241
OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman is leaving, too
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
241 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
59340 readers
1483 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
When you go public its not really your company anymore, its shareholders company.
OpenAI is not publicly traded company, but they have of course sold shares to other parties.
It's a little more complicated than that. OpenAI's core business is a non-profit, and nobody has shares in it that generate any kind of returns. Any extra money they make is either reinvested, donated to another non-profit, or just sits in a bank account until they do one of the first two things.
There is a for-profit arm of it, though, and some people do have shares in that.
The board in question runs the non-profit part.
Original comment talked about going public, what they have yet not done.
Let the enshittening begin!
They are invariably, actually, not very valuable at all beyond the fruition. Take a look at any Forbes or FT top 100 list and see how many of those companies are being run by founders.
Companies go through a lifecycle of change before they reach anything resembling stability or a pace of business that isn't completely volatile the people in it. During that time the types of people that the business need to achieve the goals of that lifecycle stage are very different.
Steve Jobs types, on the other hand, are actually extremely rare and the exception rather than the rule.
Because it requires a completely different skill set to run a startup with only yourself and 50 employees to worry about vs a multi-billion dollar, publicly traded company. People that are good at one of those often aren't good at the other, so when their company changes from the former to the latter, they get the boot for someone better at running the new version of the company.
Apple is now the most valuable company on earth, so I think you're not making the point you think you're making. Publicly traded companies act only based on what increases the value of their shares the most. If the current CEO isn't seen as the most profitable CEO for the shareholders, they will eventually be replaced, even if they founded the company. That is a risk you knowingly take when taking your company public. Most founders choose the money that comes with an IPO, knowing they'll eventually get the boot.
Steve Jobs is the exception. I'm just trying to answer the original question about why this happens so often. I'm not trying to argue about the best way to run a company. But if you're equating every founder with Steve Jobs then we're having a completely different conversation.
It unfortunately often does. It’s hard for the original founders to “let go” and some of the things that were idiosyncrasies at the scale of 10 are actively detrimental to people’s careers and the business’ wider growth when you’re 1000. Experienced founders often recognise when it’s time to hire the “VP Eng” that’ll replace them, but if it’s their first big go at it, they often cling on a bit longer that they should.
It was this bit
Founders are big thinkers and risk takers. When a company has found success, the owners prefer to focus on scaling that value rather than doubling or tripling down on the next big thing but the founders often want to keep betting it all.
Put another way, if you bet 100 and have turned it into 1,000,000 would you want to get your money out or play roulette?
It's not a matter of reward or punishment. It's a matter of the skills required for continued success.
Early startups require big risk-taking, progressing at an absurd speed, charisma to get investor capital, and really just being a little crazy.
Once the concept is proven to be viable and potentially profitable, the focus needs to shift from proving it can work to making it sustainable. This involves less risk, process improvements to avoid issues like getting sued, better money management, more careful time management to avoid burnout of non-founder employees, and generally just being more rational about things.
It's rare that a person can exhibit both of these sets of behaviors, so companies will often swap out the former for the latter as a company matures. If they didn't, the founders might unintentionally drive the company into the ground by taking unnecessary risks after finding something that already works.
Does that answer your question, or did I miss the mark, still?
Generally the type of people who make good founders have to be dreamers to believe that their crazy idea not only can work but can change the world.
These people do not make good leaders as the company matures, as it now needs certainty for investors and detailed plans and structure instead of moonshot fantasies.
The same traits that make them good founders also make it difficult for them to let go of their position, or recognize that they should transition control to a better suited candidate, so often they must be removed by the board.
Source: Software Engineer in a tech startup
I've worked at tech startups and I've always hated seeing the good founders removed. It feels like such a scummy, sterile move. The board doesn't care that the founder/s did a nearly insurmountable amount of work to elevate the company and would rather have some career CEO take over so they can maximize profits rather than do right by the company. It's a perversion of the company's original values and people all so that some rich assholes can make more money.
Capitalism is all about perverse incentives. It's unavoidable
I'm by no means saying that they have no further role in the company, and you are absolutely correct that these companies need to continue to innovate. This is why I mentioned transitioning control to a better candidate, because the role of the CEO changes as the company matures.
Smart founders should find a way to continue to play into their strengths instead of clinging to the highest title, otherwise they will always need to be removed.
Basically why Larry Page and Sergey Brin had Eric Schmidt become their CEO. He could do all the business stuff while they focused on doing whatever moonshots they wanted
Erin Schmidt is the one who turned Google into the shitty company that had to remove their “Don’t be evil” policy.
I remember when this scandal came out: https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/
I watched the press event when Larry Page (obviously not knowing what was going on) promised that they will immediately delete all the sniffed data, then Eric came, took the mic and corrected: “We will delete the data once we receive the court order that forces us to do”.
Once you structure your business so that you have a board of directors, who is the boss is not your decision anymore, as they "work" for the shareholders. In OpenAI's case, the CEO lied to the board so they fired him, and Greg left on his own.
That's why one of the first things Musk did as the majority shareholder was to dissolve the board of directors of Twitter.
Why? Because the people who make money don't like dealing with the founders.
Purely made up example: board of directors decides they can make the mosy money by pivoting and rebranding as "the customer service company". They will throw away all the models built with copyright material, build simpler models based on customer service scripts and interactions from customer businesses, and save a ton on compute while making bank on licensing and professional services. No more free chat, etc.
A founder doesn't like this new direction that is antithetical to their vision for the business so they go around telling shareholders to get rid of the current board and for employees to quit or otherwise not help with this.
Board sees this messing with their genius money printing idea so they fire them.
Seems you've gotten quite a few answers for the "why this happens" and don't like it.
Risk taking is necessary for a startup to reach success but once success is reached that needs to be tempered. Founders that are good at the vision part often aren't that great at leading an already successful company but don't have the introspection necessary to recognize that and try to hold onto their position beyond what's healthy rather than pivot to a more suitable role in their company and letting someone who knows how to run a successful business take over.
There's also a greed aspect for many companies that go public and become beholden to increasing shareholder value above all else. Even a good founder who's also a good long term leader will be forced to do things that maximize quarter over quarter profit at the cost of long term goals, and if they refuse insisting on looking at the long term goals they'll be fired because the shareholders have rights and can force the company to change. For a good example of this, look at Dell: Michael Dell brought the company public, the shareholders forced the company to prioritize quarterly profit growth which hurt the quality of the product, which was detrimental to the long term goals, so Michael Dell bought out the shares to bring it private again and focus on the long term. Something he couldn't do as long as there are shareholders who aren't on board with that vision and just want their return on their investment.
So, your "why" is not really one single reason:
For some, it's the founder not having the skills to manage an established and successful business even though they're the ones who got them to that point, but their ego won't let them see that and they have to be forced out
For others it's shareholder greed
And I'm sure there are several more reasons why companies do this
If these reasons don't seem to make sense... Well, humans often don't make sense and frequently make decisions detrimental to themselves. Our decisions often don't make sense from the perspective of what's the most sensible or logical course. If you're asking why they do something, there's a decent chance the answer isn't going to make as much sense as you'd like, because humans frequently just don't make sense.
And companies are run by these humans.
In another example, the Zuck maneuvered so that he always kept a majority holding of Facebook which means nobody can kick him out.
OpenAI isn't public. They aren't answering to shareholders.
"Stakeholders" then, the same thing just not publicly traded. OpenAI is owned 49% by microsoft and the rest by other companies and people. The point is the founders or CEO etc aren't the owners or hold a majority so they don't actually have a say in how the company is run and can be booted off by the board.