Sam Altman and Elon Musk: The Trial Redefining OpenAI

Sam Altman at the Heart of the Trial: A Convincing Performance but Not Enough?

After two intense weeks of hearings where Sam Altman was accused of repeated lies, the jury finally got to hear his version of events. Altman appeared to dominate the discussions, displaying a strong confidence. However, this may not be enough to counter the impact already caused by Elon Musk, who may have permanently tarnished the image of the OpenAI leader.

From the beginning of the trial, testimonies have been marked by contradictions and unexpected moments. Elon Musk, for example, claimed he never got angry, only to lose his cool during cross-examination. Shivon Zilis, mother of several of Musk's children, stated she was unaware of the preparations for xAI, even though her text messages tell a different story. Greg Brockman was also criticized for making statements deemed far from reality.

Despite these attacks, Sam Altman was able to rely on several contemporaneous documents that support his version of events.

The Tensions Surrounding OpenAI: Altman's Perspective

Sam Altman explained that tensions truly emerged after OpenAI's successes in the game Dota 2. It was at that moment that the question of creating a commercial structure became crucial. According to Altman, Elon Musk was adamant about controlling this new entity, trusting only himself for major strategic decisions.

This desire for control deeply concerned Altman, who recalled that OpenAI's initial goal was to prevent any single person from dominating the development of general artificial intelligence. During his time at Y Combinator, Altman had already witnessed power struggles among founders unwilling to relinquish control.

One anecdote particularly marked the hearing: Altman asked Musk what would happen to OpenAI if he were to disappear. Musk reportedly replied that he hadn't really thought about it, but that control could eventually revert to his children. An email from 2017 sent by Altman to Shivon Zilis seems to corroborate this concern, with Altman expressing his fear that a single person could control the world's first general artificial intelligence. However, he stated he was open to certain "creative structures," considering temporary compromises to appease Musk.

Elon Musk and His Quest for Control According to Altman

On the stand, Altman asserted that he was convinced Musk sought to gain lasting control over OpenAI. This version is supported by other testimonies, including that of Sam Teller, a former collaborator, who explained in a video deposition that Musk no longer invested in projects he did not directly control, likely due to his past ousting from PayPal.

Musk also allegedly attempted to recruit Altman to Tesla, as shown by text messages presented in court. Sam Teller explained to Altman that Musk wanted to enhance Tesla's AI at all costs. Musk hoped to attract Altman, Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever. However, Altman perceived this as a thinly veiled threat: either OpenAI would join Tesla, or Musk would build his own AI empire without them. For Altman, allowing OpenAI to be absorbed by Tesla would have been a betrayal of its initial mission.

Other messages revealed during the hearings show that after Musk's departure, OpenAI was going through a very difficult financial period. Despite this, Altman claims he continued to keep Musk informed about the developments in OpenAI's commercial branch, including discussions with Microsoft. According to him, Musk never officially protested at the time.

Musk's Goal: To Undermine Altman?

The cross-examination led by Musk's lawyer, Steven Molo, took an unexpected turn. For long minutes, he listed all the people who had accused Altman of lying: former employees, OpenAI executives, founders of Anthropic, journalists, and biographers.

Altman, for his part, remained calm, although visibly affected by these direct attacks on his credibility. This measured attitude likely worked in his favor with the jury. Musk's defense also attempted to argue that OpenAI could have remained a nonprofit organization by raising more funds, similar to Stanford. An argument that left several observers puzzled, as Stanford benefits from a network of historical donors and does not have the same financial needs as a company developing giant AI models.

In reality, even several billion dollars would probably not have been enough to finance OpenAI's current growth. Massive commercial partnerships, like the one with Microsoft, were more than necessary. But ultimately, winning this trial may not be Musk's primary goal. The real stakes seem to lie elsewhere.

For months, Musk has publicly hammered the idea that Sam Altman has betrayed OpenAI's founding values. And this strategy is already beginning to bear fruit. American political figures now wish to examine more closely the investments related to OpenAI and Altman. Several American media outlets directly link these new investigations to the ongoing trial.

Thus, even if Sam Altman has likely succeeded in his testimony and appeared credible before the jury, Elon Musk may have already achieved his true objective: to permanently undermine the image of OpenAI's CEO in the eyes of the public and U.S. authorities.