High-stakes courtroom drama of Musk v OpenAI hears closing arguments | OpenAI

Closing arguments began Thursday in Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI, bringing a weeks-long courtroom battle between the two tech moguls closer to a verdict. A nine-person jury will deliberate and reach a verdict on whether they believe the AI ​​firm and Altman are liable in the case.

The trial, which began last month at California’s Oakland federal courthouse, has shaken Silicon Valley and featured some of the tech industry’s biggest names as witnesses. Lawyers for both sides presented depositions and documents revealing Musk and Altman’s private dealings, as well as offering a window into OpenAI’s contentious history.

Musk sought to prove that Altman, OpenAI, and its chairman, Greg Brockman, broke the nonprofit company’s founding agreement when they restructured it as a nonprofit, accusing them of extorting money from him and unjustly enriching themselves. OpenAI has denied all of Musk’s claims, arguing that they were motivated by jealousy following a failed bid to take over the company in 2018 and that he was always aware of his plans to create a non-profit organization. They also argued that OpenAI’s nonprofit still oversees the company and is one of the best-resourced charities in the world.

Along with discussions about corporate governance and nonprofit law, much of the case focused on the personal and professional conduct of both Musk and Altman. Musk’s lawyers portrayed Altman as a duplicitous operator seeking personal gain from OpenAI’s original mission to use its technology to benefit humanity. OpenAI’s lawyers, meanwhile, have portrayed Musk as a vindictive and indecisive emperor upset that he’s been sidelined in the tech industry’s multitrillion-dollar AI race.

During closing arguments, Musk’s attorney, Steven Molo, touched on several themes he had emphasized throughout the hearing, including questioning whether Altman was trustworthy. Molo listed several witnesses who testified that Altman was dishonest or misleading; which suggested that Altman dismissed these allegations with neutral and evasive language while on the stand.

“Sam Altman’s credibility is directly at stake in this case,” Molo said. “The defendants absolutely need you to believe in Sam Altman. If you can’t trust him, if you don’t believe him, they can’t win. It’s that simple.”

Molo told jurors to imagine they were out for a walk and approached a scary-looking bridge that spanned a river hundreds of feet below. He asked them to imagine that there was a woman at the entrance of the bridge and told them not to worry because the bridge was built on Altman’s version of the truth. “Would you cross that bridge? I don’t think many people will,” Molo said.

Molo also offered Musk’s background on OpenAI, where he decided to help found the company to counter Google’s AI efforts and always intended it as a nonprofit with the mission of saving humanity from a dystopian future. Whether Altman and Brockman publicly agreed that Musk’s financial support was contingent on OpenAI remaining a nonprofit was the central question in the case; a question complicated by the absence of a clear, written contract detailing the company’s founding agreements.

During OpenAI’s closing arguments, attorney Sarah Eddy told the jury that Musk had failed to prove any of the claims of his lawsuit and that there was no concrete evidence that he had provided specific conditions for his financial support. Eddy read statements from several witnesses, including Musk’s romantic partner, Shivon Zilis, who said they did not remember any explicit dealings surrounding Musk’s financing.

“Not even the people who work for him. Even the mother of his children cannot support his story,” Eddy told the jury. “No documents corroborate Mr. Musk’s story, and that’s because no commitments or promises were made. There were no restrictions placed on Mr. Musk’s donations.”

OpenAI’s closing argument focused largely on the presentation of documents and statements alleging that Musk knew as early as 2017 that the company was considering creating a for-profit entity and sought to seize control of the firm for his own purposes.

“The truth is, as the evidence shows, Mr. Musk wanted a for-profit OpenAI in 2017 and he wanted to dominate it,” Eddy said.

Eddy also argued that Musk’s claims were outside the statute of limitations for filing the lawsuit. The first thing jurors consider in their deliberations is whether Musk’s claims for breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment occurred during a specific period. The case collapses if OpenAI proves that the events in question occurred outside that window or that Musk was unreasonably late in filing suit.

OpenAI’s lead lawyer in the case, William Savitt, also made recent statements to emphasize Musk’s claim that he only filed the lawsuit when he “realized he made a big mistake” by leaving the company. Savitt also criticized Musk’s absence from the courtroom; The Tesla CEO joined Donald Trump on a trip to China this week.

“Mr. Musk is not here today. My clients are here,” Savitt said. “Mr. Musk came to this court for exactly one witness: Elon Musk. Now that, too, is unknown.”

There were many dramatic moments at the hearing that revealed the years-long feud between Musk and Altman. Early in the hearing, Musk repeatedly accused Altman of “stealing charity” for taking control of OpenAI. Taking the stand this week, Altman responded: “I agree you can’t steal it. Mr. Musk tried to kill it.”

Long lines formed outside the courthouse most mornings as a mix of media and tech industry fans clamored to watch the hearing. In the courtroom, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers struggled to keep the tech giants and their legal teams on track, repeatedly blocking attempts to engage conversations about an AI apocalypse and other ideas beyond the confines of the case.

Besides the public relations war, the lawsuit contains a concrete threat to OpenAI, which plans to go public later this year at a $1 trillion valuation. Musk wants Brockman and Altman removed from OpenAI, as well as a reversal of its for-profit structure. The Tesla CEO also wants $134 billion redistributed from OpenAI’s for-profit to its nonprofit.

If the jury finds Altman and OpenAI liable, it will be up to Judge Gonzalez Rogers to decide what remedies are appropriate.