Elon Musk certainly has a lot of ideas. Since making a fortune from PayPal in the original dotcom boom, he’s taken over Tesla, pushing forward production of electric cars, and founded SpaceX, the rocket company that now flies plenty of NASA payloads.
Two newer companies — the Boring Company, focused on digging holes for transit tunnels, and NeuraLink, which is developing brain-computer interfaces — also occupy his time. Then there’s the Hyperloop, the high-speed land travel design he’s encouraged others to develop. Somehow, this brash billionaire still has time to get himself into trouble on Twitter.
Altman and Brockman were both investors in the nuclear energy company, and since the company didn’t have an official product yet, she said that OpenAI potentially entering into a deal with Helion “felt super out of left field … How is it the case that we want to place [a] major bet on a speculative technology?”
under better light, Zilis’ top is green and not gray.
First, she says that the broad release of ChatGPT wasn’t discussed with the non-profit OpenAI board. This was discussed in a board meeting. Second, the deal with Helion raised eyebrows because Altman and Brockman both had investments and the tech was still speculative. She also felt that “it was probably the only time where I remember feeling in the pit of my stomach -- just being like, I voiced my concerns.”
She said she and the “entire board had voiced extreme concern about that whole massive thing happening without any semblance of board communication.” That was the first concern she raised internally about Altman, she said.
Shivon Zilis recalled Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella saying of OpenAI at the time that Microsoft was “below them, above them, around them.” Zilis said this denoted complete control, calling it “terrifying because [it] was just not the thing that we had been fighting so hard for.”
She also said she was concerned about board members who voted for Altman’s ouster being “expelled.” But “more concerning than anything else,” Zilis said, was the idea that to her, the firm hired by OpenAI to investigate did not share what really happened with the public.
She said he goes into “maniac mode” and had trouble thinking of a more quantifiable amount of hours. She added, as an answer to a follow-up question, that their time spent together was a brief break from “the insanity … that is his entire work life.”
She is wearing a black cardigan and black pants with a gray shirt. She is saying that after graduating from Yale, she took a job at IBM, then joined Bloomberg Ventures, and launched Bloomberg Beta, where she focused on AI investments. “I was 13 years old and I read a book called The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil,” and that opened a new world for her. “I read it 10–15 times.”
Sam Altman wasn’t making decisions quickly enough and dragging things out, or not making decisions on controversial things at all, Murati says. He told people what they wanted to hear. “Those are the big themes.”
Satya Nadella met with the OpenAI board. And Murati told Microsoft’s Kevin Scott about Ilya Sutskever signing a petition to reinstate Altman. Murati also wanted Altman back. “The board had not followed a process that could be trusted and it wasn’t transparent with regard to firing Sam.”
It is specifically about how OpenAI and Microsoft worked together. She says that when GPT models were developed, there was no sense they would be commercializable. She also says that Altman undermined her in her ability to do her job, and pitted executives at OpenAI against each other.
Closing statements are likely next Thursday, not early next week. Also, Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo suggested that OpenAI came up with “small adjunct” as a phrase while cross-examining Brockman. In fact, Musk used that phrase.
YGR has sternly warned the lawyers about how much time they have left. We expect closing arguments a week from tomorrow.
The two companies’ famed 2019 contract was made public as part of the Musk v. Altman trial exhibits. The 36-page agreement defines artificial general intelligence as “a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work.”
Wu is still identifying documents. Two jurors have some real thousand-yard stares going on.
We are now looking at assorted legal documents with him. We have determined the board has approved the agreement of 2018, which is the initial formation of the for-profit OpenAI LP. OpenAI Inc. contributed assets and in result got the limited partner interest and “residual interest.” This seems to be mostly about reading stuff into the record.
Molo asked a very narrow question about texts or emails about removing Musk from the board. Then he accused Brockman of making up the explanation after the fact because of the trial. OpenAI’s lawyer pulled out two sentences from the same entry: “real decision is fire Elon” and “We seem converged on the ‘fire Elon’ route.” Pretty good from OpenAI’s lawyers, and very annoying / misleading from Molo.
For instance, yesterday, Brockman gave a long spiel about the setup of OpenAI that only tangentially involved Musk. Altman and Sutskever were portrayed as being in the middle of things. Molo effectively said that and then pointed out that Musk’s money was key. Brockman objected both to the summary, and to the idea that Musk’s money was key. Come on, dude. We aren’t idiots.
It’s not clear to me why Musk’s ultimatum matters? Musk says he won’t continue funding until he gets a firm commitment. Brockman testified he never made that firm commitment, and Musk didn’t resume his quarterly payments. There were clear continuing negotiations about how to raise money, including whether Tesla should get control of OpenAI and whether there should be an ICO after this email. What are we doing? I am at this point genuinely lost.
We have been talking about whether or not Greg Brockman made an initial investment into the for-profit. If we all agree that the for-profit has a different investment base than the nonprofit, I don’t get what the conflict here is? The nonprofit is effectively an investor in the for-profit, though the investment was in kind. The nonprofit still exists. Right now I am trying to figure out whether I find Brockman or Musk more reliable, and I think the answer is, it’s going to depend on who is most supported by other witnesses and documents.
The problem is that the chronology of Brockman’s negotiations with Musk is now working against him. We have multiple emails and texts with Musk proposing that he be in charge, followed by Musk withholding funding unless Brockman and Ilya Sutskever did what he wanted. Brockman might be motivated by profit — I certainly think so! — but Musk’s actions are what they are: high-pressure negotiating tactics that failed. It seems to me that Musk’s lack of involvement with OpenAI’s for-profit is self-inflicted.
“Did you practice them?” Molo is really not into the various ways that Brockman is objecting to the wording of his questions. I’m not sure how sympathetic the jury is to either of them. They seem pretty stone-faced.
Brockman is being really squishy about this — I mean, he did say that he thought Musk was going to hit him at one point. Molo is I think trying to make the point that Musk was being “hardheaded” in negotiations. He’s also saying that Brockman wasn’t familiar with corporate governance. And he is, notably, raising his voice at Brockman.
Greg the Bard, who told long-winded stories about how wonderful OpenAI is, is gone. “False assumption baked into the question” is the go-to currently.
Musk’s lawyer, Molo, is saying that first of all, Brockman actually did the layoffs, and second of all, a memo prepared by Ilya Sutskever contained criticism of Brockman as a manager. Shortly after the memo was prepared, Brockman was removed from the board.
Microsoft is low-key my favorite part of this trial? Their opening statement was just like, an ad for Microsoft products. Almost all questions, including of Brockman, are like, “Did Microsoft play a role in the founding? Did it participate in the creation of a for-profit entity?” (No, obviously.) It is so funny, like they are going to at any moment turn to the jury and say, “Now why are we in this?”
Brockman says he was told he was removed from the board in an eight-minute call, and not given a reason why. He was also told Sam Altman was fired. Shortly after, he quit. “The board’s actions felt wrong to me. Wrongly conceived, wrongly executed.” He thought that he’d start a new AI company with Sam Altman. Several other people quit alongside Brockman and they started planning their new company. Satya Nadella called to ask if something terrible had happened, and Brockman said no. So then being a startup within Microsoft was an option too. But ultimately, as we all know, Brockman went back to OpenAI.
She did not disclose her romantic relationship with Musk to Greg Brockman. She gave birth to twins while still a board member at OpenAI, and found out their father was Elon Musk through “public reporting.” She did, eventually, say the twins were via IVF and her relationship with Musk was “entirely platonic.” She stayed on the board because Sutskever, Altman, and Brockman trusted her — other board members wanted her gone.
because he said, essentially, he saw no path at OpenAI and was going to work on AGI at Tesla. But during a Q&A period, he said that he wasn’t going to work on safety, and just focus on catching up with DeepMind. That generated a strong, negative reaction.
Every email to Musk starts with glowing compliments, and at times what even reads like groveling. I don’t know if the jury is noticing this, but I certainly am. I wonder how much ass-kissing Musk is accustomed to — probably a lot.
Some more successfully than others. While I’m willing to believe the “steal the charity” line is about booting Musk from the board, the idea that “making the money for us sounds great and all” was about unsuccessful fundraising was somewhat less believable. One thing Brockman is making clear is that Musk was mercurial — not a surprise. “Elon’s engagement depended directly on how likely he thought it was we’d succeed,” he says. By January 31st, 2018, Musk says he thought OpenAI was “on a path of certain failure relative to Google” in an email.
“Ilya and myself” decided not to remove him from the board because it felt right for the mission but wrong personally. By that point, Musk was trying to get them all to join Tesla. This makes the journal entry about “Ilya feeling like we morally should not be kicking elon out, and should be trying to make the non-profit work” as well as “it’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him” read really differently.
Greg Brockman is explaining that Musk put conditions on his continuing donations at OpenAI, which he did not accept. Then Musk said they should merge OAI into Tesla. They’d get the money, a billion-dollar-per-year budget, and it’d grow from there. The work would have to be secret — that would be a requirement to make it happen.
“I truly thought he was going to physically attack me.” Musk was angry that no one wanted to agree for him to have majority equity. As he was storming out of the meeting, Musk asked Brockman and Sutskever when they planned to leave OpenAI. They were confused. Then Musk said, “I will withhold funding until you decide what you are going to do.” He then stopped his promised quarterly donations to OpenAI.
Brockman is discussing an intense period of negotiations between him, Ilya Sutskever, Sam Altman, and Musk. Musk wanted unilateral control. He also wanted a lot of equity because “he needed the money for Mars, he needed $80 billion to create a city there,” Brockman says. During the negotiations, Musk stopped his quarterly donations.
between Altman, Musk, Brockman, and Sutskever in August 2017. It was the first proposal for a for-profit. Musk rejected this. “At the end of the meeting he said, ‘You guys are great but I could start another AI company tomorrow. One tweet is all it takes,” Brockman said.
He started keeping it in 2010. He describes it as stream-of-thought, jotted notes, and disorganized thoughts that sometimes contradicted each other. “It’s very painful” to see the journal in this case, Brockman says. These were “very deeply personal writings that were never meant for the world to see but there’s nothing there I’m ashamed of.”
