blog.samaltman.com
Greg
http://blog.samaltman.com/greg
102 comments
From about 20,000 feet higher than the OP, one of the issues about PG, Sam, and YC is the combination of (1) lots of warnings about the dangers of disputes among startup co-founders and, thus, the extreme need for yet another startup co-founder, this one to play den mother, peace maker, mother hen, group psychologist, Chief Cat Herder, etc. versus (2) extreme negativity about a solo founder.
From another 10,000 feet up, here is a simple observation: All across the US, from the largest cities to the smallest crossroad communities, there are solo founders of successful auto repair shops, auto body shops, dentist practices, CPA practices, rental property ownership and management, pizza carryout shops, Chinese carry out shops, Mobil Travel Guide five star restaurants, pediatrician practices, manufacturer representative practices, big-truck, little-truck businesses of wide variety, etc. where commonly the cash to start the business is higher than that of servers, domain name, and Internet connection of a Web site.
So, solo founders do relatively well in main street startups. Since co-founders are not crucial for main street business and since a Web site startup should be in most ways easier, why are co-founders crucial for Web site startups? Since co-founder disputes are so common and potentially destructive, why be so eager to have co-founders and so down on solo founders?
With the above, to me, hiring a co-founder as a recruiter, office peace maker, general evangelist, smiling face, optimistic, good hand shake, meeter and greeter who knows a lot of people is a big slice of cash and equity for the usual thin budget of a startup.
Or, as we often hear, the crucial work of a startup is to keep the burn rate as low as possible and ASAP please the customers/users and get to earnings. In this case, an office peace maker, etc. is at best a nice to have if for free, otherwise not a must have for free, and likely too expensive if have to pay much.
From another 10,000 feet up, here is a simple observation: All across the US, from the largest cities to the smallest crossroad communities, there are solo founders of successful auto repair shops, auto body shops, dentist practices, CPA practices, rental property ownership and management, pizza carryout shops, Chinese carry out shops, Mobil Travel Guide five star restaurants, pediatrician practices, manufacturer representative practices, big-truck, little-truck businesses of wide variety, etc. where commonly the cash to start the business is higher than that of servers, domain name, and Internet connection of a Web site.
So, solo founders do relatively well in main street startups. Since co-founders are not crucial for main street business and since a Web site startup should be in most ways easier, why are co-founders crucial for Web site startups? Since co-founder disputes are so common and potentially destructive, why be so eager to have co-founders and so down on solo founders?
With the above, to me, hiring a co-founder as a recruiter, office peace maker, general evangelist, smiling face, optimistic, good hand shake, meeter and greeter who knows a lot of people is a big slice of cash and equity for the usual thin budget of a startup.
Or, as we often hear, the crucial work of a startup is to keep the burn rate as low as possible and ASAP please the customers/users and get to earnings. In this case, an office peace maker, etc. is at best a nice to have if for free, otherwise not a must have for free, and likely too expensive if have to pay much.
If all startups need a Greg and there are only so many Gregs to go around, can new Gregs be deliberately created?
I'd push back on this idea that there are only so many to go around.
My bet is there are a lot of potential "Gregs" out there with the qualities Sam describes, but wasting away under-employed as Mid-Senior individual contributors at BigCorpXyz, like the stereotypical Oscar-capable actress waiting tables trying to get discovered. All it takes is the courage to recognize potential--they can be found!
My bet is there are a lot of potential "Gregs" out there with the qualities Sam describes, but wasting away under-employed as Mid-Senior individual contributors at BigCorpXyz, like the stereotypical Oscar-capable actress waiting tables trying to get discovered. All it takes is the courage to recognize potential--they can be found!
I've only worked at one startup, which was quite successful, and nobody there fit the description of Greg (unless you permute it to be so vague that everybody is Greg). Therefore, you don't need a Greg character for your startup to be successful.
Clearly he is a very impressive person with very impressive results and I'm sure I'd enjoy working at a company with him, or people like him.
I don't like this myth though. Startups are chaos, and pretending that as long as you have this magical person there solving all your problems that your chaos is somehow incorrect. The startup I worked for was full of normal imperfect humans who got offended, had trouble figuring out the direction of the company, were not world-class recruiters, were not always thoughtful and ran into problems big and small all the time. The company didn't die because there was a group of dedicated, imperfect people, who didn't want the company to die, not because there was one "Chief Optimist" holding it all together. If there was a "Chief Optimist" role, it was a very mobile position based on who was feeling best at that particular moment.
This isn't to say you can't and shouldn't actively try to make yourself better [1], you should. But you don't need a perfectly formed person working at your startup for it to succeed. And I want to note, I'm not disputing the existence of superhuman individuals, they exist and I'm sure power a lot of amazing achievements. You just don't need them to succeed, a bunch of normal people can do it too.
1: For whatever definition of better you want, in this context it would probably mean being a better startup founder
Clearly he is a very impressive person with very impressive results and I'm sure I'd enjoy working at a company with him, or people like him.
I don't like this myth though. Startups are chaos, and pretending that as long as you have this magical person there solving all your problems that your chaos is somehow incorrect. The startup I worked for was full of normal imperfect humans who got offended, had trouble figuring out the direction of the company, were not world-class recruiters, were not always thoughtful and ran into problems big and small all the time. The company didn't die because there was a group of dedicated, imperfect people, who didn't want the company to die, not because there was one "Chief Optimist" holding it all together. If there was a "Chief Optimist" role, it was a very mobile position based on who was feeling best at that particular moment.
This isn't to say you can't and shouldn't actively try to make yourself better [1], you should. But you don't need a perfectly formed person working at your startup for it to succeed. And I want to note, I'm not disputing the existence of superhuman individuals, they exist and I'm sure power a lot of amazing achievements. You just don't need them to succeed, a bunch of normal people can do it too.
1: For whatever definition of better you want, in this context it would probably mean being a better startup founder
Startups do not necessarily, specifically need "a Greg." Startups need "at least one person who provides the force of will to make the startup happen", and Greg is an instance of such a person.
As long as you believe you can find such force of will within yourself, you too can be a little bit like Greg.
But beware: there is only one Greg. Don't try to be Greg, because you are you and will never be Greg. Instead, follow in Greg's example. Learn from Greg.
Find the force of will inside you. Practice your communication and empathy skills. And prepare to work your butt off. In other words, be a little like Greg. And maybe you'll find success in the startup world.
As long as you believe you can find such force of will within yourself, you too can be a little bit like Greg.
But beware: there is only one Greg. Don't try to be Greg, because you are you and will never be Greg. Instead, follow in Greg's example. Learn from Greg.
Find the force of will inside you. Practice your communication and empathy skills. And prepare to work your butt off. In other words, be a little like Greg. And maybe you'll find success in the startup world.
This kind of goes with something I said a while ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12761258
A good project manager[0] to keep on top of everything and pick up all the miscellaneous tasks can/will make or break a startup.
[0] Well the title doesn't matter but I used PM so I will stick to that title.
A good project manager[0] to keep on top of everything and pick up all the miscellaneous tasks can/will make or break a startup.
[0] Well the title doesn't matter but I used PM so I will stick to that title.
Nice and sweet love letter to Greg. Shared with our founders.
We have a slightly alternative model: There hasn't been a consistent Greg 5+ years, but there is always a founder willing to be Greg when the previous Greg needs a break. Especially important once people start having children and go through the various ups and downs of life.
We have a slightly alternative model: There hasn't been a consistent Greg 5+ years, but there is always a founder willing to be Greg when the previous Greg needs a break. Especially important once people start having children and go through the various ups and downs of life.
Greg sounds like me. Usually gets taken advantage of by people writing articles like this.
That's exactly the thoughts that came to my mind. Article is big on complimenting Greg about his qualities being able to follow others, and drive a given vision handed down to him.
Hopefully, this article is simply not doing the Person justice and is simply poorly thought out and comes out as a superficial 'fluff' piece.
Hopefully, this article is simply not doing the Person justice and is simply poorly thought out and comes out as a superficial 'fluff' piece.
Different people are skilled at and like doing different things. I'm not the "big, original vision" guy. I'm the guy who pairs with the big vision guy and figures out the myriad details required to make that big vision come to fruition, figures out how to reign in the unrealistic, unachievable, or merely "sometime later" parts of the vision, so we can deliver in the near-term on the parts that are achievable.
That means I often get (and win at) the second-in-command role, but I don't see that as being taken advantage of at all. I've made quite a good career of it and honestly and earnestly enjoy it.
That means I often get (and win at) the second-in-command role, but I don't see that as being taken advantage of at all. I've made quite a good career of it and honestly and earnestly enjoy it.
The guy who made me work on an MVP for the next 3 month while he was on a vacation told me the same thing.
Apparently, if you have a big enough vision, it's along the lines of "why aren't you working for my awesome ideas for free? I even gave you teeny amount of equity"
Apparently, if you have a big enough vision, it's along the lines of "why aren't you working for my awesome ideas for free? I even gave you teeny amount of equity"
I think I might use that quote and print it on T-shirts.
someone like Greg is going to be hard to come by.
brockbug(1)
YC at this moment is able to recruit the absolute top talent for any position they can envision. Damn that is a lot of power they wield, especially in starting these projects like Open AI and the Basic Income. I'd love to be able to invest in YC, as I think a good return at this point is one of the best bets an investor could make.
> YC at this moment is able to recruit the absolute top talent for any position they can envision.
Absolute top talent? I think you are blinded by the light of YC. Not everyone thinks that or even close to it. [1] [2] By way of example I am reminded when I told a young person that I was helping to look on the page of a vc/angel investor that I do work for and know (among many). I said 'look at what they are doing I can get you an easy interview at any of those companies even if they don't have an opening'. They looked (was a woman iim) and said 'no thanks looks like they are all doing strange weird stuff'. This particular person preferred a traditional and solid company I am guessing, not a shot at the moon. And there are plenty of people like that. Plenty of smart capable people in the world and not all would die to work for a YC company or YC affiliated venture.
[1] Note I make money off the shot at the moon company so don't take this as some kind of sour grapes..
[2] And while most people know who Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos are (what I will call 'the aunt' test) most people have never heard of Sam, PG or YC for that matter.
Absolute top talent? I think you are blinded by the light of YC. Not everyone thinks that or even close to it. [1] [2] By way of example I am reminded when I told a young person that I was helping to look on the page of a vc/angel investor that I do work for and know (among many). I said 'look at what they are doing I can get you an easy interview at any of those companies even if they don't have an opening'. They looked (was a woman iim) and said 'no thanks looks like they are all doing strange weird stuff'. This particular person preferred a traditional and solid company I am guessing, not a shot at the moon. And there are plenty of people like that. Plenty of smart capable people in the world and not all would die to work for a YC company or YC affiliated venture.
[1] Note I make money off the shot at the moon company so don't take this as some kind of sour grapes..
[2] And while most people know who Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos are (what I will call 'the aunt' test) most people have never heard of Sam, PG or YC for that matter.
> [2] And while most people know who Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos are (what I will call 'the aunt' test) most people have never heard of Sam, PG or YC for that matter.
Sure, but most software engineers probably have. While companies need a lot more than just engineers, having a leg up on engineering recruitment (especially as a very early-stage startup) seems extremely valuable.
Sure, but most software engineers probably have. While companies need a lot more than just engineers, having a leg up on engineering recruitment (especially as a very early-stage startup) seems extremely valuable.
Highly doubt it :) HN crowd is a small subset of all professional engineers.
>high latency
I wonder if that's a typo.
I wonder if that's a typo.
No, I think Sam is saying that it takes a while for Elon/Sam to reply to Greg, and even given that, Greg responds quickly. Thats a good practice because it shows you're eager/dedicated to moving forward.
I think he meant in the Sam->Greg direction
[deleted]
Every success DOES need a guy like Greg. But I really worry about the part where Greg was working on the effort full-time, doing it all while the other guys still worked. When it ends in success, it is a great story. When it ends without success, Greg is the guy who put all his time into it, then ends up with nothing. Greg becomes the warning story.
Greg is the guy you need. Not necessarily the guy you want to be.
Greg is the guy you need. Not necessarily the guy you want to be.
Greg is the guy you need. Not necessarily the guy you want to be.
I don't think that's true. At least at the beginning, a "Greg" will be the person who has all the direct contact with mentors, investors, team, suppliers, and customers. A "Greg" will be the "business face" of things (not necessarily who the public see, but who everyone else sees). That's a very good position to be in when things fail or when the company exits.
CEOs go on to start something new. CTOs start interviewing for a new role. People who are a "Greg" find offers coming to them.
I don't think that's true. At least at the beginning, a "Greg" will be the person who has all the direct contact with mentors, investors, team, suppliers, and customers. A "Greg" will be the "business face" of things (not necessarily who the public see, but who everyone else sees). That's a very good position to be in when things fail or when the company exits.
CEOs go on to start something new. CTOs start interviewing for a new role. People who are a "Greg" find offers coming to them.
> Greg is the guy you need. Not necessarily the guy you want to be.
(I am Greg, and am reasonably happy to be me.)
I think this reply is true. But even that aside, the startup philosophy that guides me is variance maximization. So yes, when starting something new and pouring your heart into it, you have a chance of having nothing concrete to show for yourself in a few years. But if you succeed, the magnitude will be much greater, and you'll have been a core force in making that happen.
I worked on a number of startup ideas in college, which never went anywhere. The first company I worked on that had any sort of success was Stripe (which I joined when we were 4 people). I've taken an identical approach (hard work and trying to cover the entire problem surface area) to each organization I've been a part of, and am pretty happy with recommending it as a general strategy.
(I am Greg, and am reasonably happy to be me.)
I think this reply is true. But even that aside, the startup philosophy that guides me is variance maximization. So yes, when starting something new and pouring your heart into it, you have a chance of having nothing concrete to show for yourself in a few years. But if you succeed, the magnitude will be much greater, and you'll have been a core force in making that happen.
I worked on a number of startup ideas in college, which never went anywhere. The first company I worked on that had any sort of success was Stripe (which I joined when we were 4 people). I've taken an identical approach (hard work and trying to cover the entire problem surface area) to each organization I've been a part of, and am pretty happy with recommending it as a general strategy.
> "trying to cover the entire problem surface area"
Could you elaborate on that?
Could you elaborate on that?
I'm guessing Greg means handling a problem / process end to end. Not saying "I'll just do the initial phone screens when recruiting candidates" but just doing the whole thing without passing the buck to someone else.
So having worked way too hard on my startup only to have it fail, I can somewhat relate to this (I do not pretend to be as amazing as Greg). You're right - after my startup failed people were throwing what were objectively great job offers at me. Even more amazing, many of my investors were encouraging me to start another company and were willing to give me fantastic terms just for agreeing to start a company (entirely at the idea stage I could raise 7 digits at an 8 digit valuation with no strings attached from investors I already knew to be great people).
This ignores the mental toll that exhausting yourself on a company takes though. There are lots of people that start companies, but many people quit when the going gets tough. Those that commit everything to it are praised when they succeed but mostly forgotten when they don't. I am just now recovering after several months of not working, catching up on years of lost sleep, and basically becoming a person again.
There are days when I regret it and there are days when I don't. I learned a hell of a lot and I recognize it has opened doors for me, but the real question is was it worth it? And that's going to be different for everybody.
An important note, which is particularly relevant for HN. Paul Graham once said Sam Altman was the right person working on the wrong problem (with regards to his company Loopt). I bet there are a lot of people like that who just commit themselves to the wrong thing.
This ignores the mental toll that exhausting yourself on a company takes though. There are lots of people that start companies, but many people quit when the going gets tough. Those that commit everything to it are praised when they succeed but mostly forgotten when they don't. I am just now recovering after several months of not working, catching up on years of lost sleep, and basically becoming a person again.
There are days when I regret it and there are days when I don't. I learned a hell of a lot and I recognize it has opened doors for me, but the real question is was it worth it? And that's going to be different for everybody.
An important note, which is particularly relevant for HN. Paul Graham once said Sam Altman was the right person working on the wrong problem (with regards to his company Loopt). I bet there are a lot of people like that who just commit themselves to the wrong thing.
I learned a hell of a lot and I recognize it has opened doors for me, but the real question is what it worth it?
If you learnt even one thing from the effort, then it was worth it. Not every endeavor will bring you financial rewards, at least not directly. If you took on the effort because you loved the idea, rewards will flow via other means.
If you learnt even one thing from the effort, then it was worth it. Not every endeavor will bring you financial rewards, at least not directly. If you took on the effort because you loved the idea, rewards will flow via other means.
It has nothing to do with money. It's about ruining your life trying to make something work that just isn't going to work. I put my company before friends, family, and my health.
It's easy after-the-fact to see that, but it's hard to know when it's happening. Possibly the most celebrated entrepreneur is Elon Musk, and I don't think there's any question he put his company before his personal life multiple times in order to succeed. But how many other people have done that and then failed? It can leave you as a shell of your former self.
Everybody talks about the upside. Nobody wants to talk about the downside.
It's easy after-the-fact to see that, but it's hard to know when it's happening. Possibly the most celebrated entrepreneur is Elon Musk, and I don't think there's any question he put his company before his personal life multiple times in order to succeed. But how many other people have done that and then failed? It can leave you as a shell of your former self.
Everybody talks about the upside. Nobody wants to talk about the downside.
I just went through one episode myself, so I know how it feels. For a couple of months, it was as if my skull was empty, that there was nothing there. It's an emptiness that's tough to describe.
But this is the point of life! The experience.
Now I'm onto something else.
There has to be this drive to do something different, something that you love and that will make a difference. Sometimes it takes more than one try to find that one thing.
It's the modern form of a luta continua, vitória é certa. How else would you succeed if you don't try, and fail, and fail...
That, or stick with your day job, even if it bores you to death.
But this is the point of life! The experience.
Now I'm onto something else.
There has to be this drive to do something different, something that you love and that will make a difference. Sometimes it takes more than one try to find that one thing.
It's the modern form of a luta continua, vitória é certa. How else would you succeed if you don't try, and fail, and fail...
That, or stick with your day job, even if it bores you to death.
There is a very, very fine line dividing "chief optimist" from "sucker."
I've observed a correlation between people who place a lot of emphasis on not being a chump and the probability that a person will pursue marginal benefits at significant cost to others (including myself). I think it's because both behaviors are rooted in a similar world view and economic model.
Specifically for this context, if Musk and Altman conspired to do wrong by someone, it would be much easier to 'quietly beat them with a $5 wrench' than to engineer and construct OpenAI to publicly serve some cold dish. That's not to say it's all warm and fuzzy, but businesses that can succeed on aligned interests are better than those that seek cut throat markets.
Specifically for this context, if Musk and Altman conspired to do wrong by someone, it would be much easier to 'quietly beat them with a $5 wrench' than to engineer and construct OpenAI to publicly serve some cold dish. That's not to say it's all warm and fuzzy, but businesses that can succeed on aligned interests are better than those that seek cut throat markets.
Sounds like we need a Co-founder basic income?
That's a fantastic idea. We could give it a special name to avoid confusion. How about "salary"?
You often hear about founder salaries being set intentionally low by VCs to keep founders hungry.
While I don't dispute the power of stress and pressure to light a fire under someone's ass, I don't think it should come in the form of a person's livelihood.
For example, it's not hard to imagine founder(s) that have been working for years on something with no pay, putting them far behind their traditionally-employed peers. They may even have family obligations on top of that. Proceeding to then pay them low wages in the interest of motivation isn't exactly the best idea.
Granted, I do tend to agree with the ethos of having the founder being the lowest-paid employee in the company. Ideally that just ensures everyone else is paid really, really well.
While I don't dispute the power of stress and pressure to light a fire under someone's ass, I don't think it should come in the form of a person's livelihood.
For example, it's not hard to imagine founder(s) that have been working for years on something with no pay, putting them far behind their traditionally-employed peers. They may even have family obligations on top of that. Proceeding to then pay them low wages in the interest of motivation isn't exactly the best idea.
Granted, I do tend to agree with the ethos of having the founder being the lowest-paid employee in the company. Ideally that just ensures everyone else is paid really, really well.
We've kind of had the hat-trick of weasely-ness going on recently. They get overworked, underpaid, and then the promise of a big payout at the end is diluted away by investors who were barely involved beyond sloshing a bunch of other people's money in their general direction.
I don't like industries that institutionalize the consumption of individuals enthusiasm or altruism. We've essentially lost medicine to the latter and it sucks to see the startup scene consumed by the former.
I don't like industries that institutionalize the consumption of individuals enthusiasm or altruism. We've essentially lost medicine to the latter and it sucks to see the startup scene consumed by the former.
> Greg asked me questions for the first half of the drive back to San Francisco, then declared he was in, and started planning logistics for the rest of the drive.
I think he took on the risk when he bought into it.
But yeah.
I think he took on the risk when he bought into it.
But yeah.
[deleted]
But I really worry about the part where Greg was working on the effort full-time, doing it all while the other guys still worked.
Maybe because Greg so loved the idea that compensation didn't not matter to him, just the satisfaction of doing what he loves. He's a champion, and those are the guys you want around you.
And a guy like Greg will always be needed somewhere.
Maybe because Greg so loved the idea that compensation didn't not matter to him, just the satisfaction of doing what he loves. He's a champion, and those are the guys you want around you.
And a guy like Greg will always be needed somewhere.
But why does Greg need a cofounder?
(I am Greg.)
Starting something new is incredibly hard. The default is that your company never even forms, and it's on you to overcome the activation energy. I don't think I'd have the mental fortitude to stick that out alone.
In contrast, there's nothing more motivating than working with great people (and it's hard to do better than Ilya, Sam, and Elon). Everyone brings their own core strengths to the table, and if you've picked well your own efforts will be multiplied.
Starting something new is incredibly hard. The default is that your company never even forms, and it's on you to overcome the activation energy. I don't think I'd have the mental fortitude to stick that out alone.
In contrast, there's nothing more motivating than working with great people (and it's hard to do better than Ilya, Sam, and Elon). Everyone brings their own core strengths to the table, and if you've picked well your own efforts will be multiplied.
I use to think the same things but I realized that all the soft skills that the other guy claimed he possessed were all attainable with relative ease compared to the hard skills around coding, machine learning etc.
Thanks for chiming in. Would you mind giving your thoughts on an important question here?
Which of your qualities specifically do you feel are actually under discussion here, and how would you recommend others build, enhance or foster those qualities if they wanted to do so?
In other words, assuming someone wanted to, how would they become more "Greg?"
Which of your qualities specifically do you feel are actually under discussion here, and how would you recommend others build, enhance or foster those qualities if they wanted to do so?
In other words, assuming someone wanted to, how would they become more "Greg?"
Greg's cofounders were Sam Altman and Elon Musk.
Do I really need to say anything more?
Do I really need to say anything more?
> Elon and I were both busy with day jobs ...
Epic, lovely understatement there!
Epic, lovely understatement there!
What was the inspiration for the dinner that kicked off OpenAI? What made you invite Greg to it?
I was wondering the same thing. Found this article that sums it up pretty nicely.
https://blog.gregbrockman.com/my-path-to-openai
https://blog.gregbrockman.com/my-path-to-openai
>Greg is a world-class recruiter (he plans every detail of interviews, heavily researches candidate’s backgrounds, sends thoughtful and persistent followups, and so on), and I now believe even more strongly that someone on the founding team has to be an amazing recruiter.
I maintain a version-controlled text file of people I want to hire for my startup, should hell ever freeze over and I secure funding some day.
The nice part is that doing so usually goes hand-in-hand with the product/market/technology research you conduct anyways, so the practice has a very low time investment attached to it. For the most part, you simply stumble upon desirable people during the course of seemingly unrelated research, dig into their background, and then add them to the list.
On a humorous note, quite a few people on my list later ended up being hired by YC HARC. Hey Sam, what are the finer points of YC companies* trying to hire talent attached to YC projects? Can you offer any pointers? :)
* Not a YC company (yet).
I maintain a version-controlled text file of people I want to hire for my startup, should hell ever freeze over and I secure funding some day.
The nice part is that doing so usually goes hand-in-hand with the product/market/technology research you conduct anyways, so the practice has a very low time investment attached to it. For the most part, you simply stumble upon desirable people during the course of seemingly unrelated research, dig into their background, and then add them to the list.
On a humorous note, quite a few people on my list later ended up being hired by YC HARC. Hey Sam, what are the finer points of YC companies* trying to hire talent attached to YC projects? Can you offer any pointers? :)
* Not a YC company (yet).
"should hell ever freeze over and I secure funding some day"
Your low self-esteem is sabotaging you.
Your low self-esteem is sabotaging you.
Ah, it was intended as half tongue-in-cheek. Making light of tough situations is usually for the best.
Sorry for not making that more clear. My smiley face budget had already been reached by the latter portion of that post. Anything exceeding one smiley and you end up looking like you're on something, especially on HN. Heck, even just one can be suspect!
Sorry for not making that more clear. My smiley face budget had already been reached by the latter portion of that post. Anything exceeding one smiley and you end up looking like you're on something, especially on HN. Heck, even just one can be suspect!
Yes it's better to be misunderstood, than to use too many smileys.
Case in point: I'm not sure if your comment was genuine snark, or if you simply refrained from adding a smiley.
It's turtles all the way down. :)
It's turtles all the way down. :)
I like that philosophy. Try hard but have low expectations. Makes it harder to get discouraged, when things inevitably don't pan out.
[deleted]
Or it's just a healthy portion of self-deprecating humor.
Great piece thank you.
This nice summation really reminds me of a quote from Shawshank Redemption which is, I must admit, not the most flattering in a business context:
>I'm a convicted felon who provides sound financial advice - it's a nice pet to have.
The best takeaway for Technical / SV minded folks in this posting is quite clear: The odds of success are greatly enhanced when you have a Top Flight Communicator at your disposal. An ability to "walk amongst the tribes" is very important. It's a lot like getting various human systems into harmony / unison (nerves and cardiovascular for instance).
I can state from first-hand experience with Bids/RFPs for projects worth tens of thousands to billions that the most important person in the room is the Proposal Coordinator and they get the least respect and compensation out of the gate. It's realistically a horribly stressful job that is only rewarding to a very select group of people, one of which happens to be me. I've learned how to herd cats.
If I wanted to be, uh, less generous in my perspective, the Machiavellian perspective is much more clear: "Manipulating people is a profitable enterprise."
That's why I have a photo of Winston Wolf in my peripheral vision every day at work, because his motto makes the most sense in a world plagued by Murphy's Laws...
>My name is Winston Wolf. I solve problems.
>I'm a convicted felon who provides sound financial advice - it's a nice pet to have.
The best takeaway for Technical / SV minded folks in this posting is quite clear: The odds of success are greatly enhanced when you have a Top Flight Communicator at your disposal. An ability to "walk amongst the tribes" is very important. It's a lot like getting various human systems into harmony / unison (nerves and cardiovascular for instance).
I can state from first-hand experience with Bids/RFPs for projects worth tens of thousands to billions that the most important person in the room is the Proposal Coordinator and they get the least respect and compensation out of the gate. It's realistically a horribly stressful job that is only rewarding to a very select group of people, one of which happens to be me. I've learned how to herd cats.
If I wanted to be, uh, less generous in my perspective, the Machiavellian perspective is much more clear: "Manipulating people is a profitable enterprise."
That's why I have a photo of Winston Wolf in my peripheral vision every day at work, because his motto makes the most sense in a world plagued by Murphy's Laws...
>My name is Winston Wolf. I solve problems.
The moral of the story here, clearly, is that when you're one of a pair of billionaires collectively responsible for some of the most successful entrepreneurship successes in recent history, and you decide to have someone handle logistics for a new venture, make sure they're enthusiastic.
For sure it's easier for me than almost anyone else to recruit a cofounder, but I think (hope) the observations about important traits to look for are helpful more generally.
This is reductionist and offensive.
(1) On a practical level, although I don't know Greg's personal financial situation, he was the CTO of Stripe for five years. He's rich enough not to work. He works exactly because he's enthusiastic.
(2) Secondly, to say that Greg merely handles logistics for OpenAI is to willfully ignore the post as written, and the reality on the ground.
Also, I'm not sure Sam is a billionaire, although well on his way.
(1) On a practical level, although I don't know Greg's personal financial situation, he was the CTO of Stripe for five years. He's rich enough not to work. He works exactly because he's enthusiastic.
(2) Secondly, to say that Greg merely handles logistics for OpenAI is to willfully ignore the post as written, and the reality on the ground.
Also, I'm not sure Sam is a billionaire, although well on his way.
I don't think it's offensive to point out that recruiting an enthusiastic, engaged, and talented cofounder is different for Elon Musk and Sam Altman than it is for the fledgling startup founder that is the standard reader of YC blog posts.
It would have been fine if he was just telling a story about his own life, but when he said "make sure you also have someone like Greg" it became fair to point out that he seems a little bit oblivious as to context.
It would have been fine if he was just telling a story about his own life, but when he said "make sure you also have someone like Greg" it became fair to point out that he seems a little bit oblivious as to context.
I misinterpreted your first post as being a lot more snarky than this second comment suggests, sorry about that.
[deleted]
Greg remind me of Jared in the Silicon Valley TV show
> Greg is a world-class recruiter (he plans every detail of interviews, heavily researches candidate’s backgrounds, sends thoughtful and persistent followups, and so on), and I now believe even more strongly that someone on the founding team has to be an amazing recruiter.
The early openAI team is clearly superb. What's even more impressive to me, is that the quality of the team has remained incredibly strong as the team grew to 45+ people: IMO/IOI medalists, startup founders and key contributors, world-class Phd's who could easily get tenure-track positions at top universities, etc. [1] [2]
It's not uncommon for a startup to have a strong founding team. It's almost unheard of that just about every single individual of a 45+ person team is objectively exceptional.[3]
Not sure how much Greg is still involved in recruiting, but either way, congrats.
(No affiliation to OpenAI, besides knowing a few people there)
[1] https://openai.com/blog/team-update-january/ [2] https://openai.com/blog/team-update-august/ [3] I don't know any startups in which all of the first 50 employees were truly exceptional prior to them joining the company. I guess Google, for example, might have had an incredibly strong early team, but I'm not sure they were as strong prior to them joining Google.
The early openAI team is clearly superb. What's even more impressive to me, is that the quality of the team has remained incredibly strong as the team grew to 45+ people: IMO/IOI medalists, startup founders and key contributors, world-class Phd's who could easily get tenure-track positions at top universities, etc. [1] [2]
It's not uncommon for a startup to have a strong founding team. It's almost unheard of that just about every single individual of a 45+ person team is objectively exceptional.[3]
Not sure how much Greg is still involved in recruiting, but either way, congrats.
(No affiliation to OpenAI, besides knowing a few people there)
[1] https://openai.com/blog/team-update-january/ [2] https://openai.com/blog/team-update-august/ [3] I don't know any startups in which all of the first 50 employees were truly exceptional prior to them joining the company. I guess Google, for example, might have had an incredibly strong early team, but I'm not sure they were as strong prior to them joining Google.
[deleted]
Greg Brockman:
Went to MIT
Went to Harvard
Was CTO of a 10 billion dollar company for 5 years, starting the year it was founded
Yeah, I'd take a cofounder like that.
Went to MIT
Went to Harvard
Was CTO of a 10 billion dollar company for 5 years, starting the year it was founded
Yeah, I'd take a cofounder like that.
I'm sure that many others could write much better informed or detailed additions to Sama's post.
All I will say is that I worked at Stripe very briefly -- for about three months -- when the company was about thirty people (before I went on to go through YC). Greg was incredibly generous with his time in explaining and working with me as a non-engineer.
I don't think he had been named CTO yet (Stripe was quite title phobic at the start) but it was clear that he was both a technical and non-technical leader of the company. He spent time to explain code and architecture to me, while also chatting through cultural norms and various organizational tensions Stripe was experiencing as it grew.
I think the acculturation to Stripe that he very deliberately supported in me was critical for what (little) success I had with Standard Treasury.
This is all to say that Sama’s post is spot on in my experience. Greg exhibited every one of the mentioned characteristics (except recruiting, I didn’t interacting with him on that) even when working with someone with which he didn’t have to be so generous.
All I will say is that I worked at Stripe very briefly -- for about three months -- when the company was about thirty people (before I went on to go through YC). Greg was incredibly generous with his time in explaining and working with me as a non-engineer.
I don't think he had been named CTO yet (Stripe was quite title phobic at the start) but it was clear that he was both a technical and non-technical leader of the company. He spent time to explain code and architecture to me, while also chatting through cultural norms and various organizational tensions Stripe was experiencing as it grew.
I think the acculturation to Stripe that he very deliberately supported in me was critical for what (little) success I had with Standard Treasury.
This is all to say that Sama’s post is spot on in my experience. Greg exhibited every one of the mentioned characteristics (except recruiting, I didn’t interacting with him on that) even when working with someone with which he didn’t have to be so generous.
Cool but why doesn't he get a last name. I don't actually know who it is.
Greg Brockman. It's in the second sentence of the post.
It's still a nearly context-free headline, which is a pet peeve of mine at Hacker News. The headline should contain actual information that tells me why I care and should click. "Greg" is quite insufficient, with the only saving grace being I can see the domain name and know who Sam Altman is.
[deleted]
This might be besides the point of the post, but I'll ask anyway.
@Greg, perhaps you could talk a bit about what you think makes you a productive engineer and problem-solver. What's your workflow like, how do you approach a problem, or learning a new concept, what tools do you use, etc.
@Greg, perhaps you could talk a bit about what you think makes you a productive engineer and problem-solver. What's your workflow like, how do you approach a problem, or learning a new concept, what tools do you use, etc.
Greg is humble, resourceful, and smart. That combination alone is enough to move mountains. However, what Sam's piece is missing is the "Why?". Why would someone who can do anything do YOUR thing and take any crud task it takes to finish the job, especially after they've made their fortune? Greg should give his own "Why?" about OpenAI. From what I know if 100 years from now someone looks back at this fork in the road of History, they would see two scenarios: Either a couple of big players will own the most powerful instrument in the hands of mankind, to use at their (or their highest bidder's) discretion, or mankind will jointly get to ensure the instrument has a safety handle to protect life and all things most important.
For the latter, I'd bet many of the smartest people here would want to do the crud work, even if they're not cofounders. The job of the ideal co-founder is to spread a mission that matters this much to everyone who would be fit to achieve it, inspiring all employees to be as committed. Well, OpenAI powered relentlessly by Greg, has inspired thousands of volunteers and open-source contributors in addition to it's top-notch staff.
For the latter, I'd bet many of the smartest people here would want to do the crud work, even if they're not cofounders. The job of the ideal co-founder is to spread a mission that matters this much to everyone who would be fit to achieve it, inspiring all employees to be as committed. Well, OpenAI powered relentlessly by Greg, has inspired thousands of volunteers and open-source contributors in addition to it's top-notch staff.
“The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads.”
-- Jeffrey Hammerbacher
I'm guilty as charged (at least it's about entertaining & useful ads) - but in my post-exit career I'd also be humbled to work on something with this magnitude and relevancy.
In the middle of the tech bubble it's easy to forget how the rest of the world will deal with this bubble with increasing automation, inequality and climate change. It's great to see some people actually tackling the really important topics even if they could get a 6-7 digit paycheck at top Tech companies.
-- Jeffrey Hammerbacher
I'm guilty as charged (at least it's about entertaining & useful ads) - but in my post-exit career I'd also be humbled to work on something with this magnitude and relevancy.
In the middle of the tech bubble it's easy to forget how the rest of the world will deal with this bubble with increasing automation, inequality and climate change. It's great to see some people actually tackling the really important topics even if they could get a 6-7 digit paycheck at top Tech companies.
> Either a couple of big players will own the most powerful instrument in the hands of mankind, to use at their (or their highest bidder's) discretion, or mankind will jointly get to ensure the instrument has a safety handle to protect life and all things most important.
Missing, of course, the strongest possibility, which is that said instrument, either covertly or overtly, is the big player which is calling the shots.
Missing, of course, the strongest possibility, which is that said instrument, either covertly or overtly, is the big player which is calling the shots.
I've heard OpenAI isn't actually open source. Is it?
They do have open source projects, but their mission is not to necessarily be an open source company. They want to equalize the footing in AI for everyone, and this might require some degree of secrecy so that commercial AI companies do not get an edge. At least, that is my perception, feel free to correct me.
> They want to equalize the footing in AI for everyone
Equal opportunity to pay, or actually democratizing it so that anybody who wants to use it can reap the benefits?
I'm willing to bet it's not the latter, given the reliance of AI on large training corpuses and machine time.
Equal opportunity to pay, or actually democratizing it so that anybody who wants to use it can reap the benefits?
I'm willing to bet it's not the latter, given the reliance of AI on large training corpuses and machine time.
I think its more about making the same research available to everyone, or other things that are relatively free to distribute (like code, even though, as hinted, it does not mean that everything will be open-sourced as its written).
Although, you do make a good point. If only the most powerful companies can afford meaningful machine time, how democratized can AI be?
Although, you do make a good point. If only the most powerful companies can afford meaningful machine time, how democratized can AI be?
> If only the most powerful companies can afford meaningful machine time, how democratized can AI be?
That's the big trick that nobody seems to give a shit about, as they scramble around to make a buck.
Having the research or even the code doesn't really give you an advantage. We're just trading one set of overlords for another.
That's the big trick that nobody seems to give a shit about, as they scramble around to make a buck.
Having the research or even the code doesn't really give you an advantage. We're just trading one set of overlords for another.
Okay, so OpenAI is not open source but a private company.
@gdb: do you have anything to say about sama's post? and what have been the activities that you found most valuable in your life?
I only worked at OpenAI for a short period, but what was written here seems to mirror what I saw, FWIW. I would add in that Greg struck me as one of the sharpest people in the company, and one of the hardest working (he would often stay there late into the night, even on weekends).
Damn. Wish I was Greg.
Sure, maybe it is a generalizable description of virtuous qualities but it also strikes me as something different and much worse. Here's another interpretation "I sure am fortunate that I know this wealthy, well-connected person who helps me with my businesses that require knowing wealthy, well-connected people."