Senator Kennedy: You make a-lot of money, do you ?
— Awais Aziz (@awaisaziz21) January 23, 2025
Sam Altman: No I’m paid enough for health insurance. I have no equity in open AI.
Kennedy: That’s interesting, you need a lawyer or an agent.
Sam: I’m doing this because I love it.
pic.twitter.com/BIB7dwY75B
February 11, 2025
"You need a lawyer or an agent."
The pithiness of Senator Kennedy stuns me:
Posts
26 comments:
Interested in seeing how this goes. I don't trust Altman, but that may be because of bias in my sources.
Of course, Sen. Kennedy already knew what Altman's deal with OpenAI is. So why did he set him up to appear likable and admirable?
Eminently untrustworthy.
Altman didn't do too badly in the pithy department, himself.
I saw this earlier, and I am still confused. It really needs some context.
What's not to love?
That's from 2023.
https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/openai-ceo-testifies-on-artificial-intelligence/627836
See 1:40:35.
Not really much to it.
My interpretation is that Kennedy is saying you’re perjuring yourself and if you’re not, you’re being cheated out of money that you ought to be getting.
"I have no equity in Open AI [right now, but if the proposed restructuring goes through I expect to have about 7% which should be worth $20+ billion]" he answered, honestly.
I agree with Althouse's comment above. Kennedy is a pleasure to watch.
I’m going with laconic over pithy. Kennedy doesn’t believe him
I don't know if he is going so far as saying he is perjuring himself, but it does seem like a coy way to say that is either bullshit or you are a rube.
Sam Altman is the CEO and an investor in OpenAI, but he has no ownership value in OpenAI.
Naw. He was just making a joke about being underpaid and lawyer was the first thing popped in his mind... ie get a lawyer to draw up a contract. Or sue yourself for violating The Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA).
I think the Fema cheese(D) should need lawyers.
BREAKING: This is Big. Senior DHS Official has just confirmed to me that FEMA's Chief Financial Officer Mary Comans was just fired for illegally funding migrant luxury hotels in NYC against the orders of President Trump.
Comans is arguably most powerful person at FEMA, controlling billions in funding.
"Effective immediately, FEMA is terminating the employment of four individuals for circumventing leadership to unilaterally make egregious payments for luxury NYC hotels for migrants. Firings include FEMA's Chief Financial Officer, two program analysts and a grant specialist.
Under President Trump and Secretary Noem's leadership, DHS will not sit idly and allow deep state activists to undermine the will and safety of the American people."
He wants a massive stake in the for-profit spinoff. How does it work that a non-profit can have a for-profit subsidiary?
He’s using lawyer language where up can be down and black can be white. Lawyer language means never having to perjure yourself…
It’s one more instance where a congress critter tries to punch above their (light) weight class.
In the pictographs that used to run in The Nation the little Senator stick figure is about the size of the pinkie toe of the pe/vc stick figure, and includes all the senator graft and corruption…
using AI "in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole,"
And Altman knows what that is, of course.
Altman reminds me of Carter Burke in Aliens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdB8aO9TLk&ab_channel=LippR.
Let me build an AI by the side of the road
And keep control of man.
Leland writes: "Sam Altman is the CEO and an investor in OpenAI, but he has no ownership value in OpenAI."
While this is theoretically possible, it would be an extraordinary variation from normal investor behavior.
And as an outside investor, I would never touch a deal where the CEO did not have a significant equity stake.
Pitiless pithiness. Even better than cruel neutrality!
JSM
Elon Musk is "doing it, 'cause he Loves it"
you Know how you can tell? He Spending MILLIONS
PB said...
He wants a massive stake in the for-profit spinoff. How does it work that a non-profit can have a for-profit subsidiary?
The mutual Insurance i worked (EMCCAS), was a mutual, and thus; was Forbidden By Law* from making any Profits..
And, EMCCAS owned the majority stake in a FOR PROFIT stock company (EMCINS), which was traded on the NASDAQ (we even rang the bell, and opened it back in 20something).
EMCINS didn't JUST make a profit.. it paid pretty nice dividends.
WHY did a mutual company OWN a stock company?
legal loopholes (or ease of funding buyouts or such)
Forbidden By Law* Technically, we were just REQUIRED to return Any profits to the policy holders, which the company thought was repellent to the extreme, so; in the 30 years or so that i worked there, we Never Once declared a profit.. Instead, all us workers would get Nice Bonuses
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.