"We didn't want him to leave, we were very happy that he went off and started a different company while he was working for us, and when we asked him to please either work full time at the job we're paying for, he quit".
I know that Silicon Valley VC is all about relationships (read: not calling out shitty behaviour) but it's difficult to spin someone just full on walking off the job.
It's not a reigning in if he quit. It sounds a lot like Sam went off and found another job, didn't bother to quit his old one, and when challenged... quit.
I'm sure PG and many others don't want to get on the bad side of someone who controls a decent amount of deal flow, but really it's pretty obvious that's unacceptable behaviour. It's the same thing that happens with Elon Musk - people run around excusing the shitty things he does, but if you drill down the excuse is basically "Elon Musk controls a bunch of things that could line my pocket and I don't want to piss him off", that doesn't suddenly make things ethical.
Reigning in an enthusiastic person they know, not an employee.
> It sounds a lot like Sam went off and found another job, didn't bother to quit his old one
He didn't "find another job", or that's a silly way to put it. He was already was running OpenAI not for profit. When that company decided to create a for-profit subsidiary, and SA to go with it, is when they said to him he couldn't be both.
> and when challenged... quit.
If you're saying he wasn't fired, you're right. He chose to leave and move to another company full time. That's what makes this such a dull topic.
Anyway - breaking this down point by point is unnecessary, because it's all in the original Tweet, and you're still saying what you're saying.
I mean sure... if you redefine Sam as not an employee then you can definitely argue he wasn't fired. Also, you seem to imply that OpenAI decided to start a non-from profit but.. isn't that just... Sam? Like Sam was running the non-for-profit, Sam decided to start a for-profit part of it -and from what we know of what went on at OpenAI it seems like Sam was the one driving that. So you're presenting this as if this was thrust upon Sam, but so far all we've seen seems to indicate the exact opposite, that all the way along Sam has been the one driving this.
To be clear, I'm not saying he was fired. I'm saying he acted unethically, pushed PG to the point where he gave an ultimatum and then quit, but PG is smart enough not to burn bridges.
> if you redefine Sam as not an employee then you can definitely argue he wasn't fired
No, I'm saying the "reigning in" was a personal one, not an employee one. Obviously Sam was an employee.
> So you're presenting this as if this was thrust upon Sam
No, I'm not. I'm saying he didn't go and find another job. His role changed with OpenAI's structure change, and he probably didn't think it through as to him it was a gradual transition.
> I'm saying he acted unethically, pushed PG to the point where he gave an ultimatum and then quit, but PG is smart enough not to burn bridges.
Okay. At this point we're just doing celebrity gossip, but with tech celebrities. I've no idea if your guess is correct or not.
I know that Silicon Valley VC is all about relationships (read: not calling out shitty behaviour) but it's difficult to spin someone just full on walking off the job.