These days, some of tech’s most important decisions are being made inside courtrooms. Google and Facebook are fending off antitrust accusations, while patent suits determine how much control of their own products they can have. The slow fight over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act threatens platforms like Twitter and YouTube with untold liability suits for the content they host. Gig economy companies like Uber and Airbnb are fighting for their very existence as their workers push for the protections of full-time employees. In each case, judges and juries are setting the rules about exactly how far tech companies can push the envelope and exactly how much protection everyday people have. This is where we keep track of those legal fights and the broader principles behind them. When you move fast and break things, it shouldn’t be too much of a surprise when you end up in court.
There is a confirmation document from Chris Clark to Elon Musk showing the donation values. The donation was to OpenAI, as agreed in the stipulated facts, and in conflict to what Musk testified today.
We’re looking at a summary of about 60 donations to OpenAI, which Birchall says were directed by Musk, with Birchall helping execute all of them.
I guess she isn’t into Birchall’s testimony about Musk’s charitable contributions?
Jared Birchall’s testimony will begin. Birchall runs Musk’s family office, Excession LLC, and generally serves as his fixer.
Savitt asked about Musk’s $1 billion funding commitment. When did Musk stop funding OpenAI? 2020. And that was when they broke the deal? No, I was uncomfortable. (some crosstalk)
Musk: “I understand leading questions. That’s a leading answer.”
YGR: He can lead. He can lead all he wants. Let’s remind everyone you are not a lawyer and you’ve never taken a class in evidence.
Musk: “I did take law 101 technically, but yes I am not a lawyer.”
Musk’s back from break, reiterating that he had reason for waiting as long as he did to file suit against OpenAI — and saying his initial understanding of OpenAI’s agreement with Microsoft was that it didn’t violate the mission of the charity. “I don’t think I had a basis for filing a lawsuit before I did,” Musk says. He also refers to xAI as the smallest of the AI players, coming after Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Chinese AI models.
In the document of stipulated facts — that is, what everyone has agreed on — it’s said that Musk gave Teslas to OpenAI as an in-kind contribution. In response to questioning from YGR, Musk says that he gave the Teslas to individuals, personally, and not to OpenAI: “I bought at full price and gave them to individuals. It was a reward to the individuals.”
I don’t know if this matters, but it sure is interesting.
Apparently he wasn’t 100 percent confident in yesterday’s clarification, because Molo asks Musk to clarify whether the “AI-enabled robot army” mentioned in cross-examination is a military army. “No, we do not make any weapons,” Musk says. The point of his using the term was that “if we made a lot of robots we need to make sure they’re safe and don’t turn into a Terminator situation … You see, in the movie, it’s not a good situation.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers asks Musk to sum up the plot of Terminator in one sentence. “Worst-case situation is AI kills us all, I suppose,” he says.
With that, the jury leaves for a break.
Under questioning from Molo, his own lawyer, Musk tries to establish that he wasn’t causing harm to OpenAI. He says that as far as he knows, OpenAI wasn’t unable to cover any critical expenses because he ended his donations. He didn’t ask Andrej Karpathy to leave and join Tesla, only hired him after he said he was leaving OpenAI. Neuralink (while it was authorized to do so apparently) didn’t poach anyone from OpenAI as far as he knows. Did he seriously recruit anyone from OpenAI for Tesla besides Karpathy? “I don’t think so.” He reiterates that Tesla isn’t currently working on AGI, despite a recent tweet indicating it would achieve it.
Musk also repeats that he “did not read the fine print” on the term sheet for OpenAI’s for-profit wing. Molo brings up an email from Altman (forwarded to Musk by Zilis) about the draft that reads: “We did this in a way where all investors are clear they should never expect a profit, see purple box below.” On the stand, Musk says “I assumed he meant what he said.”
On the cross exams by OpenAI and Microsoft, there was minimal (though still some) bickering, and we are now getting many more yeses and nos as full answers. I’m not sure whether Musk was trying to run out the clock yesterday or what, but he’s clearly rethought his strategy.
In the final section of cross-examination, Musk is asked about speaking with Altman in 2020. Musk apparently told Altman that OpenAI looked “hypocritical” after the deal with Microsoft and suggested he change the name of OpenAI. “He reassured me they were staying on mission,” Musk says on the stand — and therefore, Musk didn’t sue. Following that, cross-examination wraps up.
Savitt mentions an X post where Musk says “the future is going to be amazing with AI and robots enabling sustainable abundance for all” and asks if he thinks it’s accurate. “Well, I’ve also said there are many possible futures. Some futures are good, and some are not good,” Musk says. “I think it’s generally better to err on the side of optimism than pessimism.” Musk agrees that “aspirationally,” he promotes xAI with the message that the future is going to be amazing.
Savitt then goes through a list of Musk’s companies — asking, one after another, if they’re for-profit. At a little prodding from Judge Gonzalez Rogers, Musk admits they all are. So, Savitt asks, they’re socially beneficial and for-profit? Musk agrees. Savitt then points out that Musk hasn’t started any nonprofits himself since OpenAI, despite having the money to do so. “Well, I thought I had started a nonprofit with OpenAI, but they stole the charity,” Musk says.
Savitt is bringing up some previously released email exchanges where Musk appeared okay with discussing what OpenAI would and wouldn’t make open source — including one where he replied “yup” to a comment that it would make sense to start being less open as AI advanced. He asks if Musk has made xAI’s own advanced versions of Grok open source — “No, but it will,” Musk says.
Savitt then mentions a letter Musk signed in 2023 asking to pause development of giant AI models out of safety concerns. Musk signed the letter shortly before he incorporated his own xAI, and Savitt asks why he didn’t disclose that fact; Musk says it was “just an open, non-binding letter” signed by hundreds of other people.
Musk has explained that he didn’t object to the proposed introduction of a capped profit structure initially at OpenAI (and also didn’t review it very closely), and Savitt is asking if he knew what the cap was for Microsoft’s investments in the company — Musk doesn’t seem clear on it. Savitt asks whether Musk had a lawyer set terms and conditions for his donations. Musk answers: “No, but it was obviously started as a nonprofit, and in the founding charter it says it will not be to the financial benefit of any person?” The apparent intended gist is that Musk didn’t set clear terms he can point to OpenAI or Altman violating.
Elon Musk is on the stand, to continue the cross-examination from yesterday. If you’ve read Musk depositions or heard previous crosses, this kind of arguing and filibustering is pretty standard behavior. But I think this is the jury’s first encounter with it, and it’s hard to know how they’re going to take it.
We are still dealing with the pretrial motions about the boundaries on safety questions.
We are having an argument about which expert issues are going to be allowed. “We aren’t going to get into issues of catastrophe or extinction,” YGR says. Musk’s lawyers are not happy about this: “We all could die as the result of artificial intelligence.”
YGR has just sat down on the bench. Jury’s not here yet, so we are dealing with some motions and issues.
I’ve just left the court after one of the most tiresome cross-examinations I have ever had the misfortune to witness. Elon Musk really wants us to think he’s just a poor simple country CEO who is being maliciously tricked by a big-city lawyer. I’m not buying it and I don’t think the jury is, either.
Well there goes all my fun! I was so excited to hear about MechaHilter in open court — and, in addition, Sam Altman apologizing to a Canadian town for OpenAI not flagging a mass shooter. But since Musk did bring up the difference in for-profit and not-for-profit motives, there is a limited line of questioning that can proceed.
There are a few matters the lawyers want to discuss with YGR. Musk’s testimony may have opened the door to questions about xAI and its safety record. I do love hearing the phrase “opened the door.”
Savitt hasn’t significantly raised the issue yet, but he’s started hinting at the idea that Musk’s safety-last approach at xAI might undercut his credibility. He asks Musk if it’s important to instill good values in AI systems, and after Musk agrees, asks if racist or sexist training materials could have a negative impact. Musk says systems wouldn’t necessarily absorb those values, and Savitt follows up to mention AI discrimination — and more specifically, an anti-algorithmic discrimination law in Colorado that Musk and xAI have been fighting against.
Savitt also asks whether, if Musk is concerned that a profit motive undermines AI safety, that applies to his own xAI. Musk says sure, it’s an issue across the board.
Savitt briefly explores a line of questioning about Grok, but it ends quickly. (It could be brought up for discussion later.) He moves on to asking about Musk’s purported commitment to care deeply about AI safety. Has Musk ever posted on Twitter/X about AI regulation? Musk doesn’t know off the top of his head. Savitt also sounds dubious of the idea that Musk spoke with Obama about AI safety, asking if there are any press reports or statements from the White House. Then, Savitt asks if Musk has spoken with the current president about the issue, especially since the former White House AI czar, David Sacks, is one of Musk’s fellow PayPal Mafia members.
Elon Musk is trying to outlawyer the lawyer on cross. At one point YGR has to intervene to get him to answer a yes-or-no question with “yes.” At another, he raised his voice to lecture Savitt — not sure if the jury noticed the, uh, well, it wasn’t quite yelling but it came pretty close.
Savitt asks Musk about a term sheet for OpenAI’s for-profit shift, which Sam Altman sent Musk to examine in 2018, and Musk admits “I didn’t read the whole document.” (It’s apparently four pages long.) The attorney then brings up a deposition in which Musk says multiple times that he doesn’t think he read it or looked closely at it. Musk gets testy and raises his voice as he’s asked to identify any communications where he objects to the proposed changes in 2018 or 2019. He repeats, once more, that he’s okay with a nonprofit having a capped for-profit arm — which Savitt says isn’t his question.
Through several more rounds of crosstalk, Savitt tries to ask Musk if he was open to OpenAI being for-profit in 2017 and had discussions about it. “I’ll withdraw the question,” he says finally.
According to messages between Musk and Zilis, Musk thought OpenAI stood essentially zero chance of succeeding against Google DeepMind, particularly if he focused on AI at Tesla. Zilis remained close with OpenAI and apparently offered Musk updates, including on its for-profit plans. Savitt mentions, again, that Musk didn’t object to information about this for-profit shift at the time — and again, Musk says he didn’t have an issue with a capped for-profit structure that would flow into a nonprofit.
He calls it one of several companies working toward the goal and likely not the one that will win the race. Savitt goes back to Tesla briefly, noting that Musk apparently hoped to build it into an AI powerhouse at one point. He displays an email Musk sent to Gabe Newell about OpenAI, saying he “lost confidence” that OpenAI would serve as an effective counterweight to Google DeepMind and decided to attempt that through Tesla instead.
After a quick breather, Musk is on the stand again — now the topic is SpaceX, which xAI has been rolled into. The company is preparing for an IPO later this year. Musk says he can’t answer questions about SpaceX because of this.
Altman’s lawyer mentions Musk building an “AI-enabled robot army” while talking about the proposal to merge Tesla and OpenAI. Musk jumps in, saying he wants to make clear that while he has in fact referred to running a “robot army” at the company, he did not mean the term “robot army” in a “military sense.” Glad we’ve cleared that up.
Musk is not terribly happy with Savitt, who continues to run through the history of entanglements between Musk’s own companies and OpenAI. After telling Musk that “I’m trying to put the questions as fairly as I can, I’m doing my best” (“That is not true,” Musk responds), Savitt brings up a deposition where Musk said he’d discussed a merger between Tesla and OpenAI. In email exhibits, Karpathy (who’d been hired away to Tesla by then) suggests OpenAI is burning cash and its funding structure won’t let it compete with Google, saying the best path forward might be “a for profit pivot” and attaching itself to Tesla. Any other big tech player, Karpathy said, could suffer from “incompatible company DNA.”
Musk previously mentioned that he hired researcher Andrej Karpathy at Tesla when he left OpenAI. Savitt asks whether, as a member of the OpenAI board at the time, he had a responsibility to suggest Karpathy stay at OpenAI and avoid poaching. “I think people should have a right to work where they want to work,“ Musk responds. A 2017 email suggests Musk knew how important Karpathy was:
“Just talked to Andrej and he accepted joining as director of Tesla Vision…. Andrej is arguably the #2 guy in the world in computer vision after Ilya. The OpenAI guys are gonna want to kill me but it had to be done.”
Musk also apparently authorized another company he owned to hire from OpenAI while on its board, telling people at Neuralink that “I have no problem if you pitch people at OpenAI to work at Neuralink.” Musk protests the characterization. “He is misstating my email, I’m simply saying if they want to try to recruit people from OpenAI or any other company including Tesla or SpaceX,” they can do so, Musk says. “It’s a free country.”
Musk quibbles his way through a line of questioning from Savitt, who asks if he was aware that cutting off most funding to OpenAI in 2017 would create financial pressure as OpenAI sought to get more compute. Musk repeats multiple times that he was losing faith in OpenAI, he was concerned they were going in the wrong direction, and that’s why he ended his donations. Savitt and Musk then spar over how much “sweat equity” Musk accrued at OpenAI — Savitt notes, for instance, he didn’t write the code for a consequential project where OpenAI’s bots learned to beat humans at Dota 2. Musk retorts that he called Satya Nadella to get compute for the project and suggested focusing on it. “I got along with almost everyone almost all the time,” he adds.
Savitt is asking Musk about the equity discussions — the ones where Musk wanted initial control of OpenAI. Musk acknowledges his plan would have given him unilateral decision-making power at first but says that’s “standard practice.” He reiterates that it would have changed quickly as more investors joined up and insisted on board seats; over time, he says, he’d have had to relinquish control.
Musk is still fending off questions about various messages where he’s mentioned the possibility of a for-profit component at OpenAI, like an email to associates at Neuralink in 2016:
“Deepmind is moving very fast. I am concerned that OpenAI is not on a path to catch up. Setting it up as non-profit might, in hindsight, have been the wrong move. Sense of urgency is not as high.”
Musk says “I’m simply speculating here with people at Neuralink,” calling the discussion hypothetical. He also brushes off a separate email chain where Greg Brockman mentions a for-profit structure and Musk doesn’t object, saying as long as “the for-profit is in service to the non-profit, it’s not breaking a promise.”
In an email a month before OpenAI was incorporated, Musk apparently wrote to Altman suggesting that “a standard c-corp with a parallel nonprofit” could work for the entity. Questioning about this quickly runs off the rails as Musk starts accusing Savitt of trying to “trick” him, comparing his questions to asking Musk if he’s stopped beating his wife. Judge Gonzalez Rogers is having none of this and cuts him off.
“Your questions are not simple, they are designed to trick me, essentially. If you ask a question where there is no possible simple answer, I must give a longer answer.”
Musk concedes that he mentioned a billion-dollar commitment to OpenAI, but the actual number he contributed fell far short of that — in his telling, because he lost faith in the mission. “I contributed my reputation, which nobody else was aware of at the time, these things all have value, without me it would not exist, I came up with the name, which means open source,” he says — but Gonzalez Rogers directs him to actually answer the question. “In monetary terms, I contributed $38 million,” he concludes. A deposition indicates his last $5 million quarterly contribution was in May of 2017, and he stopped paying for rent in 2020.
Savitt brings up another X post, this one from 2023, where Musk says “I’m still confused as to how a non-profit to which I donated ~$100M somehow became a $30B market cap for-profit.” The deposition indicates Musk was mistaken in the $100 million number, but he maintains on the stand that “I think $38 million was a lot of money.”
Savitt starts off by pushing on Musk’s comments minimizing how much his businesses compete with OpenAI. Earlier today Musk downplayed Tesla’s AI ambitions, but Savitt pulls up a 2026 X post saying that “Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI and probably the first to make it in humanoid/atom-shaping form.” Musk says that in the long term, Tesla will likely achieve this, but that it’s not making AGI right now.