More from All of the updates from Elon Musk and Sam Altman’s battle over OpenAI
“The only path - the best path that he saw - was for OpenAI to become part of Tesla,” Altman says. We are now looking at text messages. Musk “remains very open to you joining the Tesla board as part of this,” Musk’s subordinate Sam Teller wrote. And, also, Teller said, “regardless of how these conversations about OpenAI shake out, he is committed to building a stronger AI team within Tesla.” Altman said, “I viewed a vague, like a lightweight threat in there” that Tesla would do it with or without OpenAI.
Altman asked what would happen if Musk died. Musk said, “I haven’t thought about it a ton, but maybe control should pass to my children,” Musk replied. We also see an email where Altman says, “I desperately want to see this work with Elon... but I am worried about control. I don’t think any one person should have control of the world’s first AGI.” He says he’d be open to creative structures - like Musk having control up to a certain milestone.
Someone — Altman doesn’t remember whether it was Musk or his subordinate, Sam Teller, said it — told Altman that Musk had “long since decided” he would only work on companies that he controlled. “Mr. Musk felt very strongly that if we were going to form a for-profit he ended to have total control over it initially and this was because he only trusted himself to make non-obvious decisions that were going to turn out to be correct,” Altman says.
Having the ability to sell their equity let them finance their activities, such as AI research into Alzheimer’s research.
He is now testifying about Musk’s attempt to buy OpenAI using xAI, which happened after this lawsuit was filed. “I was surprised” by it, Taylor says. “Ostensibly this lawsuit is about our nonprofit purpose and mission adn this proposal was to acquire this nonprofit by a group of for-profit investors, which felt contradictory to the spirit of this lawsuit.” The OpenAI Foundation board rejected the bid because they didn’t feel it was appropriate for one person to control the mission
But also about some light character assassination. It looks like Musk now has a broader strategy to try to make Altman a liability to OpenAI.
[The Wall Street Journal]
He has not managed to do this at all. He is speaking rapidly, in a monotone.
“We’re decidedly not cash-flow-positive today.” The company has not generated any profits to date.
Because LLMs keep stealing people’s work, lol. Anyway he was talking about the OpenAI deal with Reddit, which was done to avoid litigation.
He is in a gray suit and gray tie. I am expecting more pleated khaki pants testimony. He was also the chair of Twitter’s board when it was acquired by Musk.
Also, Musk gave no guarantee his proposed control of the board would diminish over time. “I found it to be aggressive because I knew that Mr Musk had many other obligations in many other companies that the was running that were much larger than OpenAI,” he said. He also didn’t like the proposal that Tesla take over OpenAI. “It would be on some level, it would be like, it would kill a dream,” he said. “When one starts a company, one has dreams for a company to flourish and do different things, and in general being absorbed into another company means to give up that dream.”
We are now at “the blip” again. The board chose “not consistently candid” carefully, he says. Sutskever said he prepared a document of incidents with Altman, with some other people at OpenAI. Altman has a pattern of lying and pitting executives against each other, “this leads to tremendous loss of productivity,” trust, and difficulty creating safe AGI.
Our next witness is Ilya Sutskever. This promises to be more interesting, I think.
He says he provides suggestions a lot. And they’re just suggestions, including in the case of OpenAI. While Microsoft put forward 14 names, none of those names were added to the new OpenAI board except Sue Desmond-Hellman. CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who was added later.
He’s explaining that firing a CEO is “a fairly big things” and when he didn’t get any details on why Altman was fired, he felt that OpenAI’s board was “sort of amateur city as far as I was concerned.”
We also discover that Nadella has no idea if Altman and Musk talked about Musk’s mean Microsoft/OpenAI tweets. As a side note, we are referring exclusively to “Twitter” and “tweets” even for posts after the X rebrand.
I recognize Musk has identified this as the spot where he was convinced he’d been swindled. But the main thing I’m hearing here is that OpenAI was unstable. I don’t know what the correct way to respond to that kind of chaos is, especially if you have a partnership with the company that appears to be rapidly imploding. Trying to suggest that Nadella’s attempts to stabilize the company and preserve his investment was somehow improper seems weird? This is a genuinely odd situation, not necessarily one you run into in business school. (Well, until then anyway.)
“Pretty definitive statement as to why they fired him, right?” Well, Mr. Molo, no. I remember a great deal of speculation about what this meant; for instance, if Altman had gotten up to something criminal. One of those moments where I wonder what the jury is thinking, since I doubt they recall any of this.
Nadella is cooler than everyone else on cross, but he’s still getting worked up. Molo just got told by the judge that his question was argumentative. Molo is yelling about how the risk MSFT took on OpenAI was “prudent.” Nadella notes it’s still a risk. “At the time the was a risk it could to to zero,” Nadella says. “It was a calculated risk.” Molo, of course, is focused on projected return, of $92+ billion.
Molo is asking about this line Nadella wrote in a 2022 email, and it’s very funny. Nadella has explained a couple times that to him it’s about IP rights. “The context for me was making sure that Microsoft was benefitting from the IP rights that we had because that’s what happened in the case of Microsoft and IBM.” Molo then says, didn’t Microsoft become more prominent and important than IBM? Nadella agrees.
Nadella’s attitude is not notably different than it was on direct. We are talking about donating commute to OpenAI from Azure services. From a 1/12/18 email: “The 2016 deal, where they agreed to pay $10M for $60M in Azure services was projected at a $15M loss over 3 years, given assumed usage profile. They’ll have consumed all the usage in ½ that time.” The funny recurring theme here through the trial is the gaping maw of compute required is always bigger than whatever huge number people had projected. Interesting to know ahead of AI IPOs!
