Altman’s defense has alleged that throughout that process, Musk attempted to “wrest control” of the company twice, first insisting that he hold a majority equity stake in any for-profit entity, control its board of directors and serve as CEO, and later, that OpenAI be folded into Tesla, where he already serves as CEO.
Savitt said Musk began withholding $5 million quarterly fund contributions to put pressure on the company to grant his requests, and after those attempts failed, he left the company.
Savitt also accused Musk of poaching OpenAI employees as Musk exited in early 2018, including founding member Andrej Karpathy, for Tesla.
Musk said multiple times that Tesla is not pursuing AGI. But in March, Musk wrote on X that “Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI and probably the first to make it in humanoid/atom-shaping form.”
Separately, he formed xAI in 2023, which he said is pursuing AGI.
He’s downplayed its competitiveness with OpenAI, though, testifying that it has just a couple hundred employees and a “small market share.”
“I would say technically competitive, but much smaller than OpenAI,” Musk said Tuesday.
The three days of Musk’s testimony got testy at times, particularly during Savitt’s cross-examination Wednesday afternoon, when Savitt and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers asked Musk repeatedly to answer the questions he was asked. Musk accused Savitt of intentionally misleading him.
But the most heated moment thus far might have come before the jury was called to the courtroom Thursday morning, during a discussion about what AI safety expert Stuart Russell, who is taking the stand this afternoon, will be willing to testify to.
Musk’s attorney argued he should be allowed to speak about the climate risk associated with AI, saying: “We could all die.”
“It is also ironic that your client, despite these risks, is creating a company in the exact space,” Gonzalez Rogers said. “I suspect that there are people who don’t want to put the future in Mr. Musk’s hands.”
