Elon Musk took his grievances off X and into a Oakland courtroom Tuesday as his lawsuit against Sam Altman began, in a case that could determine the future of OpenAI.
Musk’s case alleges that Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, broke promises made when the company was founded, resulting in a restructuring that minimized the nonprofit structure in favor of a for-profit model. Musk claims that the switch cheated him out of astronomical profits.
“It is not OK to steal a charity,” Musk said during his testimony.
Earlier in the day, the attorneys gave opening statements. In his remarks, Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo sought to portray his client as a benevolent entrepreneur dedicated to improving society through technology.
“Without Elon Musk, there would be no OpenAI — pure and simple,” Molo said.
When Musk, Altman, and others founded OpenAI in 2015, the stated goal was to “benefit humanity as a whole unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.”
“It wasn’t a vehicle for people to get rich,” Molo told the court, “and they wanted the technology to be open.”
OpenAI lawyer William Savitt asserted that Musk’s suit is petty, revenge-motivated, and “a pageant of hypocrisy.”
“Mr. Musk comes to this court claiming that promises were made to him and broken, but that’s not why we’re here,” said Savitt. “We’re here because Mr. Musk didn’t get his way at OpenAI.”
Savitt argued that Musk didn’t begin to complain about the changes to OpenAI’s structure until after he had launched his rival company, xAI, in 2023. “Because he’s a competitor, Mr. Musk would do anything to attack OpenAI,” said Savitt. He said he plans to argue that Musk brought his case too late, after the three-year statute of limitations had passed.
The case could decide the operating structure of OpenAI, which is widely expected to go public this year with a valuation of up to $1 trillion.
Musk was the first witness to testify Tuesday afternoon. A large portion of his testimony focused on his central role in building OpenAI through his donations, time, and personal connections. In Musk’s telling, he got the idea to create OpenAI after Google cofounder Larry Page called him a “speciesist” in a late-night debate over whether it would be “fine” for artificial intelligence to wipe out humanity.
Musk also testified that he was central to recruiting OpenAI cofounder Ilya Sutskever away from Google, a feat that took five days and resulted in Page vowing never to speak to Musk again, according to his testimony.
Musk said he leveraged a personal connection to Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella for OpenAI’s benefit. “Every time I see Satya, he reminds me the only reason he’s in this thing is because of me,” Musk said on the stand.
In contrast, Musk testified, Altman was not well known in tech circles at the time OpenAI was founded.
The two agreed on the importance of creating an organization that could be trusted with ensuring safe development of AI, Musk said. He was particularly worried about leaving the future of superintelligence in the hands of Google, which he believed was not sufficiently concerned about the risks. That’s why he wanted OpenAI to be formed as a nonprofit, he testified.
Now, he said, Altman and OpenAI President Greg Brockman are “looting” a charity — a move Musk argued could legally threaten the future of philanthropy in the U.S. in perpetuity.
Musk’s attorney painted a picture of him as an immigrant with a dream who pulled himself up by the bootstraps, waiting tables, working as a lumberjack, and incurring student debt in order to come to the U.S. and work on the technology problems that inspired him.
Molo’s demeanor was friendly and calm, even though his presentation was repeatedly interrupted by a technical problem with his microphone.
“What can I say,” the judge quipped after the equipment failed yet again. “We’re funded by the federal government.”
Molo laid out his case that Musk had been illegally cheated out of his role in an organization that he believes has a hugely influential role to play in the future of humanity.
But in 2022, when OpenAI took a second round of investment from Microsoft, “it was no longer operating for the good of humanity as a whole,” Molo said.
“It was a for-profit, operating for the good of the defendants,” said Molo. In addition to Altman, those defendants include Brockman and Microsoft.
Savitt gave a much longer and more complicated opening statement, arguing that the most effective structure for the organization was never entirely clear. In fact, Savitt argued, Musk initially supported the idea of making OpenAI a for-profit company.
“The project had an important social component, so a nonprofit made some sense,” said Savitt. “But the mission wouldn’t succeed without the best research and engineering talent and loads of computing power … and all of that requires a lot of money. So the founders were not sure which approach to take.”
Savitt painted a picture of Musk as angry, controlling, competitive, and conniving — and a lightweight in the world of AI research. The other founders refused to let him take over the organization in 2017 in part because “he didn’t really understand artificial intelligence very well,” Savitt argued.
Savitt made the case that Musk isn’t concerned about humanity but angry that he was cut out of control. When the other founders declined to let him take over, Savitt said, Musk “literally grabbed his stuff and stormed out of the discussions.”
The trial is scheduled to continue until mid-May. To defend their clients, OpenAI’s lawyers will have to unravel the organization’s complicated history in order to make the case that Musk walked away from the company of his own volition, in a dire case of what Savitt called “sour grapes.”
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。