▲ 119 points
back
86 comments
For those not in the know, these are two of the most highly regarded operators in the Valley (if not as well known).
Sarah was thought of as the person who "ran" Square, and Kevin is thought of as one of the strongest product leaders.
They'd both be in my top 3 worldwide hires I'd try to make for these roles.
I'm still at Block (née Square) and have been for over 10 years. I'm not in anything related to finance, but I can say that during her time here she was widely respected and valued within the company at all levels. I don't know of a single person that wasn't saddened to hear when she was leaving.
Landing her is a huge victory for OpenAI, and I wish her all the best.
Nextdoor shares don't look like they did too well under her management.
She was an awful CEO; she was basically a CFO hired to shepherd the company through the IPO (SPAC) process, but the years following were awful. I left right before the board fired her (along with many, many senior people) and hope the company is doing better without her there. Not surprised to see her failing upward.
>Nextdoor shares don't look like they did too well under her management.
Isn't it fair to look at share price under their leadership? What other objective measures do we have of their management abilities? We take the OP's word for it that they're the best? Or is this like sports teams recycling the same 30 coaches?
I don't think she's someone to be admired. Being ceo of an app that is IMO rife with bigotry, xenophobia, and scare mongering.
Not really. They just have a bit of a cult following.
I mean isn't that executive culture these days? The myth >> then the person.
Whos the third ?
Majorly cult-y.
really interesting to see them hire two folks from consumer-tech backgrounds, rather than B2B or developer tools. I wonder if that signals an increasing focus on ChatGPT as a consumer product rather than the API / Enterprise products? (Edit: Sarah actually has a background in both Enterprise and Consumer)
In my opinion, OpenAI is building a platform business [1]. OpenAI is primarily an innovation platform. It provides tools, models, and APIs that enable developers and businesses to create new applications and services, fostering a wide ecosystem of innovation where OpenAI’s technology is the beating heart, driving high-margin revenue. While it also sells API access, its main role aligns with enabling third-party innovation, similar to platforms like Microsoft and Google Android.
However, driving third-party innovation does not relieve OpenAI of the need to create consumer-facing applications like ChatGPT. If OpenAI was to remain exclusively a back-end API business, it would be leaving itself vulnerable to disintermediation as competition from other model providers like Meta enable swapping out the back end. I believe Kevin was brought in to make sure OpenAI has its own relevant front end innovation so that disintermediation is less of a threat.
> In my opinion, OpenAI is building a platform business [1]. OpenAI is primarily an innovation platform. It provides tools, models, and APIs that enable developers and businesses to create new applications and services, fostering a wide ecosystem of innovation where OpenAI’s technology is the beating heart, driving high-margin revenue.
This could have been a description of Facebook circa 2010, for a brief moment, everyone was happy with the arrangement.
Inevitably, the platform will start competing with the developers who "innovate" on top of it in order to gain additional revenue; see 2024 Facebook which is no longer a platform by most measures, or the many apps that got Sherlocked by Apple. The countdown clock has started ticking for OpenAI-wrapper products/startups, starting with the ones with the most revenue and/or utility.
This is the most insightful nugget into OAI's consumer product strategy I've read, thank you.
So OpenAI is going to compete directly with Azure, as a PaaS/IaaS? Doesn't make sense. At best they will be a thin layer over Azure.
Thought the same when I read - and honestly I think the larger growth vector for OpenAI is their B2B and API potential. But good product leaders can span both, but curious none-the-less
Do these people actually even believe in AI? If not, they're there solely for the financialization and value-extraction, which means it goes downhill from here.
> Do these people actually even believe in AI?
The moment that every one who gave a shit about safety quit OpenAI you should have understood that there was no AI coming.
This has always been, and will always be about the money.
Implying that these people quite because they realized they weren't needed (no need for safety if AI isn't coming) rather than what seems like the common perspective being that safety initiatives always lost out over money making opportunities?
Kinda weird to expect a for-profit company to "care" about a technology outside of it making them more money TBH.
Wasn't their goal to make AGI (and to make it available)? It's why I said what I did. Financialization runs in opposition to such altruistic goals. Someone has to now pay their hundred million dollar pay packages, and that someone is the customer.
Well, when they're owned by a non-profit, it's not at all weird to expect that.
But if you actually believe they'll be super AI in a year or two, why even bother with a product till then? Seems like the only focus should be getting there first.
Unless of course you don't actually believe that.
They've disbanded their superlignment group, and their staff who were able to work on the problem more deeply (STEM people) have since quit, see
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8047
(N.b. in the ex-employee author's pdf article mentioned above, a page dedicates his pdf to Ilya, who is also out of the company, so in context it's a pointed statement writing that dedication IMO)
I think even the most bullish e/acc AI fanatic is probably not 100% sure AGI will be developed in a year or two, and so even in the most optimistic case you would want to hedge your bets.
Predictions aren't binary, they're probabilistic. If anyone "actually believes" we'll have AGI in 2 years, without any room for doubt, they're wrong.
You think you need 7 trillion dollars to build chips to make that AI? You think you need a product that is appealing so you remain the market leader while you build that AI? You believe you'll build the super AI but your investors want something more than, "its coming" for the next few years? You come from a background of building products and you want to build a product?
Seems like a lot of reasons why you would build a product, even if you think you're build a super AI.
The way OpenAI protect their IP suggests to me that the USP is not that U.
Curious choice re Sarah Friar - was Nextdoor that successful? Or is this more based on her Square work?
Sarah was well respected at Square as the CFO, and left when it was obvious Jack wouldn't give up the CEO role.
It looks like Silicon Valley really values the experience of execs from Instagram:
OpenAI CPO: Kevin Weil, Instagram VP of Product 2016-2018 [1]
Anthropic CPO: Mike Krieger, Instagram Cofounder and CTO 2010-2018 [2]
OpenAI VP Consumer Product: Peter Deng, Instagram Head of Product 2013-2015 [3]
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinweil/
Lot's of experience how to make money with data :)
The Instagram mafia.
I can't think of another consumer software product as successful in users and $ as Instagram in the '10s.
I'm amazed they were able to pull from Planet. As impressive as OpenAI is, Planet is such a stellar company with the right mix of good intentions/impact and profitable product market fit that it's hard to imagine a better place to work right now. That said, maybe Planet's success made it less attractive to someone looking to take on new and monumental challenges.
so tl;dr open api sees itself as a platform business and is hiring top level platform leaders to fill out their space.
Kevin known mainly for his work at Instagram and Sarah for her work at Square.
Also implies that agi and some of the broader ideas might not come online for a few years.
So long "Open" AI, this screams more push to turn a profit. Maybe had they hired leaders in the scientific fields it would read differently, but a cash flow perp and a top tier product owner? (tho instagram? woof don't count that as a win except a win for greed).
Honest question: Do they not each worry they are each, in their own way, going to be Linda Yaccarino?
The thing with Linda is that while she's theoretically the boss, and Musk reports to her as CTO/CPO everybody knows that Musk is the boss and she's there to... sell ads? Actually I don't know what she's supposed to do, but it doesn't matter, she's certainly not allowed to touch either the product or the technology and Musk can fire her at any point as owner/chairman.
This, OTOH is a just a simple straightforward C-Suite. Sam is the boss, and he hired two reports to handle areas where they have expertise. This might be the simplest corporate thing OpenAI has ever done, lol.
I understand they have each taken steps to avoid that, notably by installing the OpenAI app on their phone's home screen.
In what way?
Is this what caused AAPL stock to drop ~$3 rapidly? (mostly recovered since then)
WWDC is today, any major stock price movement is almost certainly due whatever they are announcing.
who cares.. everything US and everything OpenAI is incredibly overblown