Elon Musk repeatedly clashed with OpenAI’s attorney during a heated cross-examination on the second day of a landmark trial that could shape the future trajectory of AI development.
NBC News reports that the courtroom fireworks took place in Oakland, where Musk appeared as a witness in his lawsuit against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Musk alleges that Altman violated the public trust by personally enriching himself through the AI company they established together in 2015 as a nonprofit organization.
During his testimony, Musk delivered sharp criticism of OpenAI’s current structure. “They can’t have it both ways,” he stated from the witness stand. “They can’t have a nonprofit and free funding and the positive halo effect of being a nonprofit charity and also enrich themselves greatly.”
The exchange between Musk and OpenAI attorney Bill Savitt grew increasingly confrontational as the questioning progressed. Savitt asserted that Musk was “never committed to OpenAI being a nonprofit,” prompting a defensive response from the tech billionaire. “Your questions are not simple. They’re designed to trick me, essentially,” Musk told the lawyer. He further accused Savitt of being “misleading” when the attorney highlighted that Musk had not actually donated $100 million to OpenAI despite making such a claim in a previous deposition.
OpenAI underwent a significant corporate transformation in October, converting from its capped-profit model to a more conventional for-profit structure. The company’s for-profit division, which remains under the supervision of a nonprofit foundation, secured $122 billion in its most recent funding round that concluded last month.
Savitt pressed Musk extensively on his recollection of historical documents and conversations regarding OpenAI’s potential shift to a for-profit model. The intensity of the exchange prompted judicial intervention, with the judge requesting that both parties “calm down.” At one juncture, Musk directly challenged Savitt’s conduct, asking: “Can I answer this question without you interrupting my answer?”
At one point, Savitt asked Musk: “OpenAI was formed as a nonprofit in 2015. True or false?” After dancing around the question, Musk said: “In this case, yes.” Then he added, “The reason you can’t simply answer a yes or no question, for example if you ask, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife … ’”Judge Gonzalez Rogers stopped him from finishing his statement.
When questioned about the $1 billion pledge he had originally made to OpenAI, Musk shifted to emphasizing the value of his non-monetary contributions, including his personal reputation. This evasion led the judge to instruct him to respond to the actual question. Musk acknowledged that he never fulfilled the $1 billion commitment, a point that Altman’s legal team has emphasized in their counterclaim. He attributed this failure to having “lost confidence in the team,” and stated that his actual financial contribution totaled $38 million.
Musk, who departed from OpenAI’s board in 2018, is pursuing legal action to prevent the ChatGPT developer from completing its transition to a for-profit entity. He founded his own AI venture, xAI, in 2023 as a for-profit company, explaining on the stand that this approach aligned with his established pattern: “because that’s how I’ve created all my other companies.”
“I formed many tech companies. I could have done so with OpenAI. I chose not to; I chose to do something that would be a charity,” Musk testified. “I deliberately chose to create this as a nonprofit for the public good.”
Savitt also scrutinized Musk’s underlying motivations prior to his Tuesday testimony, suggesting that Musk abandoned the organization merely because he “didn’t get his way.” The attorney further alleged that Musk had been contemptuous of OpenAI employees who prioritized safety concerns, reportedly calling them “jackasses.”
When asked Wednesday whether he had ever used such terminology toward employees, Musk responded: “It’s possible I did it on occasion.” He clarified that it would have been in the form of, “Don’t be a jackass.” He defended this approach, stating: “Sometimes you have to use language that gets people out of their comfort zone. If we’re going in the wrong direction … you have to use strong language to get them back on course.”
The lawsuit represents the climax of a prolonged conflict between Musk and Altman, who have occasionally exchanged public insults online. Altman was present in the courtroom during Musk’s testimony.
Musk is seeking approximately $134 billion in damages from both OpenAI and Microsoft, which serves as one of OpenAI’s primary financial supporters and is named as a co-defendant. He contends that OpenAI profited from his financial resources, guidance, recruitment efforts, and professional network.
Altman’s representatives dispute Musk’s claims to credit, noting his failure to honor the $1 billion pledge and asserting that he resigned when Altman and fellow co-founders Greg Brockman and Ilya Sutskever declined to grant him control over the organization or allow its integration into Tesla.
“I just needed to make sure it would go in the right direction,” Musk testified. “We generally agreed, or I thought we agreed, that I would have initial control and very quickly I would lose majority control of the company.”
Musk characterized himself as “a fool who created free funding for them to create a startup,” explaining that his intention had been to establish a nonprofit venture with no stock ownership.
As tech tycoons battle it out in court, it is more important than ever for conservatives to control how AI is used by their loved ones, organizations, and the country at large. Breitbart News social media director Wynton Hall has written his instant bestseller Code Red: The Left, the Right, China, and the Race to Control AI to serve as the definitive guide on how the MAGA movement can create positions on AI that benefit humanity without handing control of our nation to the leftists of Silicon Valley or allowing the Chinese to take over the world.
Read more at NBC News here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of AI, free speech, and online censorship.
Read the full article here