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.”
YGR has just sat down on the bench. Jury’s not here yet, so we are dealing with some motions and issues.
The Financial Times reports Alphabet’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, responded to employee opposition to the deal Google signed with the Pentagon in a memo on Tuesday, saying, “Staying engaged with governments, including on national security, will help democracies benefit from responsible technologies.”
The never-ending fight to end warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act continues, with the House voting 235–191 for a bill that, once again, did not add warrant requirements. The bill now goes to the Senate, which has until tomorrow before the current law expires. Congress already voted in a 10 day extension on April 20.
I’ve just left the court after one of the most tiresome cross-examinations I have ever had the misfortune to witness. Elon Musk really wants us to think he’s just a poor simple country CEO who is being maliciously tricked by a big-city lawyer. I’m not buying it and I don’t think the jury is, either.
Well there goes all my fun! I was so excited to hear about MechaHilter in open court — and, in addition, Sam Altman apologizing to a Canadian town for OpenAI not flagging a mass shooter. But since Musk did bring up the difference in for-profit and not-for-profit motives, there is a limited line of questioning that can proceed.
There are a few matters the lawyers want to discuss with YGR. Musk’s testimony may have opened the door to questions about xAI and its safety record. I do love hearing the phrase “opened the door.”
Savitt hasn’t significantly raised the issue yet, but he’s started hinting at the idea that Musk’s safety-last approach at xAI might undercut his credibility. He asks Musk if it’s important to instill good values in AI systems, and after Musk agrees, asks if racist or sexist training materials could have a negative impact. Musk says systems wouldn’t necessarily absorb those values, and Savitt follows up to mention AI discrimination — and more specifically, an anti-algorithmic discrimination law in Colorado that Musk and xAI have been fighting against.
Savitt also asks whether, if Musk is concerned that a profit motive undermines AI safety, that applies to his own xAI. Musk says sure, it’s an issue across the board.
Savitt briefly explores a line of questioning about Grok, but it ends quickly. (It could be brought up for discussion later.) He moves on to asking about Musk’s purported commitment to care deeply about AI safety. Has Musk ever posted on Twitter/X about AI regulation? Musk doesn’t know off the top of his head. Savitt also sounds dubious of the idea that Musk spoke with Obama about AI safety, asking if there are any press reports or statements from the White House. Then, Savitt asks if Musk has spoken with the current president about the issue, especially since the former White House AI czar, David Sacks, is one of Musk’s fellow PayPal Mafia members.
Elon Musk is trying to outlawyer the lawyer on cross. At one point YGR has to intervene to get him to answer a yes-or-no question with “yes.” At another, he raised his voice to lecture Savitt — not sure if the jury noticed the, uh, well, it wasn’t quite yelling but it came pretty close.
Savitt asks Musk about a term sheet for OpenAI’s for-profit shift, which Sam Altman sent Musk to examine in 2018, and Musk admits “I didn’t read the whole document.” (It’s apparently four pages long.) The attorney then brings up a deposition in which Musk says multiple times that he doesn’t think he read it or looked closely at it. Musk gets testy and raises his voice as he’s asked to identify any communications where he objects to the proposed changes in 2018 or 2019. He repeats, once more, that he’s okay with a nonprofit having a capped for-profit arm — which Savitt says isn’t his question.
Through several more rounds of crosstalk, Savitt tries to ask Musk if he was open to OpenAI being for-profit in 2017 and had discussions about it. “I’ll withdraw the question,” he says finally.
According to messages between Musk and Zilis, Musk thought OpenAI stood essentially zero chance of succeeding against Google DeepMind, particularly if he focused on AI at Tesla. Zilis remained close with OpenAI and apparently offered Musk updates, including on its for-profit plans. Savitt mentions, again, that Musk didn’t object to information about this for-profit shift at the time — and again, Musk says he didn’t have an issue with a capped for-profit structure that would flow into a nonprofit.
