tweet.
can’t even conceive of a way to incentivise yourself to care about it
A lot of people on this forum came of age at a time when the internet and computers and tech companies built around them were ascendant and seen as a force for good in the world. We had the open source movement and peer-to-peer sharing and everything was going to be free and egalitarian and connected. Google was "organizing the world's information" and went from underdog to champion while telling us "don't be evil" was their core value. Kids who were bullied for being sincere and passionate were becoming the adults who ran things and got success and admiration.
Also, in the first ~decade or so that I was on HN speculative fiction about AI was extremely popular here. We weren't really sure if superhuman intelligence would happen anytime soon, but we all had the sense that if/when it did it better be designed and run by people with high ethical standards if we have any hope of avoiding major catastrophe.
(I personally see the concerns about mis-aligned "superhuman AI" and mis-aligned mega-corporations as representing essentially the same underlying anxiety: that there are powerful forces in the world that are beyond our ability to influence in meaningful ways but which have outsized effects on our environment and lives while being completely agnostic to our happiness or even our existence.)
Now we've been through one or more cycles of seeing our heroes turn into villains. Google got rid of "don't be evil". Musk turned his attention away from the stars and the "good of humanity" and toward petty political spats and gossip. And now OpenAI, which sold itself as the organization that will "do AGI" and do it the safe and ethical way, looks like it's run by somebody who is incredibly shrewd and self-serving.
So while I understand why you wouldn't care about this, I also completely understand why it's such an engaging topic for so many people here.
Everybody loves some sort of drama. If they don't find it, they invent it.
This seems revisionist, doesn't it?
The articles claiming this came out last year and Graham didn't return requests for comments or make any statements then. So why now? Why wasn't there more details when Altman left Y Combinator?
It sure sounds like a firing. If I was fired from a job because I was breaking some contract or rule, it seems weird for the employer to say they didn't fire me because if I hadn't broken the rule they would have been happy to keep me.
It sure sounds like a firing.
You fire someone when you don’t want them anymore.
In this case, he was asked to choose between YC and OpenAI (because doing both is too big a job).
That is not firing someone when they choose whether or not to stay.
That is not firing someone when they choose whether or not to stay.
That's only true if they left on their own accord. That isn't what happened.
They chose a different job (OpenAI) over YC. They chose to leave.
When I someone the option, that is not a firing.
I really don’t understand why you, and others who insist otherwise, have this worldview.
They said 'If you continue to do this thing then you can't work here, so you either stop or leave.' Had he stopped then he would have continued working for YC. That makes it pretty obvious that he wasn't fired - you aren't given the option to keep your job if you're fired.
That's like saying anyone put on a PIP that made the decision not to improve wasn't fired.
So why now?
Presumably because “[PG] got tired of hearing that YC fired Sam“
Why wasn't there more details when Altman left Y Combinator?
Why on earth should there be? If it was me I’d think it’s nobody else’s business and therefore be uninterested in sharing or explaining those details.
However once the world starts speculating and assuming something else happened, I can see why at some point it makes sense to provide some more detail to try to correct that, even if you’d rather not.
Paul Graham really likes hearing himself soeak, so it's weird he was quiet on this until now. One would have assumed that he was tired of hearing this way back last year. And his previous statements have indeed pointed more to it being a forceful split.
To me, the biggest thing here is that pg seems to be vouching for Sam, so this seems like an important rebuttal to Toner's attacks against Sam's character.
I don't know where you got that from. It seems easily possible that both of the following are true:
1. There was reporting and online discussion that sama was fired from YC. pg didn't believe this framing was correct and sent out his tweet to correct the record.
2. Toner made some very specific allegations about instances where sama was not truthful to the OpenAI board, especially with respect to instances of self-dealing.
If #1 is true (and I see no reason to believe it's not), that in no way implies #2 is false.
Toner has cast out a whole constellation of vague and non-specific incidents that motivated her to oust Sam. If the case was as open-and-shut as (2), why has Toner continued making vague and non-specific character attacks, and why did the board put out that bizarre "not consistently candid" line? Clearly, Microsoft didn't see much of a legal problem when Microsoft supported Sam's return to OpenAI and when Microsoft offered to hire Sam.
If Toner has been telling the truth about all of the myriad things that she claims happened, where was she when she was responsible for oversight during recent years? Toner comes across as unprofessional and reckless in how she handled all of this, whether her claims are true or not.
I wholeheartedly agree that the board's communication and how they handled the firing was woefully naive and extremely poorly done.
That said, you may have missed it but Toner alleged some very specific instances of lying and withholding information from the board: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40506582. That's very different from "vague and non-specific character attacks".
And, importantly, 4 total board members agreed that was the right action to take.
I believe that 2 things can be true:
1. Toner says some specific things.
2. Toner presents them alongside insinuations and plenty of vague and nonspecific things.
Apparently (1) wasn’t sufficient to justify her actions, so she’s had to resort to (2).
As for four board members, that’s a description of what the board did, not what Sam did. The board’s actions do not justify the board’s actions, however much Toner might wish that were the case. Just another insinuation in place of a reason.
Or that PG has a lot of money at stake which might suddenly become a lot less valuable if the public perception towards Sam were to lean towards Sam being unreliable as a CEO of OAI.
Terrible people have powerful people vouching for them all of the time (just look at the retinue of high-level politicians who showed up to support Trump at his trial). Sam is CEO of OpenAI, arguably the most important company on earth right now, and will be for the foreseeable future. A positive relationship with him is beneficial. I don't think you can infer anything about Sam's character from this tweet.
The tweet is weird.
For starters, it features a guy blaming his wife for a decision. Sounds like a certain Supreme Court justice. It is inherently bullshit.
Separately, corporate communications are as much about what you don't talk about as what you do.
Paul Graham probably wishes he could turn back the clock, and never fire Altman from YC in the first place.
They would have loved to have Altman be the figurehead of YC at this time.
I'm sure they had these conversations for months: "You can come back to YC as a figurehead president." The conversations went nowhere. Maybe YC was ready to genuflect, ready to co-administer the OpenAI startup fund, which is obviously Altman's BANTA. Like why deal with YC at all, when Altman could administer an index on all AI startups better than they can? That's what happened. What's in it for this billionaire Altman to generate wealth for YC LPs, at this stage?
The best Graham could do was this tweet. YC is not yet an index on all the best AI startups. End of story. This is an existential crisis for them. They are of course a great organization who sincerely care about people succeeding, but so do many accelerators and venture studios. So it's very hard to see this play out.
Sam Altman was incomprehensibly lucky. His feet which people stepped on were constantly connected to his ass which they had to kiss tomorrow. His executive collaborators also were people whose feet were stepped on and whose ass now gets kissed. Satya Nadella - the CEO of a far more successful and influential company - has to kiss these asses!
He even got fired from OpenAI - of course the science PhDs were right, he had to go, what's wrong with you people, you should always be on Team PhD - and yet again you must kiss his ass after stepping on his toes. The OpenAI board got mocked in the media, implications of being unqualified, with all the associated sexism, for doing their jobs correctly! Sounds like a certain toxic politician.
Truthfully, all of his antagonists should stop wasting their time worrying about this guy. Anthropic is likely to be very successful. Work for them! There are alternatives. It took only a year for competition to force OpenAI to make its core offering free. All the Thrive ass kissers may yet have bought billions of dollars of units of OpenAI that will turn out to be worth far less than they bargained for. Time will tell.
I'm curious how that read as blame to you? Because it read like a good and reasonable decision that he attributed to an important person at YC.
Always, in all the limited history of the world of corporate communications, attribution of a statement or a decision is meant to assign blame and infamy. This is corporate speech! It plays by different rules than the kids gloves stuff the 22 year old engineer hears from his 30 year old engineering manager.
I mean, it's called `git blame` for a reason. For every 1 person clicking "Annotate" to see who wrote some excellent code, there are 99 people clicking it to see whom to blame.
Your comment about git blame pierces me, but I still think you are off base about this thing specifically - Paul Grahm is talking about someone he respects, that he feels does not get seen as occupying an important role/decision maker due to eschewing credit.
It may pattern match as blame (and I think that heuristic about corporate speech is probably a good one), but I don't think that tracks in this context. Partially because it doesn't make sense on the personal and emotional level, and partially because it doesn't read as blame at all.
For starters, it features a guy blaming his wife for a decision
No. Jessica's role here was a founding partner of YC, not as "his wife." His tweet says that Jessica (not Paul himself, or both together) was the person who communicated with Sam that he needed to choose (and possibly also handled the matter overall).
For starters, it features a guy blaming his wife for a decision. Sounds like a certain Supreme Court justice. It is inherently bullshit.
As he happens to be a guy who frequently compliments his wife publicly on her contribution to YC, as well as on her being a good judge of character, it seems more likely it was meant as a compliment. As in, "it was her decision and I think it was the right one."[0] But this interpretation hilariously makes the statement less generous to Altman than it would have been.
[0] He also uses "We" even though he is technically retired from YC (?), thereby taking some responsibility for the decision and acknowledging that he wasn't a complete bystander.
I think we're about to see yet another AI winter, and the people who did not invest in AI will look smart in 2-3 years. I think we're a long way off from a general purpose AI - its not that AI isn't useful as a tool, it is - but its an additive tool to leverage human creativity.
Tweet is simply text on an image that reads:
"People have been claiming YC fired Sam Altman. That's not true. Here's what actually happened. For several years he was running both YC and OpenAI, but when OpenAI announced that it was going to have a for-profit subsidiary and that Sam was going to be the CEO, we (specifically Jessica) told him that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAI, we should find someone else to run YC, and he agreed. If he'd said that he was going to find someone else to be CEO of OpenAI so that he could focus 100% on YC, we'd have been fine with that too. We didn't want him to leave, just to choose one or the other."
Why even is it an image? paulg pays for twitter, he could have just tweeted the whole thing. It's bizarre.
Maybe it's to help distance one self from what you want to say or reverse seo thing?
Perhaps a habit from the days of more limited Twitter character counts.
You can't read an entire >280 character tweet without clicking on it.
Hey, if Paul Graham can post an announcement on Twitter/X as an image with Courier monospaced font (left justified) instead of just typing the actual text, then who am I to judge people sending me Word documents, containing bitmap images of screen captures of a photo showing an image of a handwritten note :-)
"We didn't want him to leave, we were very happy that he went off and started a different company while he was working for us, and when we asked him to please either work full time at the job we're paying for, he quit".
I know that Silicon Valley VC is all about relationships (read: not calling out shitty behaviour) but it's difficult to spin someone just full on walking off the job.
It's just a mild, appropriate reigning in. My main complaint about this story is how dull it is.
It's not a reigning in if he quit. It sounds a lot like Sam went off and found another job, didn't bother to quit his old one, and when challenged... quit.
I'm sure PG and many others don't want to get on the bad side of someone who controls a decent amount of deal flow, but really it's pretty obvious that's unacceptable behaviour. It's the same thing that happens with Elon Musk - people run around excusing the shitty things he does, but if you drill down the excuse is basically "Elon Musk controls a bunch of things that could line my pocket and I don't want to piss him off", that doesn't suddenly make things ethical.
It's not a reigning in if he quit
Reigning in an enthusiastic person they know, not an employee.
It sounds a lot like Sam went off and found another job, didn't bother to quit his old one
He didn't "find another job", or that's a silly way to put it. He was already was running OpenAI not for profit. When that company decided to create a for-profit subsidiary, and SA to go with it, is when they said to him he couldn't be both.
and when challenged... quit.
If you're saying he wasn't fired, you're right. He chose to leave and move to another company full time. That's what makes this such a dull topic.
Anyway - breaking this down point by point is unnecessary, because it's all in the original Tweet, and you're still saying what you're saying.
I mean sure... if you redefine Sam as not an employee then you can definitely argue he wasn't fired. Also, you seem to imply that OpenAI decided to start a non-from profit but.. isn't that just... Sam? Like Sam was running the non-for-profit, Sam decided to start a for-profit part of it -and from what we know of what went on at OpenAI it seems like Sam was the one driving that. So you're presenting this as if this was thrust upon Sam, but so far all we've seen seems to indicate the exact opposite, that all the way along Sam has been the one driving this.
To be clear, I'm not saying he was fired. I'm saying he acted unethically, pushed PG to the point where he gave an ultimatum and then quit, but PG is smart enough not to burn bridges.
if you redefine Sam as not an employee then you can definitely argue he wasn't fired
No, I'm saying the "reigning in" was a personal one, not an employee one. Obviously Sam was an employee.
So you're presenting this as if this was thrust upon Sam
No, I'm not. I'm saying he didn't go and find another job. His role changed with OpenAI's structure change, and he probably didn't think it through as to him it was a gradual transition.
I'm saying he acted unethically, pushed PG to the point where he gave an ultimatum and then quit, but PG is smart enough not to burn bridges.
Okay. At this point we're just doing celebrity gossip, but with tech celebrities. I've no idea if your guess is correct or not.
I think that you can't work as a CEO at one company and a responsible role at another one. Do you invest your whole life for two companies?
Don’t buy the hustle porn. Most people in these roles are leisure class and working essentially part time jobs. Their most important functions are PR and sales, which in this age aren’t nothing for sure — that’s just not enough work to really take your whole day. It’s why seeing people be CEO of multiple companies actually isn’t rare and how all these folks manage to hold down so many board seats while also working so much. Decision making, especially in technical companies, has to be delegated out of the C-suite.
That’s my observation at all the bigger companies I worked for. The manager of the manager of the lowest level workers has no contact with the workshop reality. They live in the PowerPoint world with hockey stick growth slides and ideal project plans. There were exemptions, but very rare. One level above has absolutely no touch with reality without any exemptions. Some of them were able to participate in meetings from the shower with enabled camera in the past… I doubt these are working hard.
Yup! Most people never fully grasp the extent to which this is true
This is nonsense. I know CEOs and they are not “leisure class”, managing the running of a company and executing on strategy is an endless job.
Sure some CEOs might drop out and play golf, but all that proves is you have slackers at any level of an org
That's a perfect article of what happened in reality.
They belong to a similar high social class and protect each other. If it were just a random employee with no power, money, or status that was moonlighting or trying to run their side business, they would be scrutinized and possibly sued. If their generated IP were any good, the company would claim it was theirs.
But yeah, if you are a CEO, you can run a few companies and participate in a couple of boards, even while not disclosing this to the many boards you partake in and having many businesses with conflicting interests. As you are part of the elite, you are safe.
I founded and ran a non profit for several years while I worked for a startup. I am the polar opposite of an elite. That’s just how non profits work.
Asking someone to choose one or the other is not the same as firing them. It’s clearly written that if Sam Altman had chosen YC he would have stayed there.
Exactly. I don't understand how people are getting that this is a difference.
If I offer you either chicken or pasta for a meal, and you pick the pasta, you don't get to say I denied you the chicken.
If you have a choice over which job you want to keep, you're not getting fired. It is very much a meaningful difference.
HN goes off the rails when it comes to successful ppl / companies. (OpenAI, Google, Tesla, Microsoft, Apple etc etc.)
It's almost like no one here wants to be a successful entrepreneur
Call me old an old fashioned economist but I believe that we all succeed better when there are many small companies. Not just a single big one.
So what are you saying? That deliberately misinterpreting and sensationalizing a clear statement is justified because of the size and success of OpenAI? There’s no good faith reading of PGs statement that implies Altman couldn’t have remained CEO of YC if he wanted to.
I couldn't care less about whatever hyped up argument involving OpenAI is the current drama.
I was just speculating on why some hn members might feel like entrepreneurs even though they have nothing in common with Sam Altman. And how it might even be in their long term interest for one man to not be quite so powerful.
You’re framing the argument in a way that prevents you from empathising with the other side and understanding it. This has nothing to do with being “successful”, it has to do with being highly influential while doing things which harm others to befit yourself.
A successful company or individual who does right by its users or employers and puts them above personal gain is lauded. Maybe people would prefer to be successful entrepreneurs who retain human decency.
Your argument also makes it sound like HN is a hive mind who all think the same. It’s not. You’ll find just as many people defending that behaviour as you’ll find detractors.
That’s pretty much how you fire someone. What would YC have done if Sam refused to choose?
No it isn't how you fire someone. What would YC have done had sama chosen to stay at YC? As per pg, they would've kept him.
And what if he had chosen both?
He got an ultimatum: choose to quit one or we’ll choose for you.
If you want to be super pedantic about it, then let’s just say that PG kicked him out, but Sam at least got a say in what he was being kicked out of.
JFC, no you don’t get to choose whatever you want and being denied the choice of your #1 preference is not being “forced” to do anything. Other people exist and have interests too, you know?
If he had chosen both then that is the same as choosing OpenAI. “Both” was not an option on the table.
Being told to commit or leave is not being kicked out. You can choose to commit and stay.
10 MB of network activity to read maybe 2 kb of text which was screen captured. What's the web coming to... God I'm ancient
Maybe the text came from legal/PR, or Sam himself, which he decided to just screen capture and post, instead of copy-paste.
it’s X though, all social media and most news sites are like that
Stated positively - 10mb loaded in 400ms
That's ~10 minutes with ISDN.
Narrator: they fired him.
No: pg made sama choose whether he wanted to head YC or OpenAI. As per his own account, pg would have been happy with either.
Deeper voice: They were forced to fire him
PG: 'What did I just f-in say? Am I a mirage'
"The increasing amount of time Altman spent at OpenAI riled longtime partners at Y Combinator, who began losing faith in him as a leader. The firm’s leaders asked him to resign, and he left as president in March 2019. Graham said it was his wife’s doing. “If anyone ‘fired’ Sam, it was Jessica, not me,” he said. “But it would be wrong to use the word ‘fired’ because he agreed immediately.” Jessica Livingston said her husband was correct. To smooth his exit, Altman proposed he move from president to chairman. He pre-emptively published a blog post on the firm’s website announcing the change. But the firm’s partnership had never agreed, and the announcement was later scrubbed from the post. For years, even some of Altman’s closest associates—including Peter Thiel, Altman’s first backer for Hydrazine—didn’t know the circumstances behind Altman’s departure. "
From the Wall Street journal
Didn't know Thiel was one of Altman's closest associates. Might explain a few things, e.g. maybe he got some useful tips from Thiel how to acquire and maintain power at all costs ; )
"You can't fire me if I quit first."
But seriously, this tweet doesn't claim that WSJ is wrong, it's just a different spin. If you have an upcoming lucrative side business and your employer comes and says "hey bro, it's either us or them" then this is not technically a "firing" if you chose the other one. But let's not pretend like there was much choice here in the first place. For all intents and purposes, he was made to leave.
I agree with everyone saying this is not technically being fired, but PG's tweet omits the important context of YC partners losing faith in Sam as a leader.
Lets ask ChatGPT:
Was Sam Altman fired by YC?
Yes, Sam Altman was effectively fired from Y Combinator (YC). Although the official announcement framed his departure as a resignation to focus on other projects like OpenAI, multiple sources indicate that Paul Graham, the founder of YC, made the decision to let him go. This decision was due to Altman prioritizing his personal ventures over his responsibilities at YC.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/sam-altman-dramatic-firings
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216
https://english.elpais.com/technology/2023-11-24/why-everyon...
This decision was due to Altman prioritizing his personal ventures over his responsibilities at YC.
Which is essentially what Paul Graham's tweet sayed: Choose YC or other ventures (OpenAI)
The why he left YC is the same but the how is in question.
You're fired.
No, I quit.
That's nothing, Bing copilot does much better:
Yes, Sam Altman was indeed fired from Y Combinator (YC). The decision to remove him from his position as CEO was made due to long-standing patterns of behavior1. Former OpenAI board member Helen Toner accused Altman of lying to and obstructing OpenAI’s board, as well as retaliating against those who criticized him. She also mentioned that Altman created a “toxic atmosphere” within the company2. Interestingly, Altman had previously been affiliated with YC but was later reported to have been fired from YC and even appointed himself chairman without authorization3. It seems his behavior led to significant consequences in both organizations.
Not sure what to think, Lucy in the sky with diamonds?
Well PG, you didn't let him stay. Not to imply that you were the bad guy, or this was a bad decision. The idea that you fired sam was certainly a lot more gangster than this story.
In light of sams public perception I find it interesting that PG is clearing the air NOW.
EDIT: it needs to be stated that "when we found out from a press release that our CEO would be double dipping at another for profit venture..." is shitty way to find out your CEO is moonlighting. The fact that you DIDNT fire him on the spot isnt the best look.
I find it interesting that PG is clearing the air NOW
So much drama is created by overanalysing the timing of things, though. It's just air.
Pg is clearing it now because of the wild rumours about WHY Sam was fired.
Also, I bet he'd be getting annoyed if clarifying things to multiple people. Before, no one gave a damn, so it didn't matter, but now Sam's hot news.
If I never have to hear about Sam Altman again, it will be too soon.
It's like the British Royals - way too many people obsessed with it...and keeping those obsessions going is a steady paycheck for way too many "journalists".
+1 but this is absolutely not happening. We’ll be hearing about sama and OpenAI for a long, long time.
Isn't this the usual "we're not going to fire you because we want you to preserve your own dignity, so you should step down now or else we will fire you and it's going to get ugly" spiel? Y'know, the same thing that happens whenever [big corporation] gets into a scandal and heads are required to roll in the C-suite; rarely do they actually get fired but "they step down" as if it was from the good of their own heart.
I dunno, PG claims that Altman wasn't fired but to me this reads like a difference that ultimately doesn't matter.
But that is not the case. He was told that he had to choose between the two options, and he did. "You can no longer head YC and OpenAI at the same time, pick one", and he did. This does not sound like firing. It sounds like basic adulting on both sides.
I think the fact he had to be told this by the board is more telling here. It's pretty obvious that YC was told about Altman becoming CEO of the for-profit OpenAI at the same time everyone else was told about it.
Effectively, they gave him an ultimatum: stay at YC and drop that CEO offer or leave. Sure, it's dressed up in nicer words to protect Altman's dignity (which is fine, in terms of "this is bad" it's pretty low, so preserving his dignity makes sense), but that's still what it is. The ultimatum is obviously not a realistic one - be beholden to the board or become your own chief while it's blatantly clear where his ambitions lie, so effectively it's a firing.
Why post an image of blurry text instead of just the text? Does he not want blind people to read this message?
I inspected the element to check if it had any alt text[1] and it just says “Image”. Why bother[2] adding `alt="Image"` to an `<img>` tag?
[1]: Adding it is popular on Mastodon but I’m unsure if Twitter allows it.
[2]: I’m guessing this is Twitter and not Paul.
Twitter allows manually adding alt text to an image. It doesn't have the nice OCR feature that Mastodon has, unfortunately.
Most of the conversation in this thread consists of people talking past each other bc they aren't aligned on the definition of the word: fired.
Yes, there's a way to define the word "fired" such that PG did fire Sam.
But, that definition is not the colloquial definition of the word "fired".
Just go outside on the street, and ask someone: "My boss just told me that I need to stop working on my side project to keep working at his company. Would you say I just got fired?"
The answer 95%+ of the time will be no.
So, while I can understand why you might argue that PG fired Sam, if you can't understand why PG claims that he did not fire Sam, you simply have your head buried in the sand.
100% of the time the answer will be no†. He simply wasn't fired.
† Note key proviso: "going outside"
The answer 95%+ of the time will be no.
This is where I think everyone will disagree with you. I don't know anyone who would agree with your statement. Most people I know would agree that you're being fired when your terms of continued employment change drastically in such an unfavorable way. If my boss told me, "Hey, you can keep working here as long as you work for free" then that's being fired but by your definition - it's not.
I fucking hate all these threads about Altman. We’re here to discuss technology, not gossip about someone’s personality, or make assumptions about his motives. This is not an annual convention of psychiatrists.
Counterpoint: you can't separate technology, especially powerful/influential products like OpenAI's, without talking about their governance.
The ethics of OpenAI directly affect my career and life. They affect the future elections, art, my dad's pension fund, and many other things I care about.
Discussing Altman as person helps us understand what he might do with is near-complete control over the ethics of OpenAI.
The personality impacts the most influential technology of our decade. It matters.
This is absolutely a firing.
I think some people in that Twitter thread, pg included, have become so brainwashed by euphemistic phrases like "we agreed to part ways" to cover a firing, that they start to believe their own hype.
A firing can have varying degrees of amicability. It can be a reluctant firing. You can literally say "we're sad to see you go" and mean it. But I think it's still a firing in this case. It is so weird to see people have trouble grasping this.
Not in a negative sense, it was an ultimatum of attention focus.
I remember when my neighbor’s boss gave him an amicable ultimatum of attention focus when he was splitting his time between smoking weed and serving ice cream. He wasn’t fired but simply given a set of choices about his future at Cold Stone
Does anybody else wonder how our world would've been if Sam had chosen YC and instead left OpenAI?
Would be absolutely insane if openAI was another Musk company.
That is to say, I think this is a possible alternative if Sam was less engaged. If I recall correctly he tried to take over before he left the board in 2018
why did he post an image of text instead of just text, very confusing.
Maybe he doesn’t want LLM bots training on his data /s
I don't have a twitter account and generally avoid links to it unless I really care what apparently is on there. Is it normal that people will post an image of text of what they want to say vs just typing it directly into twitter?
It used to be a lot more prevalent when Tweets had a 160 character limit, but yes people still do it now.
I can see two different interpretations in the comment section. just like our world. people believe what they want to believe.
And both are totally valid interpretations. Pg' tweet does nothing to clarify what happened.
Reminder: Musk runs Twitter, Tesla, SpaceX and whatever the fuck else.
Yes thank you for reminding us of the very public takeover a couple of years ago.
The number one thing not to do is other things.
Paul Graham's blog is the Poor Richard's Almanack of startups.
At least we know for sure now that he was fired.
"I don't believe in news that has not been denied"
Unrelated but I'm curious. Why do people often post pictures of text instead of the actual text on twitter?
The practice came about when Twitter had a brief length limit, and persisted.
"We didn't fire him, we just asked him to leave because he decided to become CEO of another for profit company."
OK. It doesn't matter anyway.
Unfortunately the evidence does not favor his version of events.
Sounds like Sam got sacked for refusing to resolve a conflict of interest to me.
Isn't an ultimatum just a firing with extra steps?
Yes but why not tweet this months ago
Man says "Just to clarify, rain is wet" Intelligent people on the internet "very suspicious, that must imply he was wearing no clothes or something fishy, I knew it"
who the fuck cares really
When in doubt, we should always try to evaluate from the facts, they are more reliable than people, especially in this type of context.
dude this is spin lol. yc fired him, it's OK.
And what would this be an issue? If we want to consider this firing or not firing, it's the same. PG did the right thing asking his employee to fully focus on 1 thing. Honestly, what's the big deal about all this?
That's a healthy attitude, I wish someone would have a come to jesus talk with Elon along those same lines. Pick something to lead, and do it well, do not try to split your loyalties a half dozen different ways.
He was essentially fired. Like, imagine I'm parking in the CEO's parking spot each day. I would probably be told "stop doing that, or you're getting fired" and if I was like "nah I'll just leave" - it's basically me being fired, though with good communication.
He was doing something that did not align with YC and he was told to stop doing that, and he said no, and left. Basically pushed out of YC. Not "fired for cause" but pushed out, absolutely.
I got tired of hearing that YC fired Sam
This story was discussed last November, by the title "Before OpenAI, Sam Altman was fired from Y Combinator by his mentor" with +1k points and +700 comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216).
Everyone is trying to read the tweet but not talking about what it actually means. This tweet is yelling "Look Sam, if you have any problems, come the fuck back. We realize we loved you, even if we wanted you gone."
So just regular work stuff, got it.
This isn't really incompatible with the rumor mill of "Sam got fired for putting his interest above YC's." The situation described - where you are CEO of two different for-profit companies and one may have investments (and inside knowledge and advice) into firms that potentially compete with or buy from the other - is a textbook conflict of interest. It's reasonable for the board of one enterprise to ask the CEO to pick one or the other, and fire him if he refuses. Same situation that led to Eric Schmidt stepping down off the Apple board c. 2010.
The white-glove treatment that PG describes is probably much closer to the rumors that PG flew back from London to fire Sam on the spot. At the exec level, things are usually done civilly, because you know that you'll have to deal with these people again. But the CEO knows that the board and shareholders are his boss, the law is on their side, and so if they want him gone, he will be gone. That motivates the CEO to amicably part ways rather than force the issue.
This sounds like a mutal consent sort of thing. Its like with football managers, normally the board is unhappy with the manager and the manager knows it and even agrees with it (to some extent) so rather being fired and having the animosity of it, they all agree things aren't working out and walk. Sounds similar here. YC basically implied you're spreading yourself thin so we think its best you pick one and it sounds like he agreed!
Well... considering where Sam is today, you just have to accept and expect that speculation will be maxed out.
This week on GenerativeAI Hospital..
Sounds like Sam was overemployed and had to choose. That seems fair.
It was a smear campaign
It's the Curdleboot Effect: best way to get the information isn't to ask for it, but to make wrong statements and someone on the internet will correct you?
Well there ya go.
Ahhh here we go again
I thought PG moved off twitter when Elon banned accounts that linked to mastodon?
Jesus Christ I have not seen more mental bending over backwards. Pg is clearly saying he wasn't fired and he was asked to choose between the two in a friendly manner and people can still do their best to turn it into some Macbeth like events. Hate makes people absolutely mental.
Sigh. I was already 99.999% sure that's what happened. @sama became a instavillian because of finding success with a giant bullseye painted on his rep.
Ok but … that means Sam was still greedy and overconfident enough to try and run both OpenAI and YC until Paul/Jessica told him he had to choose.
Reddit has a term for this: Everyone Sucks Here (ESH)
I'm sure everything in that tweet is true. But I feel it omits some details on why running both wasn't working out for YC. e.g. He allegedly was dropping the ball on important things - such as making sure YC had enough cash on hand (and reaching out to LPs for an embarrassingly urgent top-up).
So you’re saying that PG fired Sam.
Twitter breakage: <https://archive.is/HnTkV>
I’ve never seen HN so thirsty over celebrity tea before.
This is quite suspicious. There were tons of articles relaying the rumor that he was fired for obscure reasons.
Why would Altman not deny them, and why would pg wait until now to say it wasn’t true? The reason pg gives is uncontroversial.
Who knows what agreements exist between Altman and YC.
There could be a kind of non-disparagement agreement like OpenAI used to have.
And, of course, the first response twitter shows me is from some absolute dingbat claiming that PG’s statement still means Sam was fired from YC.
It’s frustrating but at least some people are going to believe whatever conspiracy theory they want to believe regardless of any other evidence or argument presented to them.
I’m not sure how we solve this, but it’s becoming ever more important that we do. Make reading comprehension and critical thinking a core part of our education systems? Aren’t they already though? And still… idiots gonna idiot, and the internet will give them as many platforms as they want.
But that goes against the soap opera narrative! What muck will people raise now?
I think it's important to remember that PG has deeply vested interests into making sure the billionaire class keeps their wealth and status. He's part of a big club that's all looking out for each other, selling everybody on the idea that "what would you poors do without us pulling the strings". So yeah, it shouldn't surprise anybody that he's vouching for his colleague.
Seems reasonable on the face of it. Though lately my trust in taking anything SV related at good faith face value has plummeted.
- (PG/YC) Assuming that someone who is (or is about to be) the CEO of a different company won't have time to 100% commit to your own company and planning accordingly seems like a reasonable position.
- (SA) The new CEO of a company wanting to commit as much of their time as possible to that company also seems like a reasonable position.
What you call "maximal negativity" is what I would call skepticism about spin. Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move. PG is not universally opposed to people running multiple organizations. He's fine with Musk being in charge of Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink and Starlink. I don't think pg was unhappy about Dorsey running both Square and Twitter[1]. OpenAI leadership was fine with Sam in both roles. But Sam had to either quit OpenAI or quit YC, and would get fired from YC if he refused to choose.
[1] https://x.com/paulg/status/1235363862159003649
I don't see why that matters, YC is "his" organization, other organizations can do what they want
Take out all the names, and it's just a belief that YC should be run by someone that's all in / fully committed.
Right but this is him being fired
Fired means or at least connotes a specific thing, I.e., is against the will of the departing employee. Leaving the organisation by mutual agreement after an adult conversation to focus on exciting new project is a very different thing to fired.
The adult conversation in question being, in a nutshell: "We've decided it's time for you to move on. Would you like the public perception of this event to be that it was a mutual decision, or would you prefer to burn some bridges on your way out?" Sure, in some sense the departing individual chooses to go one way rather than the other.
Or the adult conversation was: you need to pick one thing to focus on, we’d prefer it was YC but obviously we can’t force you to choose YC.
PG’s telling if it, and Occam’s Razer, support that version.
Many people here want to imagine that it was vastly more dramatic than this, or need to reinterpret the word “fired” to support the narrative that Sam is bad. I understand it can be fun to think that way.
For the record I’m no great fan of OpenAI and I think people who are convinced they are about to achieve AGI are, er, mistaken. I mostly just care about correct definitions of words and avoiding sensationalism.
My point is mainly that PG's telling isn't trustworthy, because that's what you agree to say when the person you're "firing" chooses to go quietly. Obviously I have no specific insight into the situation, but given what I have observed about how career changes happen for people who've reached a certain level of power, I have no faith that the people involved have any interest in accurately describing the situation to the public.
All you have to do is look at the fact that PG has been consistently effusive about Sam in his public comments and essays since the mid 00s through till the present day, for it to be clear that Sam wasn’t simply fired.
Of course these situations are always complex behind the scenes, with many factors and considerations at play.
But the no he must really just have been fired against his will claim just doesn’t pass the sniff test to anyone paying attention.
I wonder how much of the impulse to believe (in the face of the evidence) that Altman parted ways with YC/PG on bad terms is really rooted in an impulse to believe that YC/PG couldn't be complicit in enabling the kind of person that it now increasingly appears that Altman is.
If Altman truly is as bad a person as it appears that he might be, that doesn't reflect well on the people who have praised him through the last few decades. If you like those people, then cognitive dissonance forces you to either believe that Altman is being unduly villainized or to believe that the people that you like secretly hate him but just can't say so openly.
Virtually all info that reaches outsiders has a strong PR component, and often is entirely PR. We're left to "read the tea leaves" from our own experience with such statements.
I wonder what evidence could possibly convince you, if both sides of the alleged "firing" saying it wasn't so isn't convincing enough.
History being different than it has been. Like the statements Paul has made to date have been in agreement with the common perception of it being a firing, not very consistent with this newer counter narrative. Obviously just imo and ymmv.
'Mutual agreement' could be that the employer didn't want the employee, and the employee was tired of BS being unreasonably dumped on them:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
(Not saying that this is such a situation.)
Except that isn't at all what Paul is claiming here—he says YC offered him the choice between running YC and running OpenAI but not both at once. Altman chose OpenAI. That might have been the obvious choice in the circumstances (it certainly appears so in retrospect), but that doesn't turn the conversation into the kind you're claiming.
Even Jack couldn't handle being CEO of Twitter and Square. It's just not easy to do.
The entire point of the tweet is to explain that he wasnt fired.
Yeah, and the tweet isn't being honest. Issuing somebody an ultimatum that you know they'll refuse is just a different way to get rid of someone.
Which was also clearly not the case here.
Clearly?
Being fired does not include the option to stay.
This is Sam being given an ultimatum and making a choice before being fired. Is it effectively the same thing? Yes. But technically, he left to pursue OpenAI. YC never said “You’rrrrrrrrrrrre Firedddd!!!” (In my best Spacely Sprockets voice); it just politely asked him to leave if he couldn’t give 100%.
Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move.
Sure, but is that what happened? Or, did they sit down and have a chat and mutually agree that on what was best? I guess we will never know with certainty (and I frankly don't care).
Is there actually a difference between those two things?
When your immediate superior sits you don't for a "chat", and you "mutually agree on what is best", it comes across an awful lot like an ultimatum.
I don't know what happened either and I wouldn't even be surprised if the parties have internalized it in ways that aren't 100% consistent. I do know that situations arise where it becomes mutually apparent that a parting of the ways is best for everyone concerned even if not explicitly stated. And, in those circumstances, there's a public story that is often not untrue but isn't the whole backstory either because it's simpler for everyone involved that way.
Yes, it's directly in the tweet. "We told him that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAI, we should find somebody else to run YC."
Or it's not a forceful move at all.
Maybe YC requires more dedication than Altman could provide to both it and OpenAI.
You print off companies as if being a CEO is just being a CEO, and as if Musk doesn't work an unhealthy amount of hours.
Or maybe there's some secret reason for pg to carry water for Sam and it's worth his integrity.
"Secret reason" = Paul knows it looks bad for him to fire the guy. So he comes up with justifications why it's not really firing. Maybe he even believes them.
You seem to have an axe to grind with @sama. This deep-rooted bias does not make for an honest discourse; as you are just expressing your opinions. If you have some facts to back up your claims, please put them out.
Otherwise, I would urge just stepping away and taking a few deep breaths.
It it nothing whatsoever like being fired.
Agree, people need to chill. The thread says they would have been happy if Sam stayed, they just wanted him to choose one or the other which he agreed with. It seems like a very amicable parting of ways when the parties involved were being pulled in different directions.
Weird times when moral relativism is saved for the rich and powerful instead of the poor and meek.
How does this in any way relate to moral relativism?
I should’ve phrased it better. It seems like many people think those in power are entitled to some moral leniency when they should face higher scrutiny.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
I don’t think that you actually mean anything by this. “Moral relativism” seems entirely irrelevant.
No, what you are seeing is people refusing to be spun up into rumor-mongering, which is good because you don't want all the air going to spurious claims and counterclaims when there are factual and uncontroversial observations to be angry about instead
"The thread says they would have been happy if Sam stayed"
No, he said they would have been fine with it. That has a different quality and honestly, I am quite sure they knew sama was so invested in OpenAI that he would not have choosen to step away from it.
So everybody could save face and no one was "fired".
Oh my goodness. Different quality? This is like seeing a bunch of soothsayers looking at tea leaves intently to match a pattern.
I am fine with your comment, but not happy about it.
This comment has a ‘different quality’ than most I’d expect to see on HN
Have you ever seen Sam Altman with his palms pointing at the camera? You can clearly see from the intersection of his life and fate lines that he is a supervillain in the making.
Yeah, this is about the most positive and amiable way to solve the real problem of Sam Altman not having enough time to lead YC. It is a testament to Sam's own marketing skills that even banal stuff is driving mad speculation.
It's more a testament to jealousy which is probably what underlies most of these comments.
The only enviable thing about Altman is that he's rich, and I doubt anyone here hates all rich people out of jealousy.
This is such a tired and wrong argument. People are allowed to disagree with, dislike, and distrust others without being jealous of them. Think of anyone you don’t like. Pick a specific politician you abhor. Now imagine someone saying you dislike them because you’re jealous. Does that make sense to you? If it does, you have a very warped view of the world.
That’s beginning to enter “he’s playing 5D chess and making you think exactly what he wants” territory. Would you say that it’s a testament to tobacco companies’ marketing skills that everyone talks about cigarettes being cancerous?
The mad speculation is due to him being CEO of a highly talked about company but also the creator of dubious exploitative ventures[1][2] and rubbing a lot of people the wrong way, many of which talk in vague terms instead of being specific from the start.
[1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...
[2]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...
I wish I could appraise someone’s skill at something without that being considered as a general endorsement but I guess not.
I don’t think Sam Altman is probably that great at most of what he would like ppl to think he is great at. But he must be alright at marketing and getting into the right places because we are talking about him.
Ironic[1] that that you’re lamenting a misunderstanding of your comment while misunderstanding mine. I don’t think you were generally endorsing him, my claim is that you’re giving him credit for a skill based on faulty assumptions.
That’s what I disagree with. Would you say that Justine Sacco[2] was great at marketing too? For a while there everyone was talking about her, which she did not intend and didn’t end particularly well for her. Being talked about and being good at marketing don’t automatically correlate. Barbara Streisand knows that very well[3].
[1]: Or maybe not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40507616
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Justine_Sacco_i...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Between the weird exit agreements OpenAI had departing employees sign and the Scarlett Johansson voice incident, people are wondering if there's a pattern to Altman's behavior.
There was no Scarlett voice incident. There was a verifiably different actress hired before Scarlett was approached. That’s it.
And she sounds more like Rashida Jones than Scarlett Johannsson, too. Wild that this took off so much.
How many logical fallacies are in this statement?
I mean, so what, this still has no bearing on what happened between pg and sama. I may think sama has done some sketchy things but why would that lead anyone to believe pg is lying? It's not like he had to make this statement or anything - it appears much more likely that it was just characterized in a way pg thought was not true.
I have no idea what Sam Altman is but based on how he runs OpenAI's marketing I have zero trust in him.
The lies start at the company name. What's "open" about OpenAI?
It's "open" for everyone to use, for the right fee.
Isn't it interesting that Altman cries for government regulation of "AI" sellers but not for requiring a permit to use "AI" for their potential customers?
I mean, if he were concerned about our safety he'd want restricted access, not universal...
This thread exposes who buys into whatever the SF/VC overlords say.
"Got fired" may be a tad ambiguous, but being told "stop working on that other thing or leave" is not too far off.
It's very different.
When employees begin working at my company, they're told a list of things they're not allowed to do. And, they're told if they do these things, they will be shown the door.
By your definition of "not too far off", we're basically firing people on day one. Absurd.
Getting fired usually implies they did something wrong. Sam was always going to have a lot going on in his life so it was a given there would be competing priorities when he joined YC.
It’s like not he was some random full time employee at YC and concealing his busy life.
So when a smaller AI project he started (with PGs involvement) rapidly turned into a monster overnight and started demanding the bulk of his attention, it’s not a big deal to ask him if he has enough time for both, and to make a decision early on before it becomes overwhelming (note: he still gave him the choice to decide).
Like a lot of entrepreneurs they take on a lot of responsibilities and think they can swing a lot more stuff than they really can, and PG’s whole thing is guiding entrepreneurs to make the best decisions.
Lots of people dislike PG and YC too, so it's doubly fun to strike up some bad blood between them.
I can see why, Paul Grahams Twitter is good enough reason to find him insufferable
Because PG is being very selective.
Does he forget that it is known that Sam posted to YC's site that he was now Chairman in the day or so prior to him leaving? So... what... they asked him to choose, he decided to promote himself and make a post about it, and then they hurriedly deleted that post and then Same "chose" to leave YC?
Or someone had some copy prepared (you don't think everyone waits until afterwards to write anything do you?) and whoopsied the publish button?
This line of thinking just reads as sensationalist or needlessly conspiratorial given that the indictment it is trying to support is so weak.
Well, that's visible. It doesn't need to be said and PG doesn't wanna be his arch enemy. The guy's becoming too powerful after all
I personally find it a lot less interesting. It’s probably not true and even if it were, it’s still basically an ad hominem. The story is the tech.
Have you read his sister's allegations about their childhood? He avoids addressing those and apparently gaslights her about it.
There appears to be a pattern in regards to honesty and integrity.
It's not either or. The above can be true and also the reason pg wanted him to run YC.
That Twitter thread (as most are) is poison.