Highlights
- Elon Musk’s worst enemy in court is Elon Musk
- Elon Musk appeared more petty than prepared
- Musk vs. Altman is here, and it’s going to get messy
- Elon Musk is about to be a very busy boy!
- ‘Sideshow’ concerns and billionaire dreams: What I learned from Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI
- Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
OpenAI Tesla receipts and other Musk v. Altman documents.
All the evidence revealed so far in Musk v. Altman
Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images
The Musk v. Altman trial is underway, and that means exhibits, or the evidence to be presented in court, are being revealed piece by piece. So far, email exchanges, photos, and corporate documents are circulating from the earliest days of OpenAI — and from before the AI lab even had a name. Some high-level takeaways: Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang gave OpenAI an in-demand supercomputer, Musk largely drafted OpenAI’s mission and heavily influenced its early structure, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman appeared to want to lean heavily on Y Combinator for early support for OpenAI, OpenAI president Greg Brockman and Ilya Sutskever worried about Musk’s level of control over the company, and Musk highlighted the importance of a nonprofit with a mission of broadly beneficial AI.
Musk’s buzzy lawsuit, which began its jury trial on Monday in a federal courtroom in California, names Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI investor Microsoft as defendants. The claims vary against each party and have included breaching OpenAI’s charitable trust, fraud, and unjust enrichment. But ultimately, Musk’s lawsuit boils down to whether or not OpenAI deviated from its founding mission of ensuring that artificial general intelligence — an often vaguely defined term that denotes AI systems that equal or surpass human intelligence — benefits all of humanity. It’s the latest in a yearslong string of legal actions against OpenAI and its executives by Musk, who cofounded the AI lab alongside Altman and Brockman and was an early investor. (Musk also owns xAI, an AI lab that directly competes with OpenAI, and is owned by parent company SpaceX.)
Here’s how Gabe Newell and Hideo Kojima ended up in the Musk v. Altman evidence.
Among the evidence released publicly, there’s this email exchange (Exhibit No.844) between Valve founder Gabe Newell and Elon Musk about, of all things, trying to get a SpaceX tour and OpenAI introduction for Hideo Kojima.
Musk also wrote that he’d lost confidence in OpenAI competing with Google/Deepmind, and decided to attempt that through Tesla instead,” while pumping up Neuralink’s progress. Newell has since launched his own BCI company, Starfish.
1/2
The craziest part of Musk v. Altman happened while the jury was out of the room
Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images
Okay, I am not a lawyer so I only understood about half of what just happened. But I am fairly sure, given the context, that Elon Musk’s lawyers may have just fucked up big.
Jared “James Brickhouse” Birchall, Musk’s finance guy and all-around fixer, took the stand after Musk today. Most of his testimony was dull and seemed to exist primarily to get some documents read into the record, which sucks but is a normal part of sitting through trials. But at the very end of his boring testimony something interesting happened. I believe we all got a surprise, something that rarely happens in courtrooms.
Jury is being dismissed early so YGR can deal with an objection to Birchall’s testimony.
After Birchall said he had no first-hand knowledge of the xAI bid for OpenAI’s assets, OpenAI’s lawyer asked that his testimony from the direct examination be struck. We are going to hear about that now, outside the presence of the jury.
Birchall is actually very funny outside of court? Good for him.
He sees the OpenAI for-profit term sheet and writes to Shivon Zilis: “Pretty plain vanilla for-profit structure. So kinda hard to push a narrative that doesn’t involve investors being very focused on ROI. I’m a super fan of capitalism and making tons of money doing great things but not sure if this correlates with the ‘noble cause for humanity, not doing it to make money’ narrative. Did he/would he [Altman, lower on the email chain] offer E a board seat?”
We are now hearing about the pause in quarterly donations.
We saw Chris Clark’s email about pausing donations yesterday during Musk’s testimony. Today, we see an email from Birchall: “This was ready to go out when I was told that Elon informed Greg and Ilya that the funding would be on pause until they came to terms on the right path moving forward.”
This was while there were discussions of how to put the for-profit Musk wanted together.We’re back.
And we are talking with Birchall about tax deductions for charitable giving.
Second break of the day.
OpenAI and Musk’s counsel need to discuss something... Back in 15.
Birchall cross.
He was used, I think, to get financial documents into the record. We are now on the cross, and he is giving mercifully brief and direct answers.
Elon Musk confirms xAI used OpenAI’s models to train Grok
Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images
In a federal courtroom in California on Thursday, Elon Musk testified that his own AI startup, xAI, has used OpenAI’s models to improve its own.
The matter at question is model distillation, a common industry practice by which one larger AI model acts as a “teacher” of sorts to pass on knowledge to a smaller AI model, the “student.” Although it’s often used legitimately within companies using one of their own AI models to train another, it’s also a practice that’s sometimes used by smaller AI labs to try to get their models to mimic the performance of a larger competitor’s model.
Birchall has just been asked about the four Teslas.
There is a confirmation document from Chris Clark to Elon Musk showing the donation values. The donation was to OpenAI, as agreed in the stipulated facts, and in conflict to what Musk testified today.
Birchall testifies about Musk’s contributions to OpenAI.
We’re looking at a summary of about 60 donations to OpenAI, which Birchall says were directed by Musk, with Birchall helping execute all of them.
A woman in the gallery has lowered a sleep mask over her eyes and is attempting to sleep.
I guess she isn’t into Birchall’s testimony about Musk’s charitable contributions?
Musk steps down. He may be recalled.
Jared Birchall’s testimony will begin. Birchall runs Musk’s family office, Excession LLC, and generally serves as his fixer.
We are on re-cross. Musk is getting testy again.
Savitt asked about Musk’s $1 billion funding commitment. When did Musk stop funding OpenAI? 2020. And that was when they broke the deal? No, I was uncomfortable. (some crosstalk)
Musk: “I understand leading questions. That’s a leading answer.”
YGR: He can lead. He can lead all he wants. Let’s remind everyone you are not a lawyer and you’ve never taken a class in evidence.
Musk: “I did take law 101 technically, but yes I am not a lawyer.”The Microsoft investment comes back up.
Musk’s back from break, reiterating that he had reason for waiting as long as he did to file suit against OpenAI — and saying his initial understanding of OpenAI’s agreement with Microsoft was that it didn’t violate the mission of the charity. “I don’t think I had a basis for filing a lawsuit before I did,” Musk says. He also refers to xAI as the smallest of the AI players, coming after Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Chinese AI models.
And we’re back.
Resuming the redirect of Musk by Molo
We’re in break — and I just checked out something interesting.
In the document of stipulated facts — that is, what everyone has agreed on — it’s said that Musk gave Teslas to OpenAI as an in-kind contribution. In response to questioning from YGR, Musk says that he gave the Teslas to individuals, personally, and not to OpenAI: “I bought at full price and gave them to individuals. It was a reward to the individuals.”
I don’t know if this matters, but it sure is interesting.
1/2
Elon Musk’s robot army definitely will not kill you.
Apparently he wasn’t 100 percent confident in yesterday’s clarification, because Molo asks Musk to clarify whether the “AI enabled robot army” mentioned in cross-examination is a military army. “No, we do not make any weapons,” Musk says. The point of his using the term was that “if we made a lot of robots we need to make sure they’re safe and don’t turn into a Terminator situation … you see int he movie, it’s not a good situation.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers asks Musk to sum up the plot of Terminator in one sentence. “Worst case situation is AI kills us all I suppose,” he says.
With that, the jury leaves for a break.
Musk insists he wasn’t kneecapping OpenAI.
Under questioning from Molo, his own lawyer, Musk tries to establish that he wasn’t causing harm to OpenAI. He says that as far as he knows, OpenAI wasn’t unable to cover any critical expenses because he ended his donations. He didn’t ask Andrej Karpathy to leave and join Tesla, only hired him after he said he was leaving OpenAI. Neuralink (while it was authorized to do so apparently) didn’t poach anyone from OpenAI as far as he knows. Did he seriously recruit anyone from OpenAI for Tesla besides Karpathy? “I don’t think so.” He reiterates that Tesla isn’t currently working on AGI, despite a recent tweet indicating it would achieve it.
Musk also repeats that he “did not read the fine print” on the term sheet for OpenAI’s for-profit wing. Molo brings up an email from Altman (forwarded to Musk by Zilis) about the draft that reads: “We did this in a way where all investors are clear they should never expect a profit, see purple box below.” On the stand, Musk says “I assumed he meant what he said.”
Musk seems notably more subdued today.
On the cross exams by OpenAI and Microsoft, there was minimal (though still some) bickering, and we are now getting many more yeses and nos as full answers. I’m not sure whether Musk was trying to run out the clock yesterday or what, but he’s clearly rethought his strategy.
“At least change the name,” Musk says he told Altman.
In the final section of cross-examination, Musk is asked about speaking with Altman in 2020. Musk apparently told Altman that OpenAI looked “hypocritical” after the deal with Microsoft and suggested he change the name of OpenAI. “He reassured me they were staying on mission,” Musk says on the stand — and therefore, Musk didn’t sue. Following that, cross-examination wraps up.
Elon Musk v. Capitalism.
Savitt mentions an X post where Musk says “the future is going to be amazing with AI and robots enabling sustainable abundance for all” and asks if he thinks it’s accurate. “Well, I’ve also said there are many possible futures. Some futures are good, and some are not good,” Musk says. “I think it’s generally better to err on the side of optimism than pessimism.” Musk agrees that “aspirationally,” he promotes xAI with the message that the future is going to be amazing.
Savitt then goes through a list of Musk’s companies — asking, one after another, if they’re for-profit. At a little prodding from Judge Gonzalez Rogers, Musk admits they all are. So, Savitt asks, they’re socially beneficial and for-profit? Musk agrees. Savitt then points out that Musk hasn’t started any nonprofits himself since OpenAI, despite having the money to do so. “Well, I thought I had started a nonprofit with OpenAI, but they stole the charity,” Musk says.
An “ongoing conversation” around open source.
Savitt is bringing up some previously released email exchanges where Musk appeared okay with discussing what OpenAI would and wouldn’t make open source — including one where he replied “yup” to a comment that it would make sense to start being less open as AI advanced. He asks if Musk has made xAI’s own advanced versions of Grok open source — “No, but it will,” Musk says.
Savitt then mentions a letter Musk signed in 2023 asking to pause development of giant AI models out of safety concerns. Musk signed the letter shortly before he incorporated his own xAI, and Savitt asks why he didn’t disclose that fact; Musk says it was “just an open, non-binding letter” signed by hundreds of other people.
