Nonprofit was ‘left for dead’

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman testified in Musk v. Altman on Tuesday, where he tried to make his main argument clear to the jury: He didn’t steal a charity, but Elon Musk gave up a charity.

Altman, wearing a blue suit and tie, spoke for nearly four hours on the witness stand in federal court in Oakland, California. He said that Musk, who founded OpenAI with him in 2015, did not keep his promises and eventually abandoned the young initiative that was trying to plan for an uncertain future.

“We were kind of left to die,” Altman said.

Musk sued OpenAI, Altman, and the company’s president, Greg Brockman, in 2024, claiming they had reneged on their vows to keep the AI ​​company a nonprofit and follow its philanthropic mission. He argued that nearly $38 million he donated to OpenAI was used for unauthorized commercial purposes.

Altman testified on Tuesday that he had not made any commitments to Musk about OpenAI’s corporate structure.

Tense negotiations between co-founders

Much of the litigation, which began late last month, has focused on a series of contentious negotiations between Musk, Altman, Brockman and another OpenAI co-founder, Ilya Sutskever, in 2017 and 2018.

Executives agreed they needed to raise more money for computing resources and discussed a number of potential corporate structures, including for-profit options, that could help them do so.

The talks ultimately collapsed without a clear decision, and Musk left OpenAI’s board in February 2018.

Altman stated that Musk’s departure caused OpenAI employees to worry about how the company would be financed, and some worried that Musk would seek “revenge.” But Altman said Musk’s departure was also a “morale boost” for some researchers who had been “demotivated” by his management tactics.

“I don’t think Mr. Musk understands how to run a good research laboratory,” Altman said.

Musk remained in touch with Altman, Brockman and Sutskever in 2018, months after he officially left the startup’s board of directors. He said the company had no chance of success.

“My assessment of the likelihood of OpenAI becoming DeepMind/Google relevant without a dramatic change in implementation and resources is 0%. Not 1%. I wish it were otherwise,” Musk wrote. an email that December. “Even raising a few hundred million won’t be enough. This needs billions a year immediately, otherwise forget it.”

Altman said Tuesday that Musk’s comment “is etched in my memory.”

OpenAI launched a for-profit subsidiary following Musk’s departure, which is now valued at more than $850 billion by private investors.

Musk stated in April that OpenAI’s for-profit subsidiary had become “the tail wagging the dog” and repeatedly accused Altman and Brockman of trying to “steal a charity.” Altman disputed this idea, stating that what Musk really cares about is control.

Altman said Musk felt very strongly about having full control over OpenAI, at least initially. He said this is partly because Musk doesn’t trust other people to make decisions, and that Musk has “long since decided” to only work for companies he controls.

“I was extremely disturbed by this,” Altman said.

Musk stated in April that he initially wanted majority control of OpenAI, but that his stake in the company would decrease over time. He also said that he wasn’t completely opposed to OpenAI having a for-profit subsidiary, but that it became an issue when it overshadowed the nonprofit.

During negotiations, Musk proposed merging with OpenAI. Tesla’selectric car maker as a way to inject more capital into the company. He offered Altman a Tesla board seat to persuade him to take action.

Altman said he didn’t think it was the right choice and was concerned the nonprofit would be effectively destroyed in the process.

“Tesla is a car company and does not have the OpenAI mission,” Altman said. “I don’t think we have the ability to make sure the mission is accomplished.”

Musk’s lawyer tried to portray Altman as untrustworthy

Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, cross-examined Altman and tried to paint the OpenAI chief as unreliable and dishonest. He opened the line of questioning by asking Altman if he was “completely trustworthy.”

“I believe so,” Altman said.

“But you don’t know if it’s completely trustworthy?” Molo replied to this.

“I will change my answer to yes,” Altman said.

Molo asked Altman about several people who have raised concerns about his behavior over the years, including Dario Amodei, a former OpenAI employee who founded the company’s chief rival, Anthropic. Molo said Amodei accused Altman of misrepresenting the investment terms to him.

“Dario accused me of a lot of things,” Altman said.

Molo also pressed Altman about some board members who briefly suspended him from his role at OpenAI in 2023. The board said at the time that Altman had been “consistently lackluster in his communication” with them.

Altman spoke at length about his dismissal throughout his testimony. He said he was “completely caught off guard” by the board’s decision and was upset, angry and hurt over the chaotic few days before returning to OpenAI.

He said he didn’t get much of an explanation for why he was fired, other than his claim that the board wasn’t sincere with them.

“I devoted the last years of my life to this,” Altman said. “I was watching as it was about to be destroyed.”

Closing arguments in the trial will be held on Thursday, and the nine-member jury will begin deliberating next week. The jury in this case is advisory, meaning the final outcome will ultimately rest with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

WRISTWATCH: OpenAI’s Sam Altman takes the podium