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.
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.
No, we have a view of people who are over-stretched failing to meet their obligations while still taking those spots for clout and resume. Your example fits that perfectly. No one wants to be the chair of a non-profit that isn't doing anything because lazy people have packed the board and refuse to work. We can't help but wonder how much better those resources could be used if not restricted to the in-group.
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. :)
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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).
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.
"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".
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?
> 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.
It's not either or. The above can be true and also the reason pg wanted him to run YC.
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.
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.
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 is a testament to Sam's own marketing skills that even banal stuff is driving mad speculation.
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.
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.
> "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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
[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
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]
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
Readit News
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.
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.
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!
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.
It usually doesnt come out of the small guys tho. When the grifters get in its usually over.
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.
Feels entirely reasonable.
Not everything is a matter of principle
He left YC in March 2019. Worldcoin was formed in 2019.
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.
[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.
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).
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.
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".
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?
This line of thinking just reads as sensationalist or needlessly conspiratorial given that the indictment it is trying to support is so weak.
It's not either or. The above can be true and also the reason pg wanted him to run YC.
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.
The lies start at the company name. What's "open" about OpenAI?
It's "open" for everyone to use, for the right fee.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
There appears to be a pattern in regards to honesty and integrity.
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-...
Dead Comment
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 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.
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.
1: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies
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?
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.
https://www.paulgraham.com/die.html
Sam was given an option to continue with YC but he chose a bigger project.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
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).
[0] https://x.com/hlntnr
[1] https://link.chtbl.com/TEDAI
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.
Dead Comment
[0] https://archive.is/Vl3VR
That said, the interviewer tries to sensationalize the upcoming interview as much as possible in the intro, so I didn't love that
Dead Comment
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