zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
I would translate "not consistently candid with the board" as "he lied to the board about something important enough to fire him on the spot". This seems like the kind of statement lawyers would advise you to not make publicly unless you have proof, and it seems unusual compared to most statements of that kind that are intentionally devoid of any information or blame.

>>fabian+Z8
I wonder if the cost of running GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models at scale turned out to have been astoundingly more expensive than anticipated.

Imagine if you were the CTO of a company, massively underestimated your AWS bill, and presented your board with something enormous. Maybe something like that happened?

Or, if I wanted to speculate to the extremely negative; what if the training and operating costs ballooned to such a degree, that the deal with Microsoft was an attempt to plug the cash hole without having to go to the board requesting an enormous loan? Because the fact that Copilot (edit: previously known as Bing Chat and Bing Image Creator) is free and ChatGPT (edit: and DALL-E 3) are not should be a red flag...

>>gjsman+sd
> Imagine if you were the CTO of a company, massively underestimated your AWS bill, and presented your board with something enormous.

Unless there was evidence you had not underestimated but were, e.g., getting a kickback on the cloud costs that you deliverately lowballed in your estimates, they might fire you, but they almost certainly wouldn't put out a press release about it being for your failure to be candid.

That language indicates that the board has a strong belief that there was a major lie to the board or an ongoing pattern of systematic misrepresentation, or a combination.