Elon Musk against Sam Altman, first act of the challenge in court

The exhibition dedicated ample space to the working habits of Musk, who declared that he dedicates between 80 and 100 hours a week to his activities, although without clarifying whether this calculation includes his constant presence on social platforms. On the merits of the case, Musk’s defense tried to portray the birth of OpenAI as a necessary reaction to Google’s excessive power in the artificial intelligence sector. The story has emerged of an old friction with Larry Page, accused by Musk of a dangerous vision of technological development, to the point of defining anyone who posed the problem of the survival of the human race in the face of the advent of machines as a “speciesist”.

Despite the attempt to present itself as the only real driving force behind OpenAI, claiming its name, initial funding and the recruitment of key figures such as Ilya Sutskever, the testimony showed several points of fragility. Particular uncertainty emerged when the discussion shifted to the definition of artificial general intelligence (AGI) or the explanation of the roles played by close collaborators, such as Shivon Zilis. The jury’s confusion over personal details and imprecise technical definitions weakened the image of a witness usually perceived as an infallible visionary.

The central crux of the dispute, however, remains the alleged betrayal of OpenAI’s non-profit mission. Musk admitted he had discussed creating a for-profit arm in the past, but took issue with the current structure, suggesting his intentions were radically different. However, the argument that a for-profit model would only be acceptable if configured according to one’s wishes seems to struggle to bear the weight of a lawsuit accusing the other party of fraud. The final sensation was that of an unusually detached protagonist, almost annoyed by the time dedicated to a procedure whose narrative trajectory he no longer seems to fully govern.