Tech is reshaping the world — and not always for the better. Whether it’s the rules for Apple’s App Store or Facebook’s plan for fighting misinformation, tech platform policies can have enormous ripple effects on the rest of society. They’re so powerful that, increasingly, companies aren’t setting them alone but sharing the fight with government regulators, civil society groups, and internal standards bodies like Meta’s Oversight Board. The result is an ongoing political struggle over harassment, free speech, copyright, and dozens of other issues, all mediated through some of the largest and most chaotic electronic spaces the world has ever seen.
The T1 Phone was supposed to start shipping last week. But our review units haven’t budged, and I’ve so far failed to find anyone online claiming their phone has shipped either. Maybe they’ve had to delay the launch to fix the flag.
A new investigation by the New York Times has discovered that social media influencers are collecting tens, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, to back candidates, endorse policies, and attack political enemies. But where that money is coming from isn’t clear, and campaigns are embracing the secrecy.
The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates deceptive business practices, requires influencers to disclose payments for promoting commercial products and services but, it says, does not regulate political advertisements.
Following his summit with China’s Xi Jinping, Trump also said in an interview with Fox News that Taiwan would be “very smart to cool it a little bit.” And that China would also be “very smart to cool it a little bit.”
The state already applies a 7.25 percent tax to software sold in physical stores, and now Governor Gavin Newsom wants to expand this to web-based software sales as well, Bloomberg reports. The proposed tax wouldn’t apply to streaming services and is expected to raise $2 billion annually.
Operation Epic Furious: Strait to Hell is a both a mockery of Trump and surprisingly solid tribute to classic RPGs.
God bless. We are in the Microsoft closing statements. “Microsoft never found a single page of a single document” that referenced Musk’s alleged restrictions on his donations during the due diligence process.
He may be laying it on thick, but he did get a big laugh.
He reminded the jury that Musk isn’t in the courtroom while Altman and Brockman are. (Musk posted yesterday that he was en route to Beijing on Air Force One.) “They are here because they care a lot about this,” Savitt said. “Mr. Musk isn’t here. Mr. Musk came to this court for exactly one witness — Elon Musk — and he hasn’t been seen since. Now he’s in parts unknown.”
“He claims to have heard things high atop a windy hill where no one else can hear,” Savitt told the jury. (Strange phrasing, but after the bridge metaphor from Molo, I wouldn’t expect anything less.) He also says Musk has “unclean hands” due to his “unconscionable conduct” related to the claims he’s bringing. “Only after OpenAI succeeded, against Musk’s prediction, only then did he start threatening litigation,” Savitt said.
He said that by his calculations, people said things like “I don’t remember” and “I don’t recall” between 150 and 200 times during this trial so far — using this to bolster his argument that Musk had waited too long to bring his claims.
You may remember that yesterday I was completely tickled by the possibility that the jury might get to see this. Even YGR seemed tickled by it. Unfortunately, she ruled that discussing it was fine but unless the Musk team gave them reason to introduce it, the jurors wouldn’t see so much as a photo. But this is the trophy Josh Achiam got for getting yelled at by Elon Musk.
There’s one more thing that Savitt is harping on. “Has the OpenAI nonprofit respected its general founding principles?” The question doesn’t matter, legally, since Musk didn’t create a charitable trust, but Savitt is going to spend some time on this because Molo emphasized it.
Musk doesn’t want to admit that trying to build an AGI lab in Tesla was a failure — whether that was by acquiring OpenAI or trying to poach all its talent, maybe even putting Altman on the board. Eddy suggests this case is revenge on OpenAI for succeeding.
The open-source community is looking for a way out of the wave of new laws requiring operating systems to collect users’ ages.
That’s kind of where I’ve landed! The idea of the “adjunct” for-profit (Eddy says this is a moving target, and though Musk used it twice in testimony, when Savitt used it, Molo objected and accused him of making up a term) doesn’t show up in any of the brainstorming structure documents. We do see parallel for-profits, and the idea of a conversion to a for-profit and shutting down the nonprofit. Jared Birchall also testified that he filed to register a company for this.
They went to Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman, among others, right before he proposed that he get 62.5 percent of a for-profit company. We are now looking at tax forms and letters — neither of which show any specific purpose. Jared Birchall also testified that there was no specific purpose for the donations. Shivon Zilis doesn’t remember it. Sam Teller doesn’t remember it. This is like watching the Warriors play a team of 6-year-olds.
Chronology and documents. Musk’s performance on the stand does give credence to the suggestion from Eddy that Musk “took his marbles and went home” when he couldn’t get his way.
She opens with a banger. Musk has said he made donations with strings attached. “Even the mother of his children can’t back his story.”
I do wonder how this would have played in the hands of a better lawyer. Molo’s book report did not overwhelm me with confidence in his case, particularly because a lot of his point-blank assertions were profoundly arguable.
In all that chaos, Microsoft did suggest board members. But OpenAI didn’t take those suggestions — except one, well after the crisis. I don’t know man, I don’t really understand how this goes to the Microsoft case. It might be a suggestion the nonprofit board doesn’t really control the for-profit — but Helen Toner’s and Tasha McCauley kind of came off as amateurs in their approach, not least because there was no investigation before the firing.
So far he’s got “they’re a for-profit corporation,” “they know Musk was a co-founder,” and “they read the announcement OpenAI existed.” This is easily the thinnest part of a very thin case — on the OpenAI part, there’s at least Brockman’s diaries.
During his speech, Molo told the jury he wasn’t asking for money. That is in fact not true — otherwise I wouldn’t be sitting through phase 2 of the trial next week. “You slipped it in nicely,” YGR says. But Molo needs to retract that statement.
I am just going to break from telling you what Molo is saying to say what my personal impression was from sitting here all these weeks: Everyone was improvising. There was no plan. This is especially true of “the blip.” I do wonder if there’s a way to incorporate that into Musk’s case. Anyway, Molo just referenced an exhibit he didn’t have handy, asked for an exhibit number, and then said he’d get it for the jury late.r I have to say, I know Musk’s team is smaller than OpenAI’s, but this might have been a moment to call in another lawyer to handle the close. Someone who could have prepped better, perhaps. Marc Toberoff, who’s theoretically a key figure on this team, hasn’t stood up to do a single thing. Maybe this could have been his moment, I don’t know!
Molo keeps interrupting himself to restate things or say things like “remember the residuals?” It’s really important in closing to tell a straightforward, easy-to-follow story here, because this is where you put together all the testimony into your case. I know Molo’s got an uphill battle on the facts here, but this could be smoother. He did also just call Greg Brockman “Greg Altman.”
And that the “important constraints” of the capped-profit structure in the first two Microsoft investments did not breach the charitable trust. However, the 2023 investment”changed the world. Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI breached the charitable trust created by Elon” by enriching investors and insiders at the expense of the nonprofit and not open-sourcing the technology.
That money grew OpenAI “so the defendants could do these things that they’re doing now, that they shouldn’t do.” Sam Altman, seated in the courtroom, looks confused by this.
I disagree! I think that’s Ilya Sutskever, frankly. Those two did the least amount of beefing on the cross-exam, it’s true. But I am against the Sutskever erasure here — not least because he impressed a number of us in the peanut gallery. I’m sorry I keep bickering with Molo in these updates but a lot of what he’s saying is profoundly arguable. Sir, I was here the whole time!
Molo agrees that OpenAI needed money for compute. He is annoyed that a “brainstorming session” is being cast as evidence that Musk wanted to abandon OpenAI’s non-profit mission.
Of OpenAI’s founding as a charity, Molo says, “If he wanted to found a for profit business there was nobody in California or the planet who would be better suited and know how to do it than Elon Musk.” xAI, Musk’s struggling AI business that was acquired by SpaceX and is facing an awful lot of lawsuits about its habit of making deepfake porn, suggests otherwise. Anthropic, for instance, does not seem to be having these problems.
Molo asks the jury to imagine they are on a hike and come across a wooden bridge over a gorge, with a river 100 feet below. It looks a little scary but “a woman standing by the entry to the bridge says, ‘Don’t worry the bridge is built on Sam Altman’s version of the truth,’” Molo says. “Would you walk across that bridge? I don’t think many people would.”
Look, this case is full of liars. It just is! The biggest problem for his side is the contemporaneous written evidence.
“Are you completely trustworthy?” was the first question, and Altman’s answer is “I believe so.” So here’s the thing. I am largely trustworthy unless you leave your french fries unattended near me. What’s the best way to answer that question under oath? “If you are a truthful person, wouldn’t you say, ‘I am absolutely trustworthy?’” Molo asks. Well, I’m truthful. That’s how you know I might eat your french fries. Come on, man.
“17 times during his testimony I had to ask him to answer the question,” Molo says. Dude, you don’t want this. If they’re considering conduct, they’re considering your client’s conduct, which was remarkably bad.
