Elon Musk didn't just walk away from OpenAI. He tried to dismantle it. That’s the explosive claim Sam Altman made Tuesday while testifying in an Oakland federal courtroom. The trial, which feels more like a Shakespearean drama than a corporate dispute, has finally brought the two most powerful men in AI face-to-face over the soul of an $850 billion giant.
If you’ve been following the headlines, you know the basics. Musk is suing Altman, claiming the OpenAI CEO betrayed the company’s original non-profit mission by turning it into a "closed-source de facto subsidiary" of Microsoft. But Altman’s testimony just flipped the script. He isn't just defending himself; he’s accusing Musk of attempting to "kill" the lab twice after his own bids for total control were rejected. Read more on a connected issue: this related article.
The stakes? Only the future of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and a potential $150 billion payout.
The Hair Raising Demand for Dynastic Control
Altman’s testimony revealed a side of the 2017-2018 power struggle we haven't heard in such vivid detail. According to Altman, Musk wasn't just interested in a seat at the table. He wanted the whole room. Further reporting by Ars Technica highlights similar views on the subject.
At one point, Musk allegedly demanded 90% of the equity in a proposed for-profit arm of OpenAI. When the other founders pushed back, the conversation took a turn for the weird. Altman described a "hair-raising" moment when the team asked what would happen to that control if Musk died. Musk’s response? He hadn't thought about it much, but maybe control would just pass to his children.
Think about that for a second. The most transformative technology in human history, governed like a family grocery store. It’s no wonder Altman felt "extremely uncomfortable." The whole point of OpenAI was to ensure AGI wouldn't be dominated by a single person. Musk, apparently, felt he was the only exception to that rule.
Two Attempts to Kill the Lab
Altman didn't mince words when he told the court that Musk tried to kill OpenAI twice. The first attempt happened during those failed 2018 negotiations. When Musk couldn't get the control he wanted—either as CEO or through a merger with Tesla—he walked. But he didn't go quietly. Altman testified that Musk’s departure was actually a "morale boost" because his management style was "demotivating."
Musk reportedly asked for a list of researchers to be ranked so he could "take a chainsaw" to the team. That’s not leadership; it's a scorched-earth policy.
The second "attempt to kill" is happening right now. Altman argues that Musk’s lawsuit and the launch of his rival company, xAI, are nothing more than a campaign of vengeance. By poaching talent and tying the company up in litigation, Musk is trying to finish the job he started eight years ago. It’s "sour grapes" on a billion-dollar scale.
The Truth About the Non Profit Mission
Musk’s legal team spends a lot of time talking about the "founding agreement." They want the jury to believe Altman "stole a charity." Honestly, it’s a compelling narrative, but it ignores the reality of what it takes to build AI.
Altman argued that moving to a "capped-profit" model was the only way to survive. You can’t build AGI on donations. You need billions for compute and even more to keep researchers from jumping to Google for $6 million salaries.
- The Microsoft Factor: Musk claims the Microsoft deal is a betrayal.
- The Reality: Musk was kept in the loop on for-profit plans long after he left the board.
- The Hypocrisy: Musk allegedly wanted the same for-profit structure—he just wanted to be the one in charge of it.
Cross Examination and the Trust Factor
It wasn't all a victory lap for Altman. Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, went for the jugular during cross-examination. He hammered away at Altman’s reputation, asking point-blank if he was a "truthful person."
Molo brought up Altman’s brief 2023 firing, where the board claimed he wasn't "consistently candid." He read off a list of former colleagues who have called Altman deceptive. It was a calculated move to paint Altman as a master manipulator who says whatever is necessary to keep power.
Altman’s strategy was simple: stay cool. He gave short, "yes" or "no" answers. He didn't take the bait. When asked if he had a "fixation" with being CEO, he simply said, "I don't agree with that characterization."
What Happens Next for OpenAI
This trial is expected to wrap up with closing arguments this Thursday. We’re looking at a nine-person jury and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers deciding if Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft are liable for "breach of charitable trust."
If Musk wins, he wants $150 billion "disgorged" back to the non-profit and Altman removed from leadership. That would effectively blow up the company as we know it. But even if Musk loses, the damage to Altman’s reputation is real. The "pattern of lying" narrative isn't going away, and it’s a heavy cloud to carry as OpenAI prepares for a $1 trillion IPO later this year.
Don't wait for the verdict to understand the fallout. If you're an investor or just someone worried about who controls the "god-like" AI of the future, look at the evidence yourself. The private emails and texts being released in this trial show that neither side is a saint. One man wants to be the king of AI; the other wants to be its architect. Neither seems particularly interested in staying out of the spotlight.
Pay close attention to the final ruling next week. It won't just decide who gets the money—it’ll decide if a non-profit mission can actually survive the reality of Silicon Valley greed.
