Musk accused of 'selective amnesia,' Altman of lying as OpenAI trial nears end

A federal trial in Oakland, California, concluded closing arguments in Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and its leadership, with both sides clashing over the company’s shift from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity backed by Microsoft. Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, accused OpenAI CEO Sam Altman of lying and claimed five witnesses, including Musk and former Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever, testified to Altman’s lack of credibility. Molo argued Altman failed to prioritize AI safety and that OpenAI’s actions enriched investors and insiders at the nonprofit’s expense, while also implicating Microsoft for its $11 billion investments in 2019 and 2023. Musk’s team sought $150 billion in damages and demanded Altman and OpenAI President Greg Brockman be removed from their roles. OpenAI’s legal team countered that Musk waited too long to sue, filing his case in August 2024 despite knowing about the company’s growth plans for years. Lawyer Sarah Eddy accused Musk of having ‘selective amnesia,’ claiming he ignored a 2018 term sheet outlining OpenAI’s plans to seek outside investments. She also argued Musk wanted control of OpenAI but was rejected by other founders, who refused to turn over artificial general intelligence (AGI) to a single individual, particularly not Musk. Eddy further questioned Musk’s commitment to AI’s humanitarian mission, citing his push to merge OpenAI with Tesla or create his own for-profit AI company, xAI. During cross-examination, Altman did not unequivocally confirm he was trustworthy or had not misled people in business, according to Molo, who emphasized Altman’s credibility as a central issue in the case. Musk’s lawyer also highlighted Brockman’s $30 billion stake in OpenAI, calling the company’s leadership ‘arrogant’ and lacking ‘common decency.’ The trial comes as Musk remains in China with former U.S. President Donald Trump, while Altman and Brockman attended closing arguments in Oakland. OpenAI’s lawyers dismissed Musk’s claims as ‘sound bites and irrelevant false accusations,’ arguing the company’s shift to a for-profit model was necessary to fulfill its mission. They noted that by 2017, Musk and other board members recognized the nonprofit structure could not secure enough funding. The case hinges on whether OpenAI breached its founding agreement by prioritizing profit over its original goal of developing safe AI for humanity’s benefit.