Discussion
fhe: even if this were true, PG (who can code, and can tell if someone else can) didn't think it was an issue when handing over YC to Altman.
mbgerring: I’m old enough to remember that Sam Altman’s claim to fame before OpenAI, before running YC, was running a failed also-ran location-based whatever Web 2.0 scam startup thing that accomplished nothing and that no one remembers. His entire “career” is based on persuading people with money to give him more of it.The incentive structures are such that everyone sucks up to people in a position to give you a lot of money, so all these people with no real skills, talent or track record get regarded as “geniuses”, but like, even when you understand why this happens, it doesn’t make it any less rage-inducing.What would have to change in this society for people who actually do shit to have a higher profile than people who just have a lot of money?
wpm: We need to start talking about people like this truthfully: they are sick. Fucked up. Broken. They do not deserve fame or fortune, they deserve a padded cell, close observation by psychologists and neurologists and try and figure out how we can stop it happening.Horribly manipulative Smaug-likes who only care for themselves, why must the rest of us be beholden to them? To be victims to the havoc they wreak? Why do we put up with it?
tkel: Reminds me of Elon Musk. Grifting off of techno-futuro-optimism. Hyperloop, Boring tunnel, going to mars, self-driving cars, etc. Perhaps it's common to CEOs, lying/manipulating to people to create hype in order to convince them to give you money.
giancarlostoro: Sure, but Elon Musk had known engineering roles at various companies, and built a space company nobody, not even himself thought would succeed, into the most viable and affordable way to get things into space.Idk if I had to be stranded on an island with either Elon or Sam, I think I'd rather be stuck with Elon.
squirrellous: This is probably the least important bad thing you could say about Altman.Also why is a low effort commentary piece of the NYT article on the HN front page?
nostrademons: This is a good example of Goodhart's Law: "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". Money is supposed to be a measure of value exchanged; the idea is that if you aren't receiving something actually useful in exchange for your money, you don't spend it. This assumption breaks down as the economy grows in complexity and it becomes harder to judge what you're actually receiving. It becomes increasingly easy to game the process of convincing people to give you money. People who get good at this outcompete people who don't, and there is a lot of money floating around out there without much accountability.This also suggests ways to reverse this: 1) reduce the complexity of the economy 2) have more repeated interactions, where you cannot simply stiff someone and go away to do it to someone else 3) have more information about who has stiffed people and gone away to do it to someone else 4) reduce the costs involved in the sale process, so that this can become a part-time job of someone actually providing the service, rather than having people whose dedicated role is to make the money change hands managing people whose dedicated role is to actually do the job.
vharuck: In my experience, all wealth comes down to either (1) producing and using something yourself, or (2) convincing somebody else to give it to you. Most of us trade labor or goods for wealth, convincing others that our stuff is worth the wealth they give.If you want more wealth for your work, you need the other side to value it more. Better goods and labor are the obvious choice, but that's difficult. Better schmoozing is less effort and good payoff. Epstein was a paragon of this skill. Also companies that spend tons on advertising, like Coca Cola. Everyone knows their soda exists, but the ads are meant to convince you that you need one right now. No need to improve their product or innovate cheaper production. They just lean on the persuasion.I can't think of a way to avoid this. If you want more money, it has to come from somebody. How could there be an unbiased and impersonal way of redistributing it?
BoredPositron: I bet he is a menace but so are probably 90% of c-suite tech execs. Like with Elon and Zuck it's the insecurities which make it at least funny to watch from the sidelines.
d2dfsd: Im going to get into trouble for saying this but many of these CEOs seem to be a mix of vertically challenged, challenged in terms of looks/social aura/charasima and so on. Perhaps these are necessary characteristics to have drive.. the problem is they end up taking out that energy on the rest of society. E.g. Zuck with "dumb fucks" and we've already seen Musk unmasked.You never saw this kind of stuff with Steve Jobs who admittedly wasnt perfect - but he wasn't challenged physically / social standing. Perhaps that's why he wasn't a weirdo like the rest of them.
hgoel: I feel like this is largely just what Musk/Zuck/Jeff's generation of rich fucks is like. Kind of like how the ones before them (Gates, Jobs etc) were more hated for being dirty/ruthless businessmen, but weren't known for being so openly and pathetically insecure.On the other hand, I'm probably just finding a generational distinction where there is none.Edit: And anyway, SBF, Altman etc are not the same generation as Musk etc IIRC
zulux: Gates is weapons-grade awkward and just plain weird. 56K internet was slow to notice. But the poor schmuck had to hire Russians to boink him, and he got a VD from it per the Epsein files.
hgoel: Oh right, I forgot about that...
glerk: > I think there's a small but real chance he's eventually remembered as a Bernie MadoffWhat's with all the hit pieces on Sam Altman lately? He's a CEO, his job is to grow the business, not to code. That part is handled by the engineers that he hired. How many CEOs out there are also great programmers? Sure, I would prefer Sam Altman to have more technical depth given the business he is leading, but lack of technical depth doesn't make him a Bernie Madoff.
mikeryan: Well there's the whole issue that Open AI wasn't a "business" when it started, it was in fact a non-profit focused on safe AGI for humanity. That said the whole "He's a CEO thing" is a convenient escape hatch now that it's a for-profit business (just ignore the whole way it got there).Just because you're a successful CEO doesn't mean you're not a shitty person or deserving of so-called "hit pieces".
dboreham: > persuading people with money to give him more of itA key skill nevertheless.
adamnemecek: Neither did Steve Jobs and no one cared.
uecker: The problem is not that society is too complexity but extremely unequal distribution of money. Those few that have most of it usually did not earn it by providing a useful service to society and for them it becomes a random investment game without consequences which creates additional winners that also never produced something useful.
gpjt: Wait, that's it? Seven paragraphs, all short? Two quotes, one from some anonymous MS exec? Is the site sending some minimal version of the article to me because I'm using Brave, or is this the lowest-content article I've seen in weeks (and I'm on Twitter)?
WheelsAtLarge: This doesn’t really surprise me. Most company leaders don’t have a detailed view of day to day work, they couldn’t step in and do every employee’s job. What they are good at is creating a clear story and direction that brings people together around a shared goal. That’s what Sam has done, especially in how he’s sold that vision to investors and raised billions. You could say the same about leaders like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs. It’s not necessarily a perfect system, but it’s often how companies grow and attract funding. No, they are not the perfect humans. It's just how business works.
