{"id":184323,"date":"2026-05-13T20:08:08","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T17:08:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/?p=184323"},"modified":"2026-05-13T20:08:08","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T17:08:08","slug":"sam-altman-shines-on-stand-but-risks-losing-the-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/trending-news\/184323\/sam-altman-shines-on-stand-but-risks-losing-the-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Sam Altman Shines on Stand, but Risks Losing the Case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\u25bc Summary<\/summary>

– Sam Altman testified that Elon Musk wanted total control of OpenAI and that Musk’s insistence on control conflicted with OpenAI’s mission to prevent any single person from controlling AGI.
– Altman portrayed himself as bewildered and credible on the stand, contrasting with other witnesses like Musk and Shivon Zilis, whose testimony was contradicted by documents or behavior.
– Evidence showed Altman kept Musk informed about OpenAI’s for-profit plans, and Musk did not object, despite later public claims about Microsoft investments.
– Musk’s legal team presented weak arguments, such as comparing OpenAI’s nonprofit fundraising to Stanford’s, which the reporter noted actually supported the defense’s case.
– The reporter argued the trial’s purpose is not to win but to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, as Musk’s vengeance continues through public scrutiny and investigations.
<\/p><\/details>\n\n

<\/p>\n\n

A<\/mark>fter two weeks of testimony painting him as a habitual deceiver, the jury finally heard directly from the man at the center of the allegations: Sam Altman<\/a><\/strong>. Wrapping up his direct examination, his attorney William Savitt<\/a> asked how it felt to be accused of effectively stealing a charitable organization.<\/p>\n\n

\u201cWe created, through a ton of hard work, this extremely large charity, and I agree you can\u2019t steal it,\u201d Altman replied. \u201cMr. Musk did try to kill it, I guess. Twice.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Altman slipped into his familiar persona of the \u201cnice kid from St. Louis<\/a>,\u201d<\/strong> projecting a sense of genuine bewilderment at the legal battle unfolding around him. As he stepped down from the witness stand, clutching a stack of evidence binders, he had an almost schoolboyish demeanor. While visibly nervous at the start of his direct testimony, he quickly settled into a rhythm, delivering what many observers considered credible testimony<\/strong>. At several points, it even seemed the jury was warming to him.<\/p>\n\n

As a reporter covering this trial, my familiarity with the key players makes it difficult to gauge the jury\u2019s perspective. I\u2019ve heard some audacious statements under oath. Elon Musk<\/a><\/strong> claimed he doesn\u2019t lose his temper,only to lose it on cross-examination. Shivon Zilis<\/a><\/strong>, the mother of Musk\u2019s children, testified she didn\u2019t know he was starting xAI<\/a>, a statement that seemed contradicted by her own text messages. And Greg Brockman<\/a><\/strong>, who once asked what it would take to reach a billion dollars, insisted he was purely mission-driven. I certainly don\u2019t find Altman inherently trustworthy,The New Yorker<\/em> published over 17,000 words detailing his deceptions. However, unlike Musk, Altman has contemporaneous documents<\/strong> that largely support his version of events.<\/p>\n\n

\u201cMy belief is he wanted to have long term control.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Following OpenAI<\/a>\u2019s Dota 2<\/a> victory, serious discussions about a for-profit structure began. Altman testified that Musk felt strongly that if a for-profit entity were formed, \u201che needed to have total control over it initially. He only trusted himself to make non-obvious decisions that were going to turn out to be correct.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Altman said he was uneasy with Musk\u2019s demand for control, not just because Musk had been less involved than others, but because OpenAI was founded precisely to prevent any single person from controlling AGI. Drawing on his experience as president of Y Combinator<\/a><\/strong>, Altman noted he had seen many control disputes; founders rarely want to relinquish power when things succeed. Structures like supervoting shares allow founders to retain control indefinitely. Curiously, Altman didn\u2019t cite the most famous example (Mark Zuckerberg<\/a> at Meta<\/a>) but instead pointed to Musk and SpaceX<\/a><\/strong>. When Altman asked Musk about succession plans for OpenAI, he received a particularly unsettling answer: in the event of his death, Musk said, \u201cI haven\u2019t thought about it a ton, but maybe control should pass to my children.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

I recall a 2017 email from Altman to Zilis where he wrote, \u201cI am worried about control. I don\u2019t think any one person should have control of the world\u2019s first AGI , in fact the whole reason we started OpenAI was so that wouldn\u2019t happen.\u201d He added that he wasn\u2019t opposed to immediate control and was open to \u201ccreative structures,\u201d which I interpreted as a willingness to give Musk temporary control up to certain milestones to placate him.<\/p>\n\n

\u201cI read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

\u201cMy belief is he wanted to have long term control and that he would\u2019ve had that had we agreed to the structure he wanted,\u201d Altman stated. This assessment seems accurate. Later, during Sam Teller\u2019s deposition testimony, we learned that Musk no longer invests in anything he doesn\u2019t control. This aligns with Musk\u2019s long-standing fear of being ousted from his own company, as happened to him at PayPal.<\/p>\n\n

Musk also attempted to recruit Altman to Tesla. Text messages between Altman and Teller revealed that Teller informed Altman of Musk\u2019s commitment to expanding Tesla\u2019s AI capabilities, hoping Altman, Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever<\/a> would eventually join. \u201cI read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there, that he\u2019s gonna do this inside of Tesla with or without you,\u201d Altman said. However, he believed Tesla was primarily a car company, and allowing it to acquire OpenAI would betray the organization\u2019s mission.<\/p>\n\n

Teller\u2019s testimony included texts sent to Zilis at 12:40 AM on February 4th, 2018: \u201cI don\u2019t love OpenAI continuing without Elon. Would rather disable it by recruiting the leaders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

When Musk stopped his quarterly donations, OpenAI was operating on a \u201cshoestring\u201d budget with an \u201cextremely short runway of cash.\u201d<\/strong> While OpenAI had other donors, none have sued or joined Musk\u2019s legal action. (One donor listed in the exhibit, Alameda Research,owned by the now-imprisoned Sam Bankman-Fried,was not mentioned in court.) Musk\u2019s board resignation led people to wonder \u201cif he was gonna try to take, uh, vengeance out on us or something.\u201d Conversely, Altman said Musk had \u201cdemotivated some of our key researchers\u201d and caused \u201chuge damage for a long time to the culture of the organization.\u201d It appears many were relieved to see him go.<\/p>\n\n

I\u2019ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk\u2019s side throughout this trial.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Evidence showed that throughout the process of establishing OpenAI\u2019s for-profit arm, Altman kept Musk informed, either directly or through Zilis or Teller. Musk never objected, and despite his public statements about Microsoft<\/a> investments, private evidence indicates he was fully aware.<\/p>\n\n

On cross-examination, Steven Molo spent over ten minutes listing people who have called Altman a liar: Sutskever, Mira Murati, Toner, McCauley, the Amodei siblings (founders of Anthropic), former Loopt employees, The New Yorker<\/em> article, and a book titled The Optimist<\/em>. Molo scored points by asking Altman about trial testimony, which Altman admitted he hadn\u2019t followed closely. Molo acted as if this was implausible, suggesting someone must have informed Altman.<\/p>\n\n

The exchange was both amusing and tedious. Altman remained composed, appearing hurt and confused by the focus on his honesty. This was the strongest part of the cross-examination, which quickly lost focus. Musk\u2019s legal team has displayed questionable strategy throughout this trial<\/strong>, and today was no exception. At one point, when Molo tried to criticize Altman for being both CEO and board member, Altman correctly noted that CEOs are almost always on their company\u2019s boards.<\/p>\n\n

(My notes simply read: \u201cBoy, Molo is not very good at this.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n

The point of this trial isn\u2019t to win , it\u2019s to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

An unconvincing argument arose about nonprofit fundraising, suggesting that if Stanford could raise $3 billion annually, OpenAI should have remained a nonprofit. Let\u2019s consider that: Stanford has a donor network of thousands of alumni. It\u2019s an educational institution with different capital needs and no competition from reputable for-profit companies. Even if a fundraising genius took over the OpenAI Foundation, $3 billion represents just the initial two Microsoft investments,insufficient to scale OpenAI to its current size. If compute power is the primary bottleneck for AI development, Molo\u2019s argument implies OpenAI could never have succeeded as a nonprofit alone. He\u2019s effectively making the defense\u2019s case.<\/p>\n\n

But Molo doesn\u2019t need to win. The trial\u2019s real purpose is to damage Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI.<\/strong> Musk has succeeded in that regard, reinforcing the public perception of Altman as a liar. This morning, The Wall Street Journal<\/em> published an exclusive about Republican attorneys general and the House Oversight committee investigating Sam Altman\u2019s investments, with references to the trial throughout.<\/p>\n\n

So yes, Altman was convincing on the stand.<\/strong> He may even win the lawsuit. But it\u2019s clear that Musk\u2019s vengeance has only just begun.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n(Source: The Verge<\/a>)<\/em>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sam Altman testified in his own defense, projecting a credible, bewildered persona and arguing that Elon Musk wanted long-term control of OpenAI, which contradicted the organization’s founding principle of preventing any single person from controlling AGI. Altman presented contemporaneous documen…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":184322,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"cybocfi_hide_featured_image":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3247,6579,3253,3327,497],"tags":[207303,207304,200798,207180,207305],"entities":[2241,22103,816,3165,889,749,824,1481,202326,829,32826,2504,2742,200833,834,3351],"class_list":["post-184323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-artificial-intelligence","category-bigtech-companies","category-business","category-newswire","category-trending-news","tag-agi-governance","tag-elon-musk-allegations","tag-openai-trial","tag-sam-altman-testimony","tag-y-combinator-experience","entity-bloomberg","entity-dota-2","entity-elon-musk","entity-greg-brockman","entity-mark-zuckerberg","entity-meta","entity-openai","entity-sam-altman","entity-shivon-zilis","entity-spacex","entity-st-louis","entity-the-new-yorker","entity-the-verge","entity-william-savitt","entity-xai","entity-y-combinator"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184323","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=184323"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184323\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/184322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184323"},{"taxonomy":"entity","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitrendz.blog\/z\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entities?post=184323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}