Under the guise of charity, they commit actual theft! Musk accuses OpenAI in court, directly pointing to the Ultraman team's "appropriation of charitable assets".

On Tuesday, Elon Musk appeared in court to testify against OpenAI and its two co-founders, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. He pointed out that the behavior of this AI company transitioning from a non-profit charity organization to a for-profit commercial entity is inappropriate and sets a bad precedent for the operation of various charitable organizations, sparking widespread concerns. The trial took place in the federal court in Oakland, California, and Musk told the jury at the beginning of the trial, "In my view, stealing from a charity organization is absolutely intolerable." This highly anticipated trial is the final outburst of years of accumulated grievances and public disputes between the three individuals since they co-founded OpenAI in 2015. Following this, their relationship deteriorated and turned into competitors. Musk emphasized that the impact of this lawsuit has already exceeded the scope of the parties involved. If Altman and Brockman's improper actions are not categorized, this case will become a legal precedent, encouraging imitation and ultimately allowing for the embezzlement of assets of all charitable organizations within the United States. OpenAI's legal representative William Savitt refuted Musk's claims in court and applied to the federal district judge Evan Gonzalez Rogers Corporation to exclude Musk's testimony on the grounds that Musk is not a practicing lawyer and is not qualified to provide a professional legal analysis. The judge ultimately rejected this request. Savitt presented the defense argument to the jury, stating that the core purpose of Musk's lawsuit is actually to suppress the number one competitor of his own AI company xAI. He also presented evidence that in the early stages of OpenAI's development, Musk himself had actively supported the restructuring of the company, advocating for it to be reorganized as a for-profit entity. The outcome of this three-week trial may completely change the trajectory of OpenAI's development. The AI giant is currently valued at nearly a trillion dollars, and its long-awaited IPO plan is eagerly anticipated, with the potential to break records for the largest IPO in global history. Musk's core demand in this lawsuit includes a key ruling: to request the court to revoke the for-profit restructuring of OpenAI that took place last October. In the early stages of the trial, Musk detailed his personal business experiences to the jury, including Zip2, PayPal, SpaceX, Neuralink, and Tesla, Inc. He admitted that he has long been concerned about the development of AI, but has always harbored concerns and fears about the unknown risks of AI surpassing human intelligence. Musk warned the jury that AI is a double-edged sword: it can drive social progress, create immense value, empower human development, but if it goes out of control, it can also lead to devastating consequences. "AI has the potential to achieve prosperity for all, but it also has the potential to cause the extinction of humanity." Musk recalled that around 2015, he had extensive discussions with people from various backgrounds, frequently discussing the potential development and risks of AI, with Alphabet Inc. co-founder Larry Page being among them. He accused Page of ignoring the safety risks of AI and dismissing extreme hypotheticals like the "AI extinction of humanity" that Musk had proposed. "Page at the time bluntly said, as long as AI can continue, human extinction is irrelevant," Musk added, "Just because I value the continuation of humanity and care about the fate of humanity, he labeled me as a 'speciesist'." These remarks made it difficult for Musk to agree, as he found the idea extremely absurd. At the time, Alphabet Inc. Class C, with its ample funding, top-notch computing power, and industry talent, had firmly established itself as a leader in the AI race, leading Musk to firmly believe that a counterbalance must be created against Alphabet Inc. Class C. "I was thinking at the time, what model could serve as a hedge against Alphabet Inc. Class C? The answer was the establishment of an open-source, non-profit organization." Alphabet Inc. Class C is not involved in this lawsuit and has not responded to any of the related controversies. Musk's attorney, Steven Moro, presented the case in court: Altman and Brockman, in the early stages of OpenAI, leveraged Musk's financial investments, industry reputation, and strategic guidance to establish themselves, but later abandoned their original charitable intentions, changed the founding purpose, and used the platform's resources for personal gain. Moro further accused Microsoft Corporation of being an accomplice to this breach of trust. Since Musk left the OpenAI board the following year, in 2019, Microsoft Corporation has invested $13 billion in OpenAI, openly allowing Altman's team to trample on the organization's charitable mission. In response, OpenAI's lawyer Savitt cited email records to refute each claim: in the first year of the organization's establishment, still in the non-profit research laboratory stage, Musk had suggested in an email, "Maybe setting up a standard C-type company and a parallel non-profit organization would be better." The following year, referencing the technological progress of Alphabet Inc. Class C's Deepmind, Musk once again expressed in writing that operating OpenAI solely as a non-profit entity may have been a mistake. In 2017, Musk and the core team of OpenAI reached a consensus that the costs of AI research and development, as well as hardware investments, far exceeded initial estimates and additional funding sources needed to be explored. The founding team held dozens of intensive meetings on this matter, ultimately agreeing on the establishment of a for-profit subsidiary as part of the restructuring plan. Savitt emphasized that during the negotiations in 2017, Musk never insisted on operating OpenAI purely as a non-profit entity, quite the opposite. "At that time, Musk was bent on fully commercializing OpenAI and seeking absolute control of the company, but was met with collective opposition from other founders. Everyone refused to hand over the core lifeline of AI to one person." In response to the above claims, Musk explained that he did not oppose the establishment of a for-profit subsidiary, but it had to be done with a profit cap, and all profit proceeds had to flow back to the non-profit parent entity. The team had once drafted a stock distribution plan, with Musk, Altman, Brockman, and Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever, the four core founders, evenly dividing the ownership of the profit entity. Musk categorically rejected this plan, deeming it both unreasonable and unfair - all the initial funding in the startup phase was shouldered by himself and he should rightfully hold the majority stake in the profit-generating sector, which could gradually dilute with the entry of investors. Currently, the non-profit foundation of OpenAI still holds the ultimate control of the group. As part of the transition to a for-profit structure last year, OpenAI stated that it will continue to be supervised by its non-profit entity (now called OpenAI Foundation). This non-profit organization still holds 26% of the company's equity. Microsoft Corporation holds 27% of the equity. Microsoft Corporation's attorney, Russell Conn's, Inc., expressed that the equity and ideological disputes in this case are not closely related to Microsoft Corporation, which has cooperated throughout, adhering to responsible conduct. "Microsoft Corporation has cooperated with OpenAI to build a world-class non-profit research system on a global scale. Unlike Musk's demands for control, Microsoft Corporation has always upheld the principle of win-win cooperation, not seeking control, and is committed to creating a mutually beneficial cooperative ecosystem." In the subsequent trial, the jury will hear from various industry heavyweight witnesses and review years of emails, chat records, and internal core documents of the founding team of OpenAI. The ruling opinions issued by the jury in this trial are only for reference and will not directly take effect. Judge Gonzalez Rogers Corporation will consider the jury's assessment results to determine whether Musk's various claims are valid, and will finalize the follow-up rectification and compensation plans.