Whether this is true or not, this is a clever move to publicize. Anyone being poached by Meta now from OpenAI will feel like asking for 100m bonuses and will possibly feel underappreciated with only a 20 or 50 million signing bonus.
Barry Badrinath, down on his luck man-hooker: It's $10 for a BJ, $12 for an HJ, $15 for a ZJ...
Landfill: [Interrupting] What's a ZJ?
Barry Badrinath: If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
Isn't pretty much everyone working at OpenAI already clearly motivated by money over principle? OpenAI had a very public departure from being for-good to being for-money last year...
Lots of people working for AI labs have other AI labs they could work for, so their decisions will be made based on differences of remuneration, expected work/role, location, and employer culture/mission.
The claim above is that OpenAI loses to other labs on most of the metrics (obviously depends on the person) and so many researchers have gone there based on higher compensation.
Millions take a noticeable pay cut, it suppress wages in many fields.
It’s one of the reasons so many CEO’s hype up their impact. SpaceX would’ve needed far higher compensation if engineers weren’t enthusiastic about space etc.
It’s not like tech companies have a playbook for becoming “sticky” in peoples’ lives and businesses by bait and switch.
They still call it “open” by the way. Every other nonprofit is paying equivalent salaries and has published polemics about essentially world takeover, right?
There are options other than money and virtue signaling for why you'd work a given job.
Some people might just like working with competent people, doing work near the forefront of their field, while still being in an environment where their work is shipped to a massively growing user base.
Even getting 1 of those 3 is not a guarantee in most jobs.
While your other comment stands, there is no separating yourself with the moral impetus of who you're working for.
If your boss is building a bomb to destroy a major city but you just want to work on hard technical problems and make good money at it, it doesn’t absolve you of your actions.
If you worked at OpenAI post "GPT-3 is too dangerous to open source, but also we're going to keep going", you are probably someone who more concerned the optics of working on something good or world changing.
And realistically most people I know well enough who work at Open AI and wouldn't claim the talent, or the shipping culture, or something similar are people who love the idea of being able to say they're going to solve all humanity's problems with "GPT 999, Guaranteed Societal Upheaval Edition."
Working at a employer that says they're doing good isn't the same as actually doing good.
Especially when said employer is doing cartoonishly villainous stuff like bragging how they'll need to build a doomsday bunker to protect their employees from all from the great evi... er good, their ultimate goal would foist upon the wider world.
Good point. I was thinking the "actually doing good". Absolutely there's a lot of empty corporate virtue signalling, and also some individuals like that. But there's still individuals who genuinely want to actually do good.
I'm really confused by this comment section, is no one is considering the people they'll have to work with, the industry, the leadership, the customers, the nature of the work itself, the skillset you'll be exercising... literally anything other than TC when selecting a job?
I don't get why this is a point of contention, unless people think Meta is offering $100M to a React dev...
If they're writing up an offer with a $100M sign on bonus, it's going to a person who is making comparable compensation staying at OpenAI, and likely significantly more should OpenAI "win" at AI.
They're also people who have now been considered to be capable of influencing who will win at AI at an individual level by two major players in the space.
At that point even if you are money motivated, being on the winning team when winning the race has unfathomable upside is extremely lucrative. So it's still not worth taking an offer that results in you being on a less competitive team.
(in fact it might backfire, since you do probably get some jaded folks who don't believe in the upside at the end of the race anymore, but will gladly let someone convert their nebulous OpenAI "PPUs" into cash and Meta stock while the coast)
> even if you are money motivated, being on the winning team when winning the race has unfathomable upside
.. what sort of valuation are you expecting that's got an expected NPV of over $100m, or is this more a "you get to be in the bunker while the apocalypse happens around you" kind of benefit?
$100M doesn't just get pulled out of thin air, it's a reflection of their current compensation: it's reasonable that their current TC is probably around 8 figures, with good portion that will 10x on even the most miserable timelines where OpenAI manages to reach the promised land of superintelligence...
Also at that level of IC, you have to realize there's an immense value to having been a pivotal part of the team that accomplished a milestone as earth shattering as that would be.
-
For a sneak peak of what that's worth, look at Noam Shazeer: funded a AI chatbot app, fought his users on what they actually wanted, and let the product languish... then Google bought the flailing husk for $2.7 Billion just so they could have him back.
tl;dr: once you're bought into the idea that someone will win this race, there's no way that the loser in the race is going to pay better than staying on the winning team does.
Ehh. I think much less of people who “sellout” for like $450k TC. It’s so unnecessary at that level yet thousands of people do it. $100M is far more interesting
You can do more things to change your future healthspan than you can do things to change nuclear proliferation. A major positive impact of exercise is stronger bones and less risk of major injury from falling and other accidents.
I am not sure if we read the same article, but the article I read specifically calls out funding by nations as problematic:
> This is because WADA relies heavily on funding from stakeholders, some of which have had the highest number of doping cases to investigate, such as Russia, China and the US. This in turn creates serious challenges for WADA in maintaining its own independence and impartiality.
The US has had more olympic medals stripped than China due to doping, but less than Russia [1]. This could be because China is better at hiding/masking it. It could be because US athletes get tested more thoroughly. However, the article calls out the relationship between funding and nations that are interested in doping and winning athletic competitions as problematic. Your... quick dismissive and berating diversion to our current administration is not very enlightening.
In authoritarian countries, sports have long been an important tool for laundering their international image. East Germany had a particularly notorious government-run doping program (with horrible long-term health consequences), and the Russian system is well-documented too. Talented young athletes, often while still children, are coerced into doping, with the full backing of security services, which use all available resources to manipulate the subjects and cover up any traces. I can't think of any Western country ever placing such emphasis on professional sports. That's definitely a factor too.
I was able to understand the Google Translate version well, but I am very familiar with the intricacies of BW and zerg 12hatch openers.
Chatgpt and Claude did an incredible job translating the korean text:
Claude:
Today I'll teach you about the 12 Hatchery build. I'll explain the types of 12 Hatchery builds, their advantages and disadvantages, and the build orders in a simple but detailed way.
Against Protoss, this is the build you use when you want to start with the most economic advantage. Against Terran, there are several builds you can do with 12 Hatchery, so I'll explain some of the most commonly used builds.
The first is the two-hatchery build that starts with 12 Hatchery:
12 Hatchery
11 Spawning Pool
10 Gas
This build uses early gas, and it's often used when you want to quickly transition into a three-hatchery build with three gas bases.
The second build is:
12 Hatchery
12 Pool
12 Gas
This build allows for moderately fast tech tree and moderately fast three-hatchery expansion. This build is commonly known as the "safe three-hatchery" build, and you can think of it as a build that enables both quick Mutalisks and quick third base.
I could imagine situations where airlines need to get pilots/crew/planes to some location for the next flight and somehow recoup costs there, and are willing to cut prices on such multileg flights to take business away from their competitors... but I generally agree with your statement.
That doesn't explain why that would make the price cheaper to keep someone on the flight than letting them get off. It may be a meaningless difference, or even the same price, but cheaper to have the extra leg doesn't make sense if there is competition. That person has weight if nothing else and that costs money to haul.
Yep, it is not just travelers going to destinations that compete for chairs on an airplane but also workers of the airline too. The larger airlines have to balance these priorities
Factories/guns are quite rare, Oscillators are fairly common (but maybe not rendered properly on this? . . . is a common oscilator and I see many but they don't render propely) and spaceships tend to collide with stuff!
> Since September 2022, Patagonia has donated more than $71 million in earnings to numerous charitable and political causes, The New York Times reported earlier this year.
Their other past actions including knowingly selling products containing known carcinogens and exploiting slave labor can't be brushed under the rug with some greenwashing or philanthropy PR.
1% has existed for 40 years. More recently, they restructured as a nonprofit, somewhat similar to what Bose did (Bose profits go to MIT, Patagonia to environmental causes).
I think these types of posts are extremely nitpicky and not useful. From my experience, these sort of SEC filings are compiled by associates in a biglaw firm under a lot of time pressure, with file names like "version 41.B FINAL EDIT". Things get lost in translation. The signing off parties on the document are not sama: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849056/000110465921...
I think someone made a mistake. Also, from looking at the sig page the signing parties are others...
How does a mistake like that get made 3 or 4 years later when he was never the chair, and the only official source for that had been edited within days to remove that, and apparently there has never been a YC chair at all?
I had the opportunity to chat with Sam, and I would say that the majority of publicly written opinion about him is false.
He’s a pretty genuine guy with a lot of advice and wisdom. He definitely doesn’t come off as a capitalist but more of a helper type — someone who helps people become whole.
I felt like OpenAI and the sector in general made a lot of sense — now he can help everyone in the world.
As for the issue at hand, for one it’s doubtful he prepared this, but moreover, I have seen quite a many resumes in my day and not one wasn’t padded so to speak.
> He definitely doesn’t come off as a capitalist but more of a helper type
A capitalist is an owner of the means of production. It's as simple as that. I think Altman qualifies, especially to the African workers who make $1.50 an hour to get PTSD[1][2][3] in his AI sweatshops.
To be fair, Lord Rasengan is a sovereign head of the Joseon Empire cybernation according to their own bio, so Sam was just conducting international relations for openAI's next country to exploit. Be careful you don't anger Lord Rasengan; they could throw you in internet jail.
