OpenAI lawsuit re-exposes feud between Musk and Altman

OpenAI lawsuit re-exposes feud between Musk and Altman

Elon Musk argued Tuesday during a lawsuit over the future of OpenAI that the initiative for the organization was entirely his. He also claimed that the original plan to operate as a charitable organization has been undermined. In the Oakland courtroom, he presented his case as an effort to protect the principles behind nonprofit organizations.

The development was reported on by Reuters earlier. According to Musk, who is acting as the plaintiff as the founder of Tesla, xAI, and SpaceX, among others, allowing a charitable organization to be stripped of its assets would have far-reaching consequences for trust in the donation system. He indicated that this is the crux of the matter for him. In his statement, he portrayed himself as the driving force behind OpenAI. He said he conceived the concept, chose the name, recruited key personnel and trained them, and provided the initial funding. He emphasized that a non-profit structure was a deliberate choice, noting that a commercial model would also have been possible.

Musk Seeks Damages

Musk filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and President Greg Brockman. He accuses them of abandoning the original mission and transforming the organization into a profit-driven company. He is seeking $150 billion in damages. Additionally, he wants the organization to return to its original structure and for both Altman and Brockman to step down from their positions.

OpenAI’s defense paints a different picture. Attorney William Savitt, representing both the organization and Altman, argued in his opening statement that Musk had an eye for commercial opportunities from the very beginning. According to Savitt, Musk wanted OpenAI to grow into a profitable company and aspired to a leading role as CEO himself. He described Musk’s attitude as focused on control and argued that the lawsuit stems from the fact that he failed to secure that position. In his words, Musk is ultimately concerned with his own position at the top.

Musk’s attorney, Steven Molo, countered that OpenAI’s current leadership was, in fact, driven by financial interests, particularly when major investors such as Microsoft came on board. According to him, OpenAI was never intended as a vehicle to enrich individuals.

During the first day of the hearing, Musk’s conduct outside the courtroom was also discussed. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers addressed him regarding posts on X in which he accused Altman of deception and appropriating a charitable initiative. The judge indicated she was reluctant to impose restrictions but urged Musk to moderate his use of social media and limit himself to the legal proceedings. Both Musk and Altman have agreed to limit their online statements. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is also expected to testify in the trial.

Concerns About AI Safety

A key point of contention in the case is the role of AI safety. Musk stated that he has long had serious concerns about the risks of artificial intelligence and that these concerns have intensified following discussions with, among others, former President Barack Obama and individuals within the technology sector. He cited his earlier interactions with Google co-founder Larry Page, during which, he claimed, it became clear that insufficient attention was being paid to the potential dangers of AI. According to Musk, this was a key reason for launching an alternative initiative.

Savitt disputed this view and argued that AI safety was not a priority for Musk. He claimed that Musk had even disparaged employees working on this topic.

Musk further stated that he had invested approximately $38 million in OpenAI and leveraged his network to secure access to computing power, including through contacts with Nadella and Jensen Huang of Nvidia. OpenAI established its commercial arm more than a year after Musk stepped down from the board.

The outcome of the trial could have far-reaching consequences. In addition to the financial claim and the future of OpenAI’s organizational structure, the case could also impact a potential IPO and broader confidence in AI technology. A ruling is expected in mid-May.