Musk’s back from break, reiterating that he had reason for waiting as long as he did to file suit against OpenAI — and saying his initial understanding of OpenAI’s agreement with Microsoft was that it didn’t violate the mission of the charity. “I don’t think I had a basis for filing a lawsuit before I did,” Musk says. He also refers to xAI as the smallest of the AI players, coming after Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Chinese AI models.
In the document of stipulated facts — that is, what everyone has agreed on — it’s said that Musk gave Teslas to OpenAI as an in-kind contribution. In response to questioning from YGR, Musk says that he gave the Teslas to individuals, personally, and not to OpenAI: “I bought at full price and gave them to individuals. It was a reward to the individuals.”
I don’t know if this matters, but it sure is interesting.
Apparently he wasn’t 100 percent confident in yesterday’s clarification, because Molo asks Musk to clarify whether the “AI-enabled robot army” mentioned in cross-examination is a military army. “No, we do not make any weapons,” Musk says. The point of his using the term was that “if we made a lot of robots we need to make sure they’re safe and don’t turn into a Terminator situation … You see, in the movie, it’s not a good situation.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers asks Musk to sum up the plot of Terminator in one sentence. “Worst-case situation is AI kills us all, I suppose,” he says.
With that, the jury leaves for a break.
Under questioning from Molo, his own lawyer, Musk tries to establish that he wasn’t causing harm to OpenAI. He says that as far as he knows, OpenAI wasn’t unable to cover any critical expenses because he ended his donations. He didn’t ask Andrej Karpathy to leave and join Tesla, only hired him after he said he was leaving OpenAI. Neuralink (while it was authorized to do so apparently) didn’t poach anyone from OpenAI as far as he knows. Did he seriously recruit anyone from OpenAI for Tesla besides Karpathy? “I don’t think so.” He reiterates that Tesla isn’t currently working on AGI, despite a recent tweet indicating it would achieve it.
Musk also repeats that he “did not read the fine print” on the term sheet for OpenAI’s for-profit wing. Molo brings up an email from Altman (forwarded to Musk by Zilis) about the draft that reads: “We did this in a way where all investors are clear they should never expect a profit, see purple box below.” On the stand, Musk says “I assumed he meant what he said.”
On the cross exams by OpenAI and Microsoft, there was minimal (though still some) bickering, and we are now getting many more yeses and nos as full answers. I’m not sure whether Musk was trying to run out the clock yesterday or what, but he’s clearly rethought his strategy.
In the final section of cross-examination, Musk is asked about speaking with Altman in 2020. Musk apparently told Altman that OpenAI looked “hypocritical” after the deal with Microsoft and suggested he change the name of OpenAI. “He reassured me they were staying on mission,” Musk says on the stand — and therefore, Musk didn’t sue. Following that, cross-examination wraps up.
Savitt mentions an X post where Musk says “the future is going to be amazing with AI and robots enabling sustainable abundance for all” and asks if he thinks it’s accurate. “Well, I’ve also said there are many possible futures. Some futures are good, and some are not good,” Musk says. “I think it’s generally better to err on the side of optimism than pessimism.” Musk agrees that “aspirationally,” he promotes xAI with the message that the future is going to be amazing.
Savitt then goes through a list of Musk’s companies — asking, one after another, if they’re for-profit. At a little prodding from Judge Gonzalez Rogers, Musk admits they all are. So, Savitt asks, they’re socially beneficial and for-profit? Musk agrees. Savitt then points out that Musk hasn’t started any nonprofits himself since OpenAI, despite having the money to do so. “Well, I thought I had started a nonprofit with OpenAI, but they stole the charity,” Musk says.
Savitt is bringing up some previously released email exchanges where Musk appeared okay with discussing what OpenAI would and wouldn’t make open source — including one where he replied “yup” to a comment that it would make sense to start being less open as AI advanced. He asks if Musk has made xAI’s own advanced versions of Grok open source — “No, but it will,” Musk says.
Savitt then mentions a letter Musk signed in 2023 asking to pause development of giant AI models out of safety concerns. Musk signed the letter shortly before he incorporated his own xAI, and Savitt asks why he didn’t disclose that fact; Musk says it was “just an open, non-binding letter” signed by hundreds of other people.
Musk has explained that he didn’t object to the proposed introduction of a capped profit structure initially at OpenAI (and also didn’t review it very closely), and Savitt is asking if he knew what the cap was for Microsoft’s investments in the company — Musk doesn’t seem clear on it. Savitt asks whether Musk had a lawyer set terms and conditions for his donations. Musk answers: “No, but it was obviously started as a nonprofit, and in the founding charter it says it will not be to the financial benefit of any person?” The apparent intended gist is that Musk didn’t set clear terms he can point to OpenAI or Altman violating.
Elon Musk is on the stand, to continue the cross-examination from yesterday. If you’ve read Musk depositions or heard previous crosses, this kind of arguing and filibustering is pretty standard behavior. But I think this is the jury’s first encounter with it, and it’s hard to know how they’re going to take it.
We are still dealing with the pretrial motions about the boundaries on safety questions.
We are having an argument about which expert issues are going to be allowed. “We aren’t going to get into issues of catastrophe or extinction,” YGR says. Musk’s lawyers are not happy about this: “We all could die as the result of artificial intelligence.”
