I don't think this checks out, as most of the ideas around here involving him hiding OpenAI internals from the board don't, for this reason: How could he, given who is on the board?
There is no way that sama is the only person in this set of people to have unique information on critical privacy incidents or financials or costs of server operations, because these issues don't originate with him.
If some version of this turned out to be true, I would be seriously confused about ground truth transparency in the company and how the fuck they set the whole thing up, that this was an option. But again, this is why I'd say: Implausible.
Hmm, I don't see which part of the theory requires the board to not have known. It just may have taken them a week to decide who's head to cut for the mess
Don't they only have to hide the truth from one person? Altman and Brockman were ousted. The only other person on the board from OpenAI is the Chief Scientist, and I doubt he's that involved in the business-end of things.
Edit: Also, yes, it's hard to sweep things under the rug. We don't know the timeline of events, and we're seeing an instance where Altman failed to hide something.
Executive boards aren't involved in day-to-day management like CEOs and other executives. They meet periodically and review updated information. So, yes, Altman would have access to more information than the board.
If you haven't seen the news update, that's apparently what happened. The Chief Scientist pushed out the other two C-levels, accusing them of hiding stuff from the rest of the board. The board took his side.
Altman and Brockman have yet to share their side of the story.
There is no way that sama is the only person in this set of people to have unique information on critical privacy incidents or financials or costs of server operations, because these issues don't originate with him.
If some version of this turned out to be true, I would be seriously confused about ground truth transparency in the company and how the fuck they set the whole thing up, that this was an option. But again, this is why I'd say: Implausible.