Following the shock announcement that the boss of OpenAI (which created ChatGPT) has been quickly ousted by the board and replaced by an interim CEO, we look at what happened, why, and what may be next.

Ousted 

38-year-old Sam Altman, who helped launch OpenAI back in 2015, firstly as a non-profit before its restructuring and investment from Microsoft, has become widely known as the face of OpenAI’s incredible rise. However, it’s been reported that following some video conference calls with OpenAI’s board of 6 members, Mr Altman was removed from his role as CEO, and from the board of directors. Also, OpenAI’s co-founder, Greg Brockman, was removed from his position as chairman of the board of directors, after which he resigned from the company. Both men were reportedly shocked by the speed of their dismissal.

Why? 

The reason given in a statement by OpenAI for removing Mr Altman was: “Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.” 

The company also said: “We are grateful for Sam’s many contributions to the founding and growth of OpenAI. At the same time, we believe new leadership is necessary as we move forward.” 

Sam Altman Says … 

Mr Altman, who since the introduction of ChatGPT and his many public appearances (most recently at the UK’s AI Safety Summit), interviews, and statements, many people see as the generally well-liked, public face of AI, has not publicly elaborated on what he may not have been candid about.

He commented on Elon Musk’s X platform (Musk was one of the founding co-chairs of OpenAI) that: “I loved my time at OpenAI. it was transformative for me personally, and hopefully the world a little bit. most of all I loved working with such talented people. Will have more to say about what’s next later.” 

Intriguingly, there were also reports at the time that Mr Altman and Mr Brockman may have been willing to return if the board members who ousted Altman stepped down – chief scientist Ilya Sutskever has been singled out in some reports as person who led the move to oust Altman.

Theories  

The sudden nature of the sacking and the vagueness of OpenAI’s statement, plus some of the events afterwards have led to speculation by many commentators about the real cause/reason for ousting Mr Altman. Leading theories include.

Mr Altman may have either told the board about something they didn’t like, not told something important (and perhaps been caught out), or may have been outed about something in comments made by other parties. Although this is the board’s version, no clear evidence has been made public. However, just prior to his ousting, in TV interviews, Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella is reported to say that whether Altman and OpenAI staffers would become Microsoft employees was “for the OpenAI board and management and employees to choose” and that Microsoft expected governance changes at OpenAI. He’s also quoted as saying that the partnership between Microsoft and OpenAI “depends on the people at OpenAI staying there or coming to Microsoft, so I’m open to both options.”

It’s also been reported that two senior OpenAI researchers had resigned and that they (and possibly hundreds of OpenAI employees) may join Microsoft, or that Altman may have been planning to start a new company with the open OpenAI employees who’d already left (which the board may have discovered).

Also, shortly after the whole indecent, Microsoft announced that it had hired Altman and Brockman to launch a new advanced-AI research team with Altman as CEO, which may indicate that Altman had already been in talks with Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella about it, which may have been discovered by OpenAI’s board.

As hinted at in the board’s statement, i.e. the part about “OpenAI was deliberately structured to advance our mission: to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all humanity,” that there was an unresolved issue over bad feelings that the company had strayed from its initial ‘non-profit’ status. Some commentators have pointed to Elon Musk taking this view and his apparent silence over Altman’s ousting as possible evidence of this.

Another possible reason for ousting Altman is a board power struggle. Evidence that this may be the case includes:

– Mr Altman and Mr Brockman saying they’d be wiling to return if board members who ousted Altman stepped down.

– Following his sacking, OpenAI investors trying to get Altman reinstated.

– Altman and leading shareholders in OpenAI (Microsoft and Thrive Capital) reportedly wanting the entire board to be replaced.

– Reported huge support for Altman among employees.

Interim CEOs 

Shortly after Altman’s ousting, OpenAI replaced him with two interim CEOs within a short space of time. These were/are:

– Firstly, OpenAI’s CTO Mira Murati. With previous experience in working at Goldman Sachs, Zodiac Aerospace, Tesla, and Leap Motion, Murati was seen as a strong leader who sees multimodal models as he future of the company’s AI.

– Secondly (the current interim CEO) is Emmett Shear, the former CEO of game streaming platform Twitch. Mr Shear said on X about his appointment: “It’s clear that the process and communications around Sam’s removal has been handled very badly, which has seriously damaged our trust,” adding that: “I took this job because I believe that OpenAI is one of the most important companies currently in existence.” 

Mr Shear’s Plans 

It’s been reported that Mr Shear plans to hire an independent investigator to examine who ousted Altman and why, speak with OpenAI’s company stakeholders, and reform the company’s management team as needed.

Mr Shear said: “Depending on the results everything we learn from these, I will drive changes in the organisation – up to and including pushing strongly for significant governance changes if necessary.” 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Sam Altman has become known as the broadly well-liked face of AI since the introduction of OpenAI’s hugely popular ChatGPT chatbot one year ago. He’s extremely popular too with OpenAI employees, and other major tech industry figures, including Emmett Shear, who is now OpenAI’s interim CEO and Google boss Eric Schmidt who’s described Mr Altman “a hero of mine”. Also, Mr Altman is very close to OpenAI’s major investors Microsoft, and has already been snapped up by Microsoft (along with Brockman) as head of a new AI research team there.

Altman’s rapid ousting from OpenAI has not gone down well and all eyes appear to be focused on some of the other members of OpenAI’s board, plus the power struggle that appears to have been fought, and what kind of management and governance is needed at the top of OpenAI now to take it forward. It’s still early and it remains to be seen what happens at the top following the investigation by interim CEO Shears. Microsoft will doubtless be very happy about having Altman on board which could see them make their own gains in the now highly competitive generative AI market.

With Altman gone, it remains to be seen how/if OpenAI’s products and rapid progress and success is ultimately affected.

Update: 22.11.23 – It’s been announced that Sam Altman will soon return to OpenAI following changes to the board.

In the wake of the recent news that Scotland’s Health Secretary, Michael Matheson, received an £11,000 roaming charges bill from his holiday, here we look at some of main ways you can keep data roaming charges down.

What Are Data Roaming Charges? 

Data roaming charges are fees that you incur when using your mobile phone’s data connection (like for internet or email) while you are in a different country from where your mobile service is based. These charges exist because when you’re abroad, your mobile phone company has to use the networks of other companies in the country you’re visiting. This is known as ‘roaming’.

The foreign networks charge your home mobile company for the use of their networks, and these costs are often passed on to you as ‘data roaming charges’. These charges can be quite high because they include the costs of international agreements and network usage between different companies in different countries.

Roaming Charges Cost More Outside The EU 

Roaming charges are generally higher outside the European Union (EU) due to the lack of EU-regulated caps on these charges. In non-EU countries for example, mobile operators set their own rates, often influenced by international agreements, network costs, and market dynamics.

How To Avoid Or Minimise Roaming Charges

To minimise or avoid roaming charges while on holiday, you can use several strategies. For example:

– Check your plan and any roaming arrangements in good time before you go. Some plans include roaming allowances for certain countries which may already cover your basic needs. You may also be able to buy a reasonable plan for the country you’re going to visit. Your mobile plan may also give you the option to put a spending cap on – i.e. your data will stop working (and you’ll stop getting charged) when you exceed the limit you set.

– Turn off data roaming. You can disable data roaming in your smartphone settings. This prevents your phone from using mobile data abroad, thus avoiding roaming charges. However, you won’t be able to access the internet via your mobile network when roaming is off, but you can (as shown in the next point) use the hotel Wi-Fi (most holiday accommodation now provides Wi-Fi). You can also take the precaution of downloading your favourite music, TV shows and podcasts to your device before going on holiday in anticipation of turning off roaming.

– Use Wi-Fi for internet access whenever possible. Hotels, restaurants, cafes, and public places often offer free Wi-Fi. You can make calls, send messages, and browse the internet over Wi-Fi without incurring roaming charges. However, although the hotel Wi-Fi may be safer (networks with passwords are often safer), it’s best to careful when using public Wi-Fi in areas such as cafes and public places. Some ways you can protect yourself when using public Wi-Fi include using a VPN and keeping your device’s antivirus up to date, not using your banking app or sharing personal information, turning off file sharing and AirDrop options, and by always logging out of accounts when finished.

– Get a local SIM card, i.e. purchase a local SIM card in the country you’re visiting. This gives you a local number and access to local rates for calls, texts, and data. Ensure your phone is unlocked and compatible with the local network.

– Use an international/travel plan from your provider. For example, many mobile service providers offer special international or travel plans that include reduced rates for data, calls, and texts abroad. Check with your provider before travelling.

– Use communication apps such as WhatsApp, Skype, and Facebook Messenger to communicate over Wi-Fi. With these apps You can make voice and video calls, send messages, and even share photos without using your mobile network or your data.

– Before leaving a Wi-Fi zone, download maps, travel guides, and any other information you might need. This way, you can access them offline without needing mobile data.

– Monitor/keep track of your data usage. Some smartphones have built-in features to monitor data usage, or you can download third-party apps.

– Limit time spent online. If roaming is expensive on your plan, you could designate a certain time of day to go online and if travelling with others, consider rotating who uses their phone to check directions/look at recommendations, thereby spreading the cost between you.

– Use a temporary SIM card / consider using an international SIM card or an eSIM with plans that offer better rates for multiple countries if you’re visiting several places.

– Avoid data-intensive activities like streaming video or music, and downloading large files when not connected to Wi-Fi. For, example, the Scottish Health Secretary attributed his £11,000 roaming bill to his sons usage of their iPads to stream content. For example, on your smartphone, you can often set a data limit warning that alerts you when you’re nearing a specified data usage threshold.

– If you feel you’re able to do so, switch your device off altogether on certain days. For example, in popular holiday countries outside the EU, such as Turkey, you may find that you incur a whole daily charge if your phone is on at any time between midnight and the following midnight.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The realities of data roaming charges, especially the higher costs outside the EU, have significant implications for both mobile networks and individuals travelling abroad for business or holidays.

For mobile networks, the evolving landscape of data roaming presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Networks must balance the need to cover the costs incurred through international agreements and network usage while remaining competitive and customer friendly. They have an opportunity to innovate by offering tailored international plans, roaming packages, and features like spending caps to appeal to global travellers. This not only enhances customer satisfaction but also helps in maintaining a loyal customer base who might otherwise seek alternatives.

Business travellers and holidaymakers need to be increasingly savvy about managing their data usage abroad. The hefty bill incurred by Scotland’s Health Secretary highlights the potential financial pitfalls of unchecked roaming. For businesses, this underscores the importance of having clear policies and education for employees traveling abroad. Implementing best practices like using secure Wi-Fi, opting for local SIM cards, and utilising data management tools can lead to substantial cost savings.

Also, there’s a growing need for awareness about network security, especially when using public Wi-Fi, which is critical for protecting sensitive business information. Businesses can invest in VPNs and educate their employees on digital security measures.

While roaming charges present a cost challenge, therefore, they also encourage both mobile networks and travellers to adopt smarter, more cost-effective strategies. For businesses, this means being proactive in managing data usage and security for employees traveling abroad, while for mobile networks, it’s an opportunity to innovate and provide value-added services that cater to the needs of global travellers.

Amazon’s ‘Project Kuiper’ satellite broadband moved one step closer following a reported 100 per cent success rate for its first two prototype satellites.

Project Kuiper 

Like Elon Musk’s SpaceX, with Project Kuiper, Amazon hopes to set up its own low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband network, i.e. 311 miles (500 kilometres) above Earth. It is still, however, in the early testing stage.

The only two satellites currently deployed by Amazon (and used to test Project Kuiper), were launched in early October using Atlas V rocket from United Launch Alliance (ULA) and which lifted off from Space Launch Complex-41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida.

Amazon says that following the recent tests, “mass satellite production ahead of a full-scale deployment” will begin early next year, followed by beta testing which will begin in the second half of next year, with partners like Vodafone and Verizon participating in the service pilots.

Also, Amazon is inviting enterprise, telecommunications, and government customers to register (early next year) to take part in part in its pilot to help get Project Kuiper up and running in the (hopefully not-too-distant) future.

Protoflight Success 

Amazon has reported that within 30 days of sending two prototype satellites into space, Project Kuiper achieved a 100 per cent success rate for its Protoflight mission, thereby “validating key technologies that underpin the network and moving the program another step closer toward that long-term vision.” 

The company says the experience was unique to the Protoflight mission because it only has two satellites in orbit.

Testing What? 

The company described the success of its two most recent Proto-flight tests as “an incredible feat.” The tests looked at different performance characteristics of the Project Kuiper network, on top of the basic functions of transmitting and receiving data. For example, the test looked at the performance of what Amazon calls the “RF communications payload,” which is the satellites’ parabolic antennas, phased array antennas, and other elements that will allow the system to send customer data traffic across the network.

The testing also involved three basic demonstrations of transmitting and receiving data over the Project Kuiper satellite network, which were:

– In the first demonstration, logging into an Amazon Prime account, searching for a product, adding it to the cart, and then checking out.

– In the second demonstration, logging into Prime Video, searching for the Amazon Original movie ‘A Million Miles Away’, and then streaming it as ultra-high definition (UHD) 4K video, thereby testing “network throughput and low latency”.

In the third demonstration, a two-way video call over Amazon Chime between Amazon’s test site in Texas and its mission operations centre in Washington, thereby testing low latency (for a smooth video call), and involving “full duplex” performance, with antennas simultaneously sending and receiving data.

What’s Next?

The rapid deployment stage next year will essentially involve launching enough satellites to build a constellation to provide enough coverage. It’s been reported that, for example, Amazon has secured 77 heavy-lift vehicles over three launch providers to help with this.

SpaceX Second Launch – Explosion 

Just days after Amazon’s announcement, on Saturday, Elon Musk’s SpaceX confirmed the second (test) launch of its SpaceX Starship rocket. Unfortunately, like the first test, it didn’t end particularly well. Apparently, the rocket flew for about eight minutes before SpaceX lost contact with it, and whilst the top part of the rocket successfully separated from the booster, it exploded shortly afterwards.

What’s So Good About Satellite Broadband, Anyway?

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has already been to space himself before any of his satellites, thanks to founding his own Blue Origin company which builds and launches reusable launch vehicles and in-space systems for civil, commercial, and defence customers. This, plus Amazon’s huge financial and market power and ability to diversify means that it was only a matter of time before it used these synergies and capabilities to start offering satellite broadband of its own.

This puts in in direct competition with Elon Musk’s SpaceX and its Starlink broadband, which already has around 4,500 orbiting satellites in operation (accounting for more than 50 per cent of all active satellites orbiting the Earth). This means that Amazon’s less snappy, rather awkwardly named Project Kuiper, with its 2 orbiting satellites has some catching up to do in order to keep up as a front runner in what is seen by some as the tech billionaires’ battle for space and control over what will become the global communications network, and the power and influence that brings.

Not only is satellite broadband beneficial in terms of allowing internet and communications access anywhere in the world (for homes and businesses) and in areas where options are limited, but as recent conflicts have shown and as the EU has recognised (with plans to launch its own 170 satellites), it will be vital for space-based sovereignty and secure communication services.

Some commentators also see the rush to launch communications satellites (which is becoming more complex due to the amount of satellites and space junk already in orbit) as a way for companies and countries to claim their own bit of ‘space.’ Amazon’s bold announcement therefore of 100 per cent success may have seemed a little weak, considering there are only 2 satellites to test, but it’s larger purpose was to highlight Amazon’s intent, readiness, and capability to challenge and establish itself as major player in space, as it is on earth, and it’s understood that Amazon plans to send up thousands of satellites over the next 5 years.

For households and businesses in unserved and underserved communities, plus to large enterprises and government agencies operating all over the world, satellite broadband offers reliable, fast connections and for Starlink, Amazon (and no doubt others to follow), it offers not just another source of revenue, but power, influence, and staking a claim in the future.

Computer Weekly recently reported that in an interview with the outgoing England and Wales biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, he warned of the declining state of oversight in AI facial recognition surveillance deployment by UK police.

Resignation 

Professor Fraser Sampson emailed his resignation letter to (then) Home Secretary Suella Braverman in August, stating his intention to resign by October 31. The reason given was that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill will essentially make his role redundant by removing the responsibilities of the Biometrics Commissioner’s position and giving these powers to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.

Professor Sampson, who was only appointed to the role in March 2021, said: “Having explored a number of alternatives with officials, I am unable to find a practical way in which I can continue to discharge the functions of these two roles beyond 1st November.” 

Professor Sampson’s responsibilities in the role had included overseeing how the police collect, retain and use biometric material (such as digital facial images), and encouraging their compliance with the surveillance camera code of practice.

Past Concerns and Criticisms 

In addition to espousing the many benefits of AI facial recognition’s deployment in the UK (e.g. catching known criminals – including those who are involved in child sexual abuse material), finding missing or vulnerable people, locating terror suspects, and helping to prevent the suffering of inhumane or degrading treatment of citizens, Professor Sampson has also previously criticised and raised concerns about aspects of its deployment. For example, in February, he noted:

– The absence of a clear set of legal rules or a framework to regulate the police’s use of AI and biometric material.

– A lack of clarity about the scale and extent of public space surveillance, particularly in relation to the proliferation of Chinese surveillance technology across the public sector.

Professor Sampson has also been vocal about a number of other related issues and concerns, such as:

– Issues related to the questionable legality of using public cloud infrastructure to store and process law enforcement data and the police’s general culture of retaining biometric data.

– Concerns about the unlawful retention of millions of custody images of people who have been charged with a crime. Despite Professor Sampson raising the issue, and the High Court ruling in 2012 that they should be deleted, it’s been reported that the Home Office, which owns UK police biometric databases, hasn’t done so because it has no bulk deletion capacity.

– The dangers of the UK slipping into becoming an “all-encompassing” surveillance state if concerns about these technologies (facial recognition) are not addressed. He has expressed his surprise at the disconnected approach of the UK government and his shock at how little the police and local authorities know about the capabilities and implications of the surveillance equipment they were using.

– Concerns about the possible misuse of facial recognition and AI technologies in controversial settings ( i.e. that the approach taken by UK police / their deployment methods in controversial settings could negate any benefits of the usage of the technologies). Controversial settings could include mass surveillance at public events, targeting specific communities, routine public surveillance, application in schools or educational institutions, and use in workplaces, all of which raise concerns about privacy, discrimination, and infringement on individuals’ rights.

– Rejection of the “nothing to worry about” defence, i.e. he challenged the common justification for surveillance that people who have done nothing wrong have nothing to worry about, stating this misses the point entirely.

– The government’s data reform proposals. For example, he criticised the government’s Data Protection and Digital Information (DPDI) Bill, arguing that it would lead to weaker oversight by subsuming biometric oversight under the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and removing the obligation to publish a Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.

– Efficacy and ethical concerns. Professor Sampson questioned the effectiveness of facial recognition in preventing serious crimes and highlighted the risk of pervasive facial-recognition surveillance. He also noted the chilling effect of such surveillance, where people might alter their behaviour due to the knowledge of being watched and warned against the abuse of these powers.

– He also advocated for a robust, clear, and intuitive oversight accountability framework for facial-recognition and biometric technologies, expressing concern about the fragmentation of the existing regulatory framework.

– The government’s lack of understanding and direction. For example, Professor Sampson commented on the lack of understanding and rationale in the government’s direction with police technology oversight and emphasised the need for public trust and confidence as a prerequisite, not just a desired outcome, for the rollout of new technologies.

– Predictive policing concerns. He warned against the dangers of using algorithms or AI for predictive policing, arguing that such approaches rely heavily on assumptions and create a baseline level of suspicion around the public.

Wider Concerns About Police Surveillance Using Facial Recognition 

Professor Sampson’s concerns about the police using Live Facial Recognition (LFR) surveillance at special assignments and high-profile events echo many of those expressed by others over the last few years. For example:

– Back in 2018, Elizabeth Denham, the then UK Information Commissioner launched a formal investigation into how police forces used FRT after high failure rates, misidentifications and worries about legality, bias, and privacy. In the same year, a letter written by privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch and signed by more than 18 politicians, 25 campaign groups, plus numerous academics and barristers, highlighted concerns that facial recognition is being adopted in the UK before it has been properly scrutinised.

– In the EU, in January 2020, the European Commission considered a ban on the use of facial recognition in public spaces for up to five years while new regulations for its use are put in place. In June this year, the EU actually adopted a blanket ban on AI-powered facial recognition in public spaces.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The evolving landscape of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, particularly in the context of Professor Fraser Sampson’s resignation, could hold significant implications for UK businesses. This shift indicates a potential realignment of regulatory focus from physical biometric surveillance to digital data protection. For businesses, this underscores the need to adapt to a framework that prioritises digital data security and privacy.

The possible consolidation of regulatory bodies, like merging the roles of the Biometrics Commissioner into the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, may not necessarily suggest a decline of oversight, as suggested by Professor Fraser, but could also suggest a more streamlined oversight process. On the upside, this could mean simpler compliance procedures for businesses, but may also demand a broader understanding of a wider set of regulations. On the downside, companies (especially those dealing with biometric data) may need to very closely track these changes to ensure they remain compliant.

As the bill is likely to address the complexities of digital data, businesses will need to be proactive in understanding how these complexities are regulated. This is crucial for those handling large volumes of customer data or relying heavily on digital platforms. Adapting to evolving technologies and staying abreast of technological advancements will, therefore, be key.

All in all, in the light of the changes (and possible decline in oversight) highlighted by Professor Fraser, businesses will now need to be mindful of shifting political and public sentiments around privacy and surveillance, as these can influence consumer behaviour. While the changing regulatory landscape presents challenges, it also offers opportunities for businesses to align with contemporary data protection standards. Staying informed and adaptable may therefore be essential for navigating these changes successfully going forward.