Sam Altman faced tough questioning Tuesday as OpenAI's CEO took the witness stand in Elon Musk's lawsuit, directly challenging the core accusation that he and Microsoft stripped a charitable mission for profit.
The testimony crystallized the central tension running through the trial: whether either man can credibly claim to prioritize AI safety while simultaneously fighting for money, power, and control of the technology.
Altman flatly rejected Musk's framing that OpenAI and Microsoft had attempted to "steal a charity." "It feels difficult to even wrap my head around that framing," Altman said from the stand. He defended the shift to a for-profit structure as essential, arguing it was the only path to raise sufficient capital for developing powerful AI systems safely.
Musk's legal team used cross-examination to undermine Altman's credibility, circling back to past testimony from former OpenAI insiders including Mira Murati, Ilya Sutskever, and Helen Toner. They also dredged up older criticism tied to Altman's history as a tech executive and investor. When pressed, Altman asserted: "I believe I am an honest and trustworthy business person."
The cross-examination also probed Altman's financial entanglements outside OpenAI. He holds stakes in Stripe, Cerebras, and Helion Energy, where he previously served as board chair. The implications were left hanging: can Altman be trusted when OpenAI deals with companies in which he has personal financial interests?
Altman's testimony also detailed Musk's own apparent hunger for control. Altman said Musk wanted a controlling stake in OpenAI or a merger with Tesla, and that Musk even proposed the arrangement should pass to his children after his death. The portrait painted by Altman was of a man motivated by more than principle.
Musk filed the lawsuit last year claiming Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft had betrayed OpenAI's original nonprofit mission. The trial in Oakland federal court has already heard from both Musk and other key figures including Ilya Sutskever and board chair Bret Taylor.
Closing arguments are scheduled for Thursday. Neither side has presented a convincing case about how AI governance should actually work, leaving the judge and observers with competing narratives but no clear vision of what responsible leadership in this space looks like.
Author James Rodriguez: "Two titans clashing over AI's soul while their hands are both in the cookie jar makes this less a morality play and more a fight over who gets to profit from the future."
Comments