When billions of dollars are up for grabs, values, ethics, morality, past promises and everything else in between will be thrown out the window.
For society, the framework should always be that a corporation is inherently evil. It is only a matter of time when that evil presents itself.
In 2019 his position seemed to be this. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sam-altman-says-openai-still-...
> Altman said OpenAI's long development time-horizon ultimately meant it had no choice but to abandon the nonprofit model if the company intends to survive.
>
> "In spirit, we still view ourselves as working for the world," Altman said. "But I think you have to sort of play the field as it lies. And we just need so much capital to do our work. I think we'll need more capital than any nonprofit has ever raised, probably, and so this was sort of a reflection of reality."
Did he make statements counter to this at a later date?
The company started as a non-profit. A pretty damning evidence in itself.
This was in December 2015. Did it take this genius 4 years to figure out that to survive as a company, you need to a for profit entity?
Nah.
I think the strategy was to milk the marketing for all its worth, claiming to be "advancing the world, with no penny in pocket" high minded savior company. And then pivot (an innovative move) into raking in the money.
Did all the investors pour in billions without the understanding that this will become a for profit, and a for profit that will 10x their investments?
> We're a non-profit research company. Our full-time staff of 60 researchers and engineers is dedicated to working towards our mission regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way.
"regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way", they failed really hard on that point. That Sam Altman had already changed course by 2019 doesn't mean he didn't lie at the start.
https://www.openphilanthropy.org/files/Grants/OpenAI/OpenAI_...
Where is the selfish gain?
You can claim that the story is false and there is a plan for gain but at this stage we have someone saying A and someone saying !A. It's probably a time to look for evidence.
He is working behind the scenes to get a good stake in the company, and he most likely has told them he needs that stake to motivate himself to take the company to the next level.
I am guessing that they have a slew of new tools upcoming and this is Sam cashing out.
My query is what evidence are you basing this belief upon? I'm prepared to be convinced by evidence. It seems like for so many people to have a strong opinion that he is a serial liar that there should be many cite-able sources where
A) It is undeniable that Sam Altman said that.
B) It is clear that this is false.
and C) this has happened repeatedly.
Too much of this seems to be relying on "Sources familiar with .... claim .... ".
I'm really not trying to advocate for Altman or OpenAI here, I just would like the claims against them to be robust.
And a plausible interpretation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41657334.
Of course, as with any conspiracy theory, there are many unknown unknowns so make of it what you will. Personally, the many accounts of those who've worked with him along with these recorded statements push me towards being wary of his intentions.
It actually reminds me of descriptions I've heard of Larry Ellison (including the ones famously made by bcantrill) that he's very personable. You'll hear all these things about him that sound awful but then you meet him and he seems okay, quite reasonable, even. Then you start to observe that he's really just motivated by money, full stop. The charm is only there to get yours. That's the feeling I get reading about sama.
Tesla has made about 34bn in income over the last 3 years, with stormy waters ahead, yet Elon pocketed himself 56bn under the guise of saving humanity, which is a "vibe" OpenAI also needlessly projects.
Regardless, shareholders just voted again on that same exact package retroactively and re approved it. This was a clear indication that the market still feels, even in hindsight, that the past targets were deserving of the equity granted. What internal folks thought or the judge’s guess about shareholders being “tricked” doesn’t matter since it is something shareholders (owners of the company) have judged on their own with all the information they have now about past performance. Also, neither Elon nor his brother voted on the measure. So to me all this serves as evidence that enough people think the targets were absurd enough to at least justify the equity.
I just find it hilarious that Tesla's total profit over all these years is still lower than this pay package.
What you say is not true, otherwise nobody would retire early and many people do just that.
However, many billionaires become that rich for being exactly the type of person for whom money is never enough. But we don't need to be like them.
That is only true if you are constrained by lack of opportunities.
When money is never enough, then every opportunity to make some is going to be used to the full extent.