Musk v. Altman week 3: Musk and Altman traded blows over each other’s credibility. Now the jury will pick a side.

The third week of the *Musk v. Altman* trial concluded with sharp exchanges over credibility, as lawyers for Elon Musk and Sam Altman presented closing arguments in a Delaware court. Musk’s team accused Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman of violating their 2017 agreement to keep OpenAI as a nonprofit focused on AI safety for humanity. They argued that Altman and Brockman created a for-profit subsidiary, enriching themselves while diverting from OpenAI’s original mission. Altman’s legal team countered that no such promise was made and that OpenAI remains a nonprofit dedicated to safe AI development. They also suggested Musk’s lawsuit was motivated by competition, as his own AI company, xAI, plans a public offering in June with a $1.75 trillion valuation. Musk is seeking to dismantle OpenAI’s 2025 restructuring and remove Altman and Brockman from leadership, while demanding up to $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft. Testimony highlighted tensions over OpenAI’s direction, with Altman portraying Musk as a power-seeker. Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, grilled Altman on his past behavior, citing claims from former executives like Ilya Sutskever and Mira Murati that Altman had misled them. Altman, however, accused Musk of seeking control, referencing a 2017 conversation where Musk allegedly suggested his children could inherit OpenAI’s leadership. The trial also featured unusual evidence, including a golden trophy shaped like a donkey’s ass, presented by OpenAI as a symbol of resistance to Musk’s push for rapid AGI development. The jury will begin deliberations on Monday, with an advisory verdict expected by next week. While the jury’s decision is non-binding, a ruling in Musk’s favor could disrupt OpenAI’s planned IPO and reshape the AI industry’s competitive landscape.