Given Mr Altman and OpenAI are at the forefront of the AI revolution, the sense of Succession-style chaos should concern us all.
Here’s everything we know – and why it matters.
Shock departure
Mr Altman’s sacking was announced in an unassuming OpenAI press release.
Coming just weeks after he’d represented the firm at the UK’s AI Safety Summit, and days after appearing at the company’s first conference for third-party developers, the timing was a shock.
Advertisement
The board was said to have “lost confidence” in him due to unspecified communications issues.
In this case, the board had meant just four people – including OpenAI’s chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, who had reportedly become concerned that Altman was prioritising company growth over AI safety.
Members five and six – Mr Altman himself and then-president Greg Brockman – opposed it but were outvoted.
“I loved my time at OpenAI,” Mr Altman posted on X as the news broke, describing it as “transformative”.
“Will have more to say about what’s next later.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:09
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman at summit
The immediate fallout
OpenAI made chief technology officer Mira Murati interim CEO.
But as hundreds of staff made their displeasure about Altman’s sacking known, she made attempts to secure his stunning return to stave off the revolt.
“OpenAI is nothing without its people,” many employees wrote together on X – including Ms Murati herself.
Twitter
This content is provided by Twitter, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Twitter cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Twitter cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Twitter cookies for this session only.
Mr Altman was reportedly keen on the idea of returning. His brother Jack, also a start-up CEO, of HR firm Lattice, warned his detractors they were “betting against the wrong guy”.
But by Sunday, Mr Altman and Mr Brockman had joined OpenAI investor Microsoft to lead an AI research team.
Bloomberg reported the tech giant’s CEO Satya Nadella was “furious” and blindsided about the ousting.
OpenAI responded by hiring Emmett Shear, the former boss of streaming site Twitch, as Mr Altman’s replacement.
But the sense of panic at OpenAI was obvious, as more than 500 employees signed a letter threatening to quit.
Nothing encapsulated the chaos more than Mr Sutskever signing, saying he “deeply regrets” the board’s decision.
Twitter
This content is provided by Twitter, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Twitter cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Twitter cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Twitter cookies for this session only.
Despite joining Microsoft, Mr Altman left the door open for a return to OpenAI.
The two companies were already closely aligned, with the Windows maker investing $10bn in it earlier this year and using its GPT tech to reinvent its Bing search engine and Office products.
According to tech news site The Verge, citing multiple sources, Mr Altman and Mr Brockman were willing to return to OpenAI if the board members who staged the coup walked away.
Mr Nadella told CNBC “it’s very, very clear something has to change around governance”.
“We’ll have a good dialogue with their board on that,” he said.
Mr Altman suggested he’d stay involved with OpenAI in some capacity, posting: “We are all going to work together some way or other, and I’m so excited.”
Twitter
This content is provided by Twitter, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Twitter cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Twitter cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Twitter cookies for this session only.
OpenAI announced his return “in principle” on Wednesday morning (UK time) – and Mr Altman seemed to have got his way.
The company said there would be a “new initial board” of Bret Taylor, Larry Summers, and Adam D’Angelo.
“We are collaborating to figure out the details. Thank you so much for your patience through this,” it added.
Mr Summers is a former US treasury secretary, while Mr Taylor – the new chair – co-created Google Maps.
Mr Brockman will also be returning to the company.
What happens now?
Mr Altman has suggested his return means he won’t be working at Microsoft after all.
Mr Nadella appeared fine with that, saying he was “encouraged” by the changes to OpenAI’s board.
Twitter
This content is provided by Twitter, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Twitter cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Twitter cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Twitter cookies for this session only.
As for the old board, Mr Sutskever may be hoping his quick change of tact keeps him on side.
And then there’s Mr Shear, who will go down in history as one of Silicon Valley’s shortest-lived CEOs.
The executive, a previously self-professed AI “doomer” who has warned of its existential threat to humanity, had claimed he was not told why Mr Altman was dismissed.
“I am deeply pleased by this result,” he said of Mr Altman’s return.
“I’m glad to have been a part of the solution.”
Why the future of OpenAI matters
The San Francisco-based company has been around since 2015 and even then had some big names on its books, including Elon Musk.
He and Mr Altman were the first people on the board to guide the firm’s quest to develop “safe and beneficial” artificial general intelligence, which refers to super-powerful AI capable of outperforming humans in a number of tasks
But it wasn’t until November 2022 that OpenAI was thrust into mainstream attention thanks to ChatGPT, attracting more than 100 million users in just a few months.
With AI tipped to have a similarly transformative impact on the world as the Industrial Revolution, Mr Altman has been rubbing shoulders with some of the world’s most powerful politicians as he looks to help shape potential regulation.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:31
Will AI mean ‘no job is needed’?
Mr Altman hasn’t been shy of warning about the risks of AI, but is undoubtedly committed to pushing the boundaries and, perhaps more significantly to the drama of recent days, maximising its commercial potential.
The OpenAI developer conference he appeared at before his sacking was all about empowering third parties to leverage the firm’s GPT tech in their products – even building their own digital assistants.
And in September, the Financial Times reported ex-Apple designer Jony Ive was in talks with OpenAI to build the “iPhone of AI”.
Such projects would go against OpenAI’s non-profit origins. The firm launched a profit-focused arm in 2019, but it didn’t go down well with some of its original investors – including Musk, who quit.
Swapping Mr Altman for Mr Shear, who previously said he’s “in favour of slowing down” AI development, looked like a sign OpenAI wanted to return to its roots.
One thing we should all hope slows down is the drama surrounding Mr Altman’s employment – a saga not even ChatGPT could have written, and one that sent one of the world’s most influential companies into meltdown.
It marked the first time a genetically modified pig kidney was transplanted into a living patient. Surgeons said they believed the organ would last for at least two years.
Slayman’s family announced his death yesterday, thanking the doctors who carried out the world-first surgery for their “enormous efforts”.
They said the animal-to-human transplant – known as a xenotransplant – gave them “seven more weeks with Rick, and our memories made during that time will remain in our minds and hearts”.
The transplant team at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) said they did not have any indication he died as a result of the transplant.
Slayman, from Weymouth, Massachusetts, previously had a kidney transplant at MGH in 2018, but had to go back on dialysis last year after it showed signs of failure.
More on Health
Related Topics:
As he needed frequent procedures as a result of dialysis complications, his doctors suggested a pig kidney transplant.
His family said Slayman wanted to undergo the procedure to give hope to those on waiting lists for transplants, adding: “Rick accomplished that goal and his hope and optimism will endure forever.”
Pig kidneys had previously been transplanted into brain-dead donors, but only temporarily. Two men have also received hearts from pigs, with both dying within months of their prodecures.
More than 100,000 people are on the transplant waiting list in the US – most need a kidney, but thousands die waiting.
In the UK, the NHS said that in the year to March last year, there were 6,959 patients waiting for an organ transplant.
It said 439 patients died while on the active list waiting for it and a further 732 were removed from the transplant list, “mostly as a result of deteriorating health and ineligibility for transplant”.
Oprah Winfrey has admitted playing a role in perpetuating diet culture during her career and said a dieting item from a 1980s show was one of her “biggest regrets”.
The 70-year-old star – who has been ranked among the most influential women in the world – has been open about her struggles to maintain a healthy weight and attempts to lose weight.
In March she said “making fun of my weight was a national sport” for more than two decades.
In comments reported by NBC, Sky’s US partner, the talk show host told a livestream and live audience: “I want to acknowledge that I have been a steadfast participant in this diet culture through my platforms, through the magazine, through the talk show for 25 years.
“I’ve been a major contributor to it. I cannot tell you how many weight loss shows and makeovers I have done and they have been a staple since I’ve been working in television.”
But she admitted an item on a 1988 edition of The Oprah Winfrey Show was one of her “biggest regrets” when she rolled a wagon of fat on to the stage to represent the weight she had recently lost thanks to a liquid diet and exercise.
She had starved herself for months, she said, admitting that it “sent a message that starving yourself with a liquid diet and set a standard for people watching that I, nor anybody else, could uphold. The very next day, I began to gain the weight back.
More on Oprah Winfrey
Related Topics:
“I own what I’ve done, and now I want to do better.”
Winfrey was speaking on Thursday at an event organised by WeightWatchers, whose board of directors she joined in 2015, before saying in February she was leaving.
Advertisement
In 2016, she used an interview in the magazine O to reveal she had lost 12kg, sharing the cover with nine other woman to celebrate their “best body”.
In the issue, Winfrey said, “It was my idea to share the cover with other women who are on the same journey that I am. My own struggles with the scale are well known. I’ve never believed in hiding them.”
In December, she told People she had started taking a weight loss drug, saying she used it “as I feel I need it, as a tool to manage not yo-yoing.
“The fact that there’s a medically approved prescription for managing weight and staying healthier, in my lifetime, feels like relief, like redemption, like a gift, and not something to hide behind and once again be ridiculed for.”
Israel has probably broken international law – that’s the conclusion of a US State Department report that is both damning yet cautiously equivocal too.
The report, released late last night, is highly critical of Israel, but will also be seen as intentionally non-committal by its critics.
Eagerly anticipated – it was due on Wednesday – the report was written by the US State Department for the US Congress as part of an audit determining how US-supplied weapons overseas are being used.
It concludes that it is “reasonable to assess” that some of Israel’s actions in Gaza have been “inconsistent with its international humanitarian law obligations”.
That is a significant admission by the US government.
But in a feat of legal and verbal gymnastics, the same report also concludes that Israel has not broken the terms for its use of US weapons.
The report is officially called a National Security Memorandum (NSM).
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:45
Rafah: Does Israel have enough weapons?
NSMs are published periodically to determine whether countries to whom America provides weapons have broken the terms for use of those weapons.
In other words, they determine whether weapons are being used in accordance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
Advertisement
Given the accusations against Israel over Gaza, this report is particularly pertinent.
Remember that a significant proportion of the weapons being used by Israel in Gaza are provided by the US.
The key passages:
• “The nature of the conflict in Gaza makes it difficult to assess or reach conclusive findings on individual incidents. Nevertheless, given Israel’s significant reliance on US-made defence articles [weapons], it is reasonable to assess that defence articles covered under NSM-20 have been used by Israeli security forces since 7 October in instances inconsistent with its IHL obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm.”
• “While Israel has the knowledge, experience, and tools to implement best practices for mitigating civilian harm in its military operations, the results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases.”
• “While the US has had deep concerns during the period since 7 October about action and inaction by Israel that contributed significantly to a lack of sustained and predictable delivery of needed assistance at scale, and the overall level reaching Palestinian civilians – while improved – remains insufficient, we do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance…”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The question then is how the US government can conclude that Israel had not violated the terms of the weapons transfer agreement, given that it has concluded that it is “reasonable to assess” that some of Israel’s actions in Gaza have been “inconsistent” with international law?
The US government is hiding behind the fog of war, claiming that they have not assessed any specific case where there has been a clear violation of international humanitarian law.
They have repeatedly told us that they have concerns and that they have opened inquiries with the Israeli government, but that not all the information has been provided.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
The incomplete nature of the investigations into their concerns and the lack of any definitive legal conclusion to the incidents, allows the US government to fall short of concluding that the terms of the weapons deal with Israel have been broken.
US officials also argue that an individual incident or violation by itself does not determine a country’s overall compliance with international humanitarian law.
The report also concludes that US does “not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance”.
That assessment is already out of date given the closure, by Israel, of both the Rafah and Karem Shalom crossings in southern Gaza preventing all aid from crossing into the strip.
Aid agencies had already criticised the delay of the report’s release, with accusations that it was softened to avoid having to conclude that Israel had violated the weapons deal.
With its release, eventually coming at 5pm Washington time on a Friday, the White House was accused of trying to bury unhelpful news; something a spokesperson denied.