Nov 6 - OpenAI devday, with new features of build-your-own ChatGPT and more
Nov 9 - Microsoft cuts employees off from ChatGPT due to "security concerns" [0]
Nov 9 - OpenAI experiences severe downtime the company attributes to a "DDoS" (not the correct term for 'excess usage') [3]
Nov 15 - OpenAI announce no new ChatGPT plus upgrades [1] but still allow regular signups (and still do)
Nov 17 - OpenAI fire Altman
Put the threads together - one theory: the new release had a serious security issue, leaked a bunch of data, and it wasn't disclosed, but Microsoft knew about it.
This wouldn't be the first time - in March there was an incident where users were seeing the private chats of other users [2]
Further extending theory - prioritizing getting to market overrode security/privacy testing, and this most recent release caused something much, much larger.
Further: CTO Mira / others internally concerned about launch etc. but overruled by CEO. Kicks issue up to board, hence their trust in her taking over as interim CEO.
edit: added note on DDoS (thanks kristjansson below) - and despite the downtime it was only upgrades to ChatGPT Plus with the new features that were disabled. Note on why CTO would take over.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/09/microsoft-restricts-employee...
[1] https://twitter.com/sama/status/1724626002595471740
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/21/23649806/chatgpt-chat-his...
[3] https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/09/openai-blames-ddos-attack-...
"review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board"
OK, so they tell us he was lying, which is precisely what "not consistently candid in his communications" means.
Possible topics for lying:
* copyright issues to do with ingestion of training data
* some sort of technical failure of the OpenAI systems
* financial impropriety
* some sort of human resources issue - affair with employee
* other - some sort of political power play? Word from Satya Nadella - "get rid of him"?
Possibly the reason is something that the board members felt exposed them personally to some sort of legal liability, thus if they did not act then they would have to pay a legal price later.
It has to be pretty serious to not make it public.