Elon Musk recently appeared in a California federal court to argue against OpenAI and its co-founders, specifically Sam Altman, alleging that they "stole a charity." The lawsuit, filed by Musk, contends that Altman and other co-founders misled him into financially backing a non-profit organization, only for them to later establish a for-profit arm that now dominates the company. Musk testified that he initially co-founded OpenAI with the understanding that it would build artificial intelligence for humanity, but his suspicions grew over time, leading him to conclude that the non-profit was being "looted."

During cross-examination, OpenAI's lawyer, William Savitt, sought to demonstrate that Musk had, in fact, supported various initiatives to transition OpenAI toward a for-profit status. These efforts were purportedly aimed at securing the necessary funding to compete with other major AI firms like Google. Musk admitted discussing converting the company to a for-profit entity as early as 2016 and, in 2017, explored creating a for-profit arm where he would hold a majority of the equity and control. His regular donations to OpenAI ceased when these plans did not materialize, though he continued to cover office space costs until 2020. OpenAI's legal team refutes Musk's claims, stating there were no perpetual promises for the company to remain a non-profit and suggesting Musk's lawsuit is an attempt to undermine OpenAI's growth and benefit his own AI venture, xAI, launched in 2023.

Musk’s testimony also revealed inconsistencies, particularly regarding Tesla's AI ambitions. Under oath, he stated that Tesla is not currently pursuing artificial general intelligence (AGI), contradicting a tweet he had posted just weeks prior claiming "Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI." His AI work at Tesla, he clarified, is focused solely on self-driving technology. Additionally, Musk was questioned about a claim he made on social media of investing $100 million in OpenAI, when the actual figure was approximately $38 million. He argued that his reputation and network compensated for this financial disparity. Further cross-examination highlighted Musk's alleged efforts to poach employees from OpenAI for Tesla and Neuralink, even while serving on OpenAI's board, and attempts to hire OpenAI leaders after his departure from the board in 2018.

A significant aspect of Musk's case revolves around the idea that OpenAI's shift to a traditional corporation poses a societal risk by reducing its focus on AI safety. Savitt countered by having Musk concede that all AI companies, including his own, inherently face such risks. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding over the trial in Oakland, California, indicated that this line of questioning about safety protocols would continue, but specified that discussions should focus on the approaches of xAI and OpenAI rather than specific AI-related scandals. The trial, which began Monday and is expected to last about four weeks, could have profound implications for the future balance of power in the artificial intelligence sector, potentially leading to Sam Altman's ouster from OpenAI's board or derailing the company's plans for an initial public offering.

Musk testified for a second day, reiterating his concern that Altman was trying to "steal the charity" by late 2022, a sentiment he believed "turned out to be true." He described his evolving views on Altman and his co-founders in three phases: initial excitement, followed by a loss of confidence, and ultimately, a realization of betrayal. OpenAI lawyers, however, maintain that Musk sought to control the company for himself, a claim Musk partially acknowledged, admitting he initially sought a majority stake and control of four out of seven board seats, but that this would eventually be diluted. This high-stakes legal battle highlights a bitter falling out between former allies, with the judge intervening at one point when Musk likened a question about OpenAI's non-profit formation to "have you stopped beating your wife?"