Elon Musk’s Day in Court: Tweets Come Back to Bite Him

Elon Musk walked into a California federal court on Wednesday hoping to prove that Sam Altman and crew “stole a charity.” He walked out having admitted, under oath, that Tesla isn’t currently chasing artificial general intelligence—directly contradicting a tweet he’d posted just weeks earlier.

That’s the kind of day it was.

The lawsuit itself is a classic Musk move: challenge OpenAI’s structure, claim Altman tricked him into backing a non-profit that then pivoted to a for-profit behemoth. But after hours of testy testimony, the whole thing might boil down to something surprisingly mundane—whether investors had their potential profit capped or not.

In Musk’s version of events, he co-founded OpenAI with Altman, Ilya Sutskever, Greg Brockman, and others because he trusted them to build AI for humanity. Over time, he says he grew suspicious, and eventually concluded they were “looting the nonprofit.”

OpenAI’s lawyer William Savitt had other plans for cross-examination. He tried to show that Musk had actually supported multiple efforts to transition OpenAI toward for-profit status, including floating the idea of incorporating the lab into Tesla. Musk admitted he’d discussed converting to for-profit as early as 2016, and that in 2017, he explored creating a for-profit arm where he’d hold majority equity and control. When those plans fell through, he stopped regular donations but kept paying for OpenAI’s office space until 2020.

The key distinction Musk insists on is between capped and uncapped profits for investors. Microsoft’s early investments had profit limits, but those restrictions got rolled back over time. That’s what pushed Musk to file the lawsuit, he says.

Savitt also tried to establish that Musk was consulted about subsequent fundraising efforts—by Altman and by Shivon Zillis, his longtime adviser and mother of four of his children—and didn’t object. Zillis was on the OpenAI board when some of those transactions were approved.

Then came the part that must have stung. Musk was asked about Tesla’s AI ambitions. After he said Tesla’s AI work is limited to self-driving and not AGI, Savitt brought up a recent X post claiming “Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI.” Musk’s response: “We are not pursuing AGI right now.” Tesla shareholders might want to file that one away.

He also got caught on the $100 million claim. Musk had posted that he invested that much in OpenAI, but the actual cash that changed hands was $38 million. His argument? His reputation and network made up the difference.

Savitt brought up emails where Musk backed efforts by Tesla and Neuralink to poach OpenAI employees while he was still on the board. Another conversation focused on his attempts to hire OpenAI leaders after leaving the board in 2018, including Andrej Karpathy, who went on to lead self-driving work at Tesla. There was even a suggestion from Zillis that Musk recruit Sutskever to Tesla.

The most consequential thread might be about safety. Part of Musk’s case rests on the idea that OpenAI’s transition to a traditional corporation is dangerous because it reduces focus on safety. Savitt got Musk to admit that all AI companies, including his own, face the same risk.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers halted that line of questioning but made clear it would resume, with limits. When Musk’s lawyers tried to bring up ChatGPT‘s role in the Tumbler Ridge shooting in Canada, she shut that down—but said xAI and OpenAI’s approaches to safety are fair game.

Musk returns Thursday for another round. Also expected to testify: his family office manager Jared Birchall, AI safety expert Stuart Russell, and OpenAI president Greg Brockman. This isn’t over yet.