OAKLAND, Calif. — Tesla CEO Elon Musk took the stand in federal court on Wednesday, engaging in a prolonged examination concerning his role in the founding and early development of OpenAI, the artificial intelligence company he currently sues along with its chief executives. The case hinges on sharply contrasting narratives about whether Musk was a driving visionary or a disruptive force during OpenAI's formative years.
Musk has portrayed himself as instrumental to OpenAI’s 2015 inception, claiming he provided critical initial funding and leveraged his industry influence to help secure key technology and personnel. However, during cross-examination, OpenAI’s lead attorney, Bill Savitt, challenged Musk’s account, arguing that Musk failed to fulfill most of his funding commitments, recruited a top OpenAI researcher for Tesla, and distanced himself from the company after his co-founders declined to grant him full control.
The lawsuit, originally filed by Musk in 2024, accuses OpenAI co-founders and current CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman of illegally converting the organization from a nonprofit into a for-profit entity for personal gain. Musk seeks to have Altman and Brockman removed and the company reverted to nonprofit status, a move that would significantly disrupt OpenAI’s plan to go public later this year. OpenAI counters that Musk’s actions are motivated by a desire to undermine competition with his own AI venture, xAI.
Altman and Brockman have been present throughout the trial, which began with jury selection on Monday. During this process, potential jurors were questioned on their ability to set aside any preconceptions about Musk’s political views. Musk’s legal team emphasized his track record in building Tesla and SpaceX during opening statements on Tuesday, followed by Musk’s own testimony. Over two days, Musk has testified for nearly seven hours and is expected to continue on Thursday.
Savitt’s cross-examination on Wednesday focused on emails, texts, and internal documents to counter Musk’s claims that he opposed transforming OpenAI into a for-profit company, adopting a direct approach that sought brief, definitive answers. Musk often responded with extended explanations, sometimes expressing frustration at the questioning style. At one point, Musk accused the attorney of asking “trick” questions and requested to answer without interruption.
The back-and-forth also touched on Musk’s broader public positioning as a cautious figure on AI risks. Savitt referenced Musk’s relationship with former President Donald Trump, who has spoken against regulating AI, and questioned Musk about discussions involving AI safety with the former president, though the judge later ruled on how much could be explored in front of the jury. Musk’s competing AI company, xAI, came under scrutiny due to reports that its Grok chatbot produces violent and sexualized imagery, prompting Savitt to question Musk on the company’s safety documentation. Musk expressed unfamiliarity with the term “safety card,” used by xAI to describe potential risks associated with Grok.
Savitt submitted newly revealed documents detailing OpenAI’s early history, including a 2017 meeting at a party hosted by Musk in a San Francisco-area “haunted mansion.” Musk confirmed discussions about transitioning OpenAI into a for-profit entity occurred soon after the gathering, though he characterized these as mere brainstorming sessions. The attorney also pointed to Musk’s recruitment of Andrej Karpathy, OpenAI’s second-highest-ranking researcher at the time, to join Tesla. Musk contended that Karpathy was already planning to leave and declined to acknowledge wrongdoing.
The trial is set to continue with additional testimony from Musk in the coming days as both sides build their cases over pivotal events in OpenAI’s trajectory and Musk’s involvement.