5 ms·

I wonder if Sam might abandon the ship soon. Other co-founders already did. The main reason is that he gets all the downsides without the upsides. I know $5B i

I wonder if Sam might abandon the ship soon. Other co-founders already did. The main reason is that he gets all the downsides without the upsides. I know $5B is a lot but, for a 700B company, it isn't. If OpenAI was a regular for-profit, he would have been worth >$100B already. This is probably one of the significant factors why other co-founders left too. It's just a lot of headaches with relatively low reward.

raincole 6mo ago
And OpenAI's influence is hugely exaggerated compared to, say, Google.
- ergocoder 6mo ago
  Yes, and it seems people hate him more than Google co-founders, for example. All the downsides without much upside...
  - georgemcbay 6mo ago
    > Yes, and it seems people hate him more than Google co-founders, for example. Sergey Brin is trying to change that lately, but Altman still has a sizable head start.
0x3f 6mo ago
But nobody is going to just gift him the same valuation on the next company. It's not like his execution is OpenAI's moat right now. So where would he be going that's a better deal for him?
- ergocoder 6mo ago
  Founding his own company would be one alternative. Full control. No stigma on the non-profit part. Probably get the same paper money as he got now at OpenAI.
- davebren 6mo ago
  What is the value he adds anyway, being a delusional cult leader where most people around him characterize him as a sociopath? Is it just his ability to lie and create fear-hype? It's not like he had anything to do with the technical achievements, except convincing the engineers that they were doing something valuable, but the cat is out of the bag on that.
palata 6mo ago
IMHO, nobody is remotely worth $1B, period. The fact that some (usually toxic) individuals get there shows that the system is flawed. The fact that those individuals feel like they can do anything other than shut up, stay low and silently enjoy the fact that they got waaaay too much money shows that the system is very flawed. We shouldn't follow billionaires, we should redistribute their money.
- rafterydj 6mo ago
  Well, redistributing their money is (in some cases disingenuously) exactly how they are able to pitch investors. "Sure, value my company at $10B and my shares make me $2B, but we're alllllll gonna make money when hit AGI!!!" That kind of thing.
  - palata 5mo ago
    Sure, I understand why the people around them who benefit from it also want to do that. My point is that it all only benefits a few people. Those people used to call themselves "kings", appointed by god. Now they are tech oligarchs. If the people realised that it was bad to have kings, eventually maybe they will realise that it is bad to have oligarchs?
- simonh 6mo ago
  If someone founds a company, grows it and owns $1bn of its stock, they don’t have $1bn in cash to distribute. They have a degree of control over the economic activity of that company. Should that control be taken away from them? Who should it be given to? I can see an argument when it comes to cashing out, but I’m not clear how that should work without creating really weird incentives. Some sort of special tax?
  - palata 5mo ago
    > Some sort of special tax? Well yeah. After some amount, you get 100% taxes. So that instead of having billionaires who compete against each other on how rich they are or on the first one to go contaminate the surface of Mars or simply on power, maybe we would end up with people trying to compete on something actually constructive :-). Who knows, maybe even philanthropy!

raincole 6mo ago

And OpenAI's influence is hugely exaggerated compared to, say, Google.

ergocoder 6mo ago
Yes, and it seems people hate him more than Google co-founders, for example. All the downsides without much upside...
- georgemcbay 6mo ago
  > Yes, and it seems people hate him more than Google co-founders, for example. Sergey Brin is trying to change that lately, but Altman still has a sizable head start.

0x3f 6mo ago

But nobody is going to just gift him the same valuation on the next company. It's not like his execution is OpenAI's moat right now. So where would he be going that's a better deal for him?

ergocoder 6mo ago
Founding his own company would be one alternative. Full control. No stigma on the non-profit part. Probably get the same paper money as he got now at OpenAI.
davebren 6mo ago
What is the value he adds anyway, being a delusional cult leader where most people around him characterize him as a sociopath? Is it just his ability to lie and create fear-hype? It's not like he had anything to do with the technical achievements, except convincing the engineers that they were doing something valuable, but the cat is out of the bag on that.

palata 6mo ago

IMHO, nobody is remotely worth $1B, period. The fact that some (usually toxic) individuals get there shows that the system is flawed. The fact that those individuals feel like they can do anything other than shut up, stay low and silently enjoy the fact that they got waaaay too much money shows that the system is very flawed. We shouldn't follow billionaires, we should redistribute their money.

rafterydj 6mo ago
Well, redistributing their money is (in some cases disingenuously) exactly how they are able to pitch investors. "Sure, value my company at $10B and my shares make me $2B, but we're alllllll gonna make money when hit AGI!!!" That kind of thing.
- palata 5mo ago
  Sure, I understand why the people around them who benefit from it also want to do that. My point is that it all only benefits a few people. Those people used to call themselves "kings", appointed by god. Now they are tech oligarchs. If the people realised that it was bad to have kings, eventually maybe they will realise that it is bad to have oligarchs?
simonh 6mo ago
If someone founds a company, grows it and owns $1bn of its stock, they don’t have $1bn in cash to distribute. They have a degree of control over the economic activity of that company. Should that control be taken away from them? Who should it be given to? I can see an argument when it comes to cashing out, but I’m not clear how that should work without creating really weird incentives. Some sort of special tax?
- palata 5mo ago
  > Some sort of special tax? Well yeah. After some amount, you get 100% taxes. So that instead of having billionaires who compete against each other on how rich they are or on the first one to go contaminate the surface of Mars or simply on power, maybe we would end up with people trying to compete on something actually constructive :-). Who knows, maybe even philanthropy!