Elizabeth Lopatto

I am just going to break from telling you what Molo is saying to say what my personal impression was from sitting here all these weeks: Everyone was improvising. There was no plan. This is especially true of “the blip.” I do wonder if there’s a way to incorporate that into Musk’s case. Anyway, Molo just referenced an exhibit he didn’t have handy, asked for an exhibit number, and then said he’d get it for the jury late.r I have to say, I know Musk’s team is smaller than OpenAI’s, but this might have been a moment to call in another lawyer to handle the close. Someone who could have prepped better, perhaps. Marc Toberoff, who’s theoretically a key figure on this team, hasn’t stood up to do a single thing. Maybe this could have been his moment, I don’t know!

Molo keeps interrupting himself to restate things or say things like “remember the residuals?” It’s really important in closing to tell a straightforward, easy-to-follow story here, because this is where you put together all the testimony into your case. I know Molo’s got an uphill battle on the facts here, but this could be smoother. He did also just call Greg Brockman “Greg Altman.”

And that the “important constraints” of the capped-profit structure in the first two Microsoft investments did not breach the charitable trust. However, the 2023 investment”changed the world. Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI breached the charitable trust created by Elon” by enriching investors and insiders at the expense of the nonprofit and not open-sourcing the technology.

That money grew OpenAI “so the defendants could do these things that they’re doing now, that they shouldn’t do.” Sam Altman, seated in the courtroom, looks confused by this.

I disagree! I think that’s Ilya Sutskever, frankly. Those two did the least amount of beefing on the cross-exam, it’s true. But I am against the Sutskever erasure here — not least because he impressed a number of us in the peanut gallery. I’m sorry I keep bickering with Molo in these updates but a lot of what he’s saying is profoundly arguable. Sir, I was here the whole time!

Molo agrees that OpenAI needed money for compute. He is annoyed that a “brainstorming session” is being cast as evidence that Musk wanted to abandon OpenAI’s non-profit mission.

Of OpenAI’s founding as a charity, Molo says, “If he wanted to found a for profit business there was nobody in California or the planet who would be better suited and know how to do it than Elon Musk.” xAI, Musk’s struggling AI business that was acquired by SpaceX and is facing an awful lot of lawsuits about its habit of making deepfake porn, suggests otherwise. Anthropic, for instance, does not seem to be having these problems.

Molo asks the jury to imagine they are on a hike and come across a wooden bridge over a gorge, with a river 100 feet below. It looks a little scary but “a woman standing by the entry to the bridge says, ‘Don’t worry the bridge is built on Sam Altman’s version of the truth,’” Molo says. “Would you walk across that bridge? I don’t think many people would.”

Look, this case is full of liars. It just is! The biggest problem for his side is the contemporaneous written evidence.

“Are you completely trustworthy?” was the first question, and Altman’s answer is “I believe so.” So here’s the thing. I am largely trustworthy unless you leave your french fries unattended near me. What’s the best way to answer that question under oath? “If you are a truthful person, wouldn’t you say, ‘I am absolutely trustworthy?’” Molo asks. Well, I’m truthful. That’s how you know I might eat your french fries. Come on, man.