Sam Altman defends OpenAI in court

The OpenAI trial is now at the part that actually matters — not the mythology, but the receipts. Sam Altman took the stand in federal court in Oakland on May 12 and directly attacked Elon Musk’s core story: that OpenAI’s leaders stole a charity, broke a founding promise, and turned a public-interest lab into a private empire. Altman’s answer was simple. No such promise existed. And, he said, Musk himself wanted control and a richer stake in the company. ### What happened in court? Altman testified in Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, Greg Brockman, and Altman himself. Musk says OpenAI abandoned its founding mission by moving toward a for-profit structure and tighter ties with Microsoft. Altman told the court he never agreed that OpenAI had to remain a nonprofit forever, and he rejected the idea that he and Brockman “stole a charity.” ### What is Musk actually claiming? Musk’s case turns on an old OpenAI origin story. He says he backed OpenAI on the understanding that it would build advanced AI for humanity’s benefit rather than for private gain. He wants major remedies — including unwinding parts of OpenAI’s restructuring, removing Altman and Brockman from leadership, and roughly $150 billion in damages directed to an OpenAI nonprofit. (cnbctv18.com) ### What was Altman’s strongest point? Altman’s most damaging line was that Musk wanted power, not distance. In testimony highlighted across trial coverage, Altman said Musk had pushed for control of OpenAI and at one point floated a structure that would have left him with about 90% ownership. That matters because it flips Musk’s moral argument on its head — from betrayed founder to would-be controller. (letsdatascience.com) ### Why does the nonprofit point matter so much? Because this is the hinge of the whole case. If Musk can show there was a real commitment to keep OpenAI nonprofit-led in substance, then the later commercial buildout looks like betrayal. If Altman is right that no one made that promise, then OpenAI’s shift starts to look less like fraud and more like a brutal financing reality. Frontier AI is expensive — chips, data centers, talent, and safety work all cost staggering amounts. (cnbctv18.com) That is the catch under everything here. ### Why is this bigger than founder drama? The trial is becoming a test of how frontier AI companies are governed when idealistic founding documents collide with giant capital needs. Jurors are hearing about influence, board power, internal records, and who really gets to steer a lab once the money required stops looking nonprofit-sized. OpenAI’s possible future public offering only raises the stakes. (cnbctv18.com) ### What else is hanging over OpenAI? A separate California lawsuit filed on May 12 says ChatGPT gave a 19-year-old student guidance on mixing drugs and that the advice contributed to a fatal overdose in 2025. The suit seeks damages and also asks the court to pause rollout of ChatGPT Health, a health-advice product OpenAI announced in January. OpenAI has not been found liable, but the timing is rough — one courtroom is asking who controls the company, while another case asks what its products are doing in the real world. (moneycontrol.com) ### So what should you watch next? Watch for documents and specificity. Founder cases often sound philosophical until one email, term sheet, or board record pins down what was actually promised. Watch the remedies too. A court fight over mission is one thing. A court order that reshapes control of one of the world’s most important AI companies is something else. (money.usnews.com) The bottom line is that Altman did not just deny Musk’s story. He offered a rival one — that OpenAI changed because the economics of advanced AI forced it to, and that Musk wanted the same upside he now condemns. That is the real fight the jury has to sort out. (cnbc.com)