OpenAI

The family of a victim of April’s mass shooting at Florida State University is suing OpenAI over its chatbot’s alleged role in encouraging the attack, which is already being probed by Florida’s attorney general. OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri called the shooting a “tragedy” but said “ChatGPT is not responsible for this terrible crime.” More from Pusateri:

Our next witness is Ilya Sutskever. This promises to be more interesting, I think.

He says he provides suggestions a lot. And they’re just suggestions, including in the case of OpenAI. While Microsoft put forward 14 names, none of those names were added to the new OpenAI board except Sue Desmond-Hellman. CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who was added later.

He’s explaining that firing a CEO is “a fairly big things” and when he didn’t get any details on why Altman was fired, he felt that OpenAI’s board was “sort of amateur city as far as I was concerned.”

We also discover that Nadella has no idea if Altman and Musk talked about Musk’s mean Microsoft/OpenAI tweets. As a side note, we are referring exclusively to “Twitter” and “tweets” even for posts after the X rebrand.

I recognize Musk has identified this as the spot where he was convinced he’d been swindled. But the main thing I’m hearing here is that OpenAI was unstable. I don’t know what the correct way to respond to that kind of chaos is, especially if you have a partnership with the company that appears to be rapidly imploding. Trying to suggest that Nadella’s attempts to stabilize the company and preserve his investment was somehow improper seems weird? This is a genuinely odd situation, not necessarily one you run into in business school. (Well, until then anyway.)

“Pretty definitive statement as to why they fired him, right?” Well, Mr. Molo, no. I remember a great deal of speculation about what this meant; for instance, if Altman had gotten up to something criminal. One of those moments where I wonder what the jury is thinking, since I doubt they recall any of this.

Nadella is cooler than everyone else on cross, but he’s still getting worked up. Molo just got told by the judge that his question was argumentative. Molo is yelling about how the risk MSFT took on OpenAI was “prudent.” Nadella notes it’s still a risk. “At the time the was a risk it could to to zero,” Nadella says. “It was a calculated risk.” Molo, of course, is focused on projected return, of $92+ billion.

Molo is asking about this line Nadella wrote in a 2022 email, and it’s very funny. Nadella has explained a couple times that to him it’s about IP rights. “The context for me was making sure that Microsoft was benefitting from the IP rights that we had because that’s what happened in the case of Microsoft and IBM.” Molo then says, didn’t Microsoft become more prominent and important than IBM? Nadella agrees.

OpenAI is expanding its enterprise arm with the launch of the OpenAI Deployment Company, which will work with businesses to build, test, and deploy AI systems tailored to their needs. The new company received $4 billion in investments and has a $10 billion pre-money valuation, according to Axios.

Nadella’s attitude is not notably different than it was on direct. We are talking about donating commute to OpenAI from Azure services. From a 1/12/18 email: “The 2016 deal, where they agreed to pay $10M for $60M in Azure services was projected at a $15M loss over 3 years, given assumed usage profile. They’ll have consumed all the usage in ½ that time.” The funny recurring theme here through the trial is the gaping maw of compute required is always bigger than whatever huge number people had projected. Interesting to know ahead of AI IPOs!

He misstated at first that he didn’t currently serve on any such boards, though he is a trustee at the University of Chicago, which is a nonprofit.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was just asked to explain what Copilot is during the Musk v. Altman trial. “Copilot is an AI assistant, similar to ChatGPT.” That’s funny because you won’t find a mention of ChatGPT in Microsoft’s Copilot marketing materials.

The Microsoft CEO said that though things “started off as, essentially, a bunch of people leaving,” it turned into them “talking about creating a new company. That was obviously very concerning to me.” He said he was trying to make sure Altman and Greg Brockman joined Microsoft instead of launching a new competitor: “I just wanted to make sure we could hang onto the band that created all this technology, one way or the other.”

Nadella is being asked about possibly the most baller thing he’s ever said. “Below them” means compute. “Around them” means API. “Above them” means products like Copilot. “The question was being asked, what happens if OpenAI disappears, will everything crumble? So I was trying to reassure everyone,” he says. The problem was that until he said this to Kara Swisher, “the drama of what was going on was drowning out what the customers care about.”

He was being asked if at any point Musk contacted him to say that the OpenAI deals with Microsoft violated any agreement Musk had with OpenAI’s nonprofit. Musk did not. “Does he know how to contact you?” his lawyer, asked. “He does.”

The partnership itself was “a fairly big decision for us” because “to make the call we’d use some of the scare resources we had” on it. But Microsoft accepted the risk of investing in Open AI because Microsoft has a “core ethos as a platform and partner company,” he says. “So if you find partners you can create these win/win with, it’s great to make them longterm stable.”

He looks very nice. I am fully expecting his testimony to be the equivalent of a pair of pleated khaki pants.

Michael Wetter, the VP of corporate development at Microsoft, “We’ve recognized $9.5B of total revenue life to date” as of 9/8/2025. He notes there’s context: a $13B investment with OpenAI and Azure compute.

“I can’t get my head around why [Musk lawyer] Mr. Molo told me this was not a focus of the trial,” YGR says. “That’s what my ruling is based on.”

Last week, an expert witness testified about the 2025 recapitalization of OpenAI. OpenAI has said they’d like to include the AG’s conclusions, since the removal of the profit cap was mentioned. YGR is annoyed; she told Musk’s team not to go into detail, and OpenAI didn’t object at the time. “We’re in mud,” she just said. The problem is that Musk’s team is treating it as the crux of the “breach” Musk is alleging.

Maybe — at least for one X user, who claims Codex earned them $16.88 after being told “to go off and make me $5.” Not exactly life-changing, but not nothing. And it caught Sam Altman’s eye. Still, it reportedly took 22 hours, and the token bill is unclear. Not quitting the day job just yet.

What happened in the second week of Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman? The Verge senior AI reporter, Hayden Field, can help you catch up.

“Codex can now use Chrome on your computer to complete work inside the websites and apps where you’re already signed in,” according to the Chrome Web Store listing for the extension. It works in “task-specific” tab groups so you can keep using your active tabs.

Which gets something like $2 billion from hospital operations, more than $1 billion in tuition, and an endowment of $16 billion, plus $2.2 billion in philanthropy. Does this mean that Columbia is deviating from its mission to educate kids and support research?

Like, yes, sure, he doesn’t understand AI, but we have lots of nonprofits, which are governed by the same set of laws. Sure, yes, he’s getting $1,500 per hour from Musk and that is probably a pretty penny — likely more than my annual salary — but also... who cares. I was not overwhelmed by Schizer’s testimony but this cross isn’t doing anything to knock it down for me.

because the jury is engaged in a fact-finding mission. Anyway, of a hypothetical, he says: “You don’t want to be known as a liar.” Evidently Schizer is unfamiliar with the current president of the United States.

He’s a professor of law and economics at Columbia Law School. He specializes in nonprofits, nonprofit taxation, and management. We are going through an exhaustive list of his qualifications.

Yes. The main thing I am taking away from McCauley’s and Toner’s testimony is that the board got really bad advice from whatever lawyers they consulted on the firing Altman thing. I mean, I hope they consulted lawyers. I don’t think that’s come up in the testimony.

Increasingly I feel that the only thing happening here is Musk just trying to remind the world that Altman is untrustworthy. (Ironic!) McCauley’s testimony about the profit incentives is neither here nor there when it comes to the donations and whether any promises were made to Musk.

We are once again going over concerns about Sam Altman’s dishonesty. “Because of this pattern of lying, people in the company were copying that behavior, and there was a culture of lying and a culture of deceit,” she says.

Oh sure, Musk’s team objected and the question was withdrawn, but the OpenAI attorney said what I was thinking. Why is she here? She’s not a board member. She’s not an exec. She didn’t witness any decisions that bear on Musk’s donations. I guess the idea is that she’s testifying that OpenAI abandoned its mission? But we’ve established already that there were no known conditions on Musk’s donation yesterday, with Shivon Zilis.

Look, I’m not bought in on AGI at all, and the “AGI readiness” team getting disbanded in 2024 happened as it became clearer to everyone but the AI cultists that AGI wasn’t possible. (It was clear to some of us from the jump.) I have no idea how this is landing for the jury, but getting safe, beneficial AGI is silly if AI superintelligence isn’t possible.

She initially worked on the “applied” team, but then moved into a research team because it was “more interesting” to work on the “policy” and “AGI readiness” teams, and think about what to do in the case AGI happened. I also prefer daydreaming to actually working.

They also discussed Dario Amodei becoming CEO of OpenAI. “I thought it was an option worth considering among our set of difficult options,” Toner says.

Neither Altman or Brockman had been allowed to tell their side of the story, nor were their HR files pulled by the board. There was no input from Microsoft, or any other investors or customers. Toner smiles when she’s frustrated or annoyed, which she sometimes is by this line of questioning.