Musk against OpenAI, Altman defends himself from the accusations and attacks

The most awaited testimony in the trial brought by has finally arrived Elon Musk against OpenAI. In front of a Californian court, the CEO Sam Altman rejected accusations that he had betrayed the company’s original philanthropic mission behind it ChatGPTdescribing Musk as a cofounder obsessed with control and power.

After Elon Musk, the president of OpenAI Greg Brockman and the CEO of Microsoft Satya Nadellathe 41-year-old entrepreneur was the last protagonist of this civil trial a Oaklandnear San Franciscoto provide his version of the birth of the company, which has become one of the symbols ofgenerative artificial intelligence.

Musk’s accusations

At the origin of the trial, Elon Musk had accused Sam Altman and another co-founder of OpenAI, Greg Brockman, of having distracted the company from its initial mission, that of a no-profit dedicated to research onIA. By transforming the start-up into a commercial company, the two partners would have made an improper use of the data according to Elon Musk 38 million dollars which had invested in OpenAI after its foundation, in December 2015.

The Sam Altman Defense

“It doesn’t fit my idea of ​​what it means to divert a philanthropic organization from its mission,” Sam Altman said immediately after taking the witness stand. “I am very proud of the work done, the value created and the support this foundation benefits from”, to which OpenAI, valued more than 850 billion dollarsstay connected. “The better OpenAI does, the better the organization will do no-profit“he said, justifying the actions of the board.

In the summer of 2017, the cofounders of OpenAI ed Elon Musk they discussed the creation of a commercial subsidiary, which would be necessary to raise the billions of dollars needed to pay engineers and computing power. A victory of ChatGPT against humans in the video game Dota2in August 2017, had just demonstrated the potential ofartificial intelligenceattracting the attention of investors Silicon Valley.

But, second Sam AltmanElon Musk asked “the 90% of the shares“, before “softening up”. “The fact that Elon Musk refused to commit in writing not to exercise long-term control made me very uncomfortable,” he said. “We didn’t think that theartificial general intelligence (AGI) should be under the control of just one person,” he added.

Musk’s exit from OpenAI

According to the thesis of OpenAIElon Musk was not betrayed, but slammed the door of his own free will, before pursuing his AI ambitions with his own laboratory xAInow merged with his space company SpaceX. When OpenAI began its commercial breakthrough in 2019,” told us we had it 0% – not a 1% – chance of success,” Sam Altman then assured.

The Musk front questioned the thesis of pure altruism during the hearing of Greg Brockmanattacking it in a personal diary in which he admitted a desire to “earn money”. OpenAI’s president revealed that his stake in the company was valued at approx 30 billion dollars.

Altman’s contributions

Sam Altman does not directly hold shares in the startup, but has an indirect stake through the venture capital firm Y Combinator. OpenAI has also invested in several companies in which it is a shareholder.

In recent days, Elon Musk had also denounced the communication from Greg Brockman and Sam Altman, who according to him had hidden their true intentions for a long time. The two, however, highlighted the contradictions of the richest man in the world, who for a certain period had said he was in favor of an evolution of the legal structure of OpenAI, or even a merger with Tesla.

The foundation no-profit of OpenAI still exists, but is now only a shareholder of the commercial structure, in which the company’s activity is housed. Elon Musk calls for a return to the simple foundation statute.

The risk for investors

Such an outcome would force OpenAI to give up its own private investorscome Microsoftessential in the global race for AI. Also for this reason, in recent days, even the number one, Satya Nadellawas heard during a hearing.

A advisory jury should express itself by the week of 18 maggio. Subsequently the judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogersafter listening to the opinion of the jury, will decide on responsibility and subsequent actions.