We are now going through previous statements that Russell has made about Musk — for instance, Russell says that the “age of abundance” Musk talks about with AI robots will be great for Musk because of his pay package with Tesla. Also that Russell would not recommend that Musk be an AI adviser for President Trump.
The expert has testified in front of the US Senate about the dangers of open-sourcing AI systems. “If we open-source AI systems that are unsafe, we dramatically increase the risks,” Russell says. One of Musk’s contentions is that OpenAI is betraying its mission by not open-sourcing its models. Russell is now saying, in response to cross-examination, that open-sourcing can make it easier to remove safety guardrails that have been put in place. “It requires additional and very stringent safety measures.”
And he thinks posts are still called tweets. (The post is about AI creating so much wealth that “everyone can have a penthouse if they want.”) We’re getting some meandering analysis of AI creating prosperity, but even the judge seems frustrated at this point.
I really have no idea what it adds to Musk’s case. It seems to just be a way of running out the clock — but why bother? Is it just a way of giving OpenAI less time to defend themselves?
It’s very boring. Mainly we are establishing that the expert witness provided no specific opinions on OpenAI’s safety.
Because otherwise, this would be the guy to ask about the nonconsensual undressing and MechaHitler. We are getting slowly to the point, I think — which is that Russell suggests safety concerns would slow AI development. “Each company individually feels it needs to be in this race,” he says. “That means they can’t stop and solve the safety problem, which I think some of their employees would like to do, but the overall company police is preventing them.”
Russell is asked next about risk. He starts with individual risk, including algorithmic discrimination, which he says is “much more widespread” than people expect. He also mentions the possibility of AI systems reinforcing “delusional beliefs” — like, in his example, “Vladimir Putin is an alien.” Then there’s systemic risk — like AI systems taking jobs at a large scale. Russell mentions computer science students having trouble getting work already, and he expects it will accelerate.
As Russell keeps going, the opposition lawyer objects that this is speculative, and Judge Gonzalez Rogers asks to move on — which Musk’s lawyer does by promptly asking again about jobs. Another objection is sustained, and Russell starts talking about people using AI to magnify harm, like cyberattacks. He mentions Mythos, and the opposition lawyer gets it stricken from the record as outside the scope. None of this particularly relates to OpenAI so far — it’s basically a generic overview of AI risks, which Musk has been focusing on as central to the trial, despite some limits from YGR. And we’ve already run through 20 minutes of the 30 allotted for direct testimony.
His name is Stuart Russell, and he’s getting $4,000/hr for his first 40 hours of working with the team (and $1,500/hr after that). Seems like an expensive way for Musk’s lawyers to run out the clock… Because while we are getting some testimony about AI risks, I don’t really understand how this is relevant to the dispute at hand.
Russell is first asked about the positive aspects of AI — he mentions medical technology and AlphaFold, which can predict protein structures. Also mentions Waymo self-driving cars, which he describes as “extremely safe.” There can also be “broad economic benefits” where systems can be used to develop software, “where the AI can actually write software much faster and cheaper than human beings.”
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers says she got some “May the 4th be with you” jokes from her kids today as we get started. Apparently she appreciated them. After that, the day kicks off with expert testimony from computer scientist Stuart Russell.
We’re going through motions before the jury arrives. The motion I highlighted earlier this morning has been denied; YGR says the time to bring in the threats from Musk was when Musk was on the stand.
In response, Greg Brockman suggested both OpenAI and Musk drop their claims. Musk wasn’t interested. “By the end of this week, you and Sam [Altman] will be the most hated men in America,” he told them. OpenAI’s lawyers are trying to get the statement admitted to court as evidence that “Mr. Musk’s motivation in pursuing this lawsuit is to attack a competitor and its principals.”
[Court Listener]
A new National Bureau of Economic Research study covering students at thousands of schools between 2019 and 2025 found that requiring students to keep their phones in locked Yondr pouches during the day reduced phone use and had a positive long-term impact on well-being, the New York Times reports.
However, the researchers said they found “no evidence” of overall impact on test scores, classroom attention, or perceived online bullying.
[New York Times]
