Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI have commenced closing arguments in a landmark trial in Oakland, California, an outcome poised to significantly influence the future direction of artificial intelligence.

Elon Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit and invested $38 million in its initial years, filed a lawsuit in 2024.

He accuses OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and his top deputy, Greg Brockman, of illicitly transitioning the organization into a profit-driven entity.

This pivotal trial holds the potential to rebalance power dynamics within the AI sector, a technology increasingly perceived as a critical threat to human survival.

The scrutiny surrounding Altman's leadership arises at a crucial juncture for OpenAI, its competitors—including Musk's own AI firm and Anthropic (founded by former OpenAI leaders)—as all three are advancing toward what are anticipated to be some of the largest initial public offerings (IPOs) ever.

Beyond seeking damages, Musk is also demanding Altman's removal from OpenAI's board, a victory that could potentially derail OpenAI's IPO aspirations.

A central task for the jury involves determining whether Musk's lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations. Much of the testimony has focused on OpenAI's early years post-2015 founding, but there is a relatively short window to file claims such as breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment.

OpenAI contends that Musk delayed too long and cannot assert harms predating August 2021.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers indicated in a recent court filing that if the jury finds Musk failed to file his action within the statute of limitations, she is highly likely to accept that finding and direct a verdict in favor of the defendants.

Should the jury deem the lawsuit timely, they will then proceed to decide if OpenAI indeed constituted a "charitable trust" and if OpenAI and its executives violated that trust.

Additionally, Musk's claim of unjust enrichment requires jurors to ascertain whether Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI unjustly benefited at Musk's expense.

For Microsoft, which is a co-defendant in the trial, the jury must determine if the company aided and abetted any such breach.

During Thursday morning's closing arguments, Musk's attorney, Steven Molo, emphasized Altman's alleged untrustworthiness.

Molo highlighted testimony from five witnesses, including Musk himself, co-founder Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI's former chief scientist), former chief technology officer Mira Murati, and ex-board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley, all of whom referred to the OpenAI CEO as a "liar" under oath.

Molo asserted that Altman's credibility is paramount to the defense's case, stating, "If you cannot trust him, if you don’t believe him, they cannot win. It’s that simple."

Given that Musk, Altman, and Brockman never executed a formal contract explicitly outlining a charitable trust, Musk's legal team has argued that jurors should consider various forms of communication—such as emails, other correspondence, OpenAI’s website content, and press interviews—as evidence establishing the existence of such a trust.

Molo contended that the evidence proves Musk donated funds for a specific charitable objective: the development of safe, open-source artificial intelligence through a nonprofit framework.

An notable exchange occurred when Judge Gonzalez Rogers sharply admonished Musk’s attorney for suggesting to jurors in his closing argument that Musk was not seeking monetary compensation in the lawsuit.

While Musk had previously withdrawn a bid for personal damages, he continues to pursue an unspecified sum of money, described by the judge as "billions of dollars of disgorgement," to be allocated to fund the altruistic initiatives of OpenAI’s charitable arm.

The judge ordered Molo to either retract his statement or abandon the claim for billions of dollars, ultimately agreeing that she would correct the statement to the jurors.