OAKLAND, Calif. — The judge presiding over the bombshell trial over the future of OpenAI has apparently had it with Elon Musk’s favorite line over the last three days – “You just can’t steal from a charity” – at one point reminding Musk that he was “not a lawyer.”
“We’ve heard that often,” US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told the tech titan, drawing some snickers from the packed courtroom. She struck the phrase from the record and told Musk to “Please try to respond to the specific questions.”
Musk has repeatedly recited variations of the phrase while being hammered by artificial-intelligence giant OpenAI’s lawyer William Savitt during cross-examination, which continued into its second day on Thursday.
After Musk retook the stand, Savitt went straight to needling Musk on a term sheet document that laid out OpenAI’s corporate founding that appeared to show the for-profit entity was well-documented. Musk’s lawsuit alleges that OpenAI betrayed its altruistic mission in pursuit of profit.
Meanwhile, Musk acknowledged there was no written contract with OpenAI detailing the terms of his donation to the company to get OpenAI off the ground as a nonprofit research organization.
Savitt lambasted Musk’s repeated claims that he hadn’t read the full document term sheet document – before Musk fell back on his quip that stealing from a charity wasn’t ok.
Later, Musk accused Savitt of not only asking a leading question but offering a leading answer to his leading question.
Rogers interrupted. “You’re not a lawyer, Mr. Musk,” Rogers said.
“Well, I’ve technically taken lawyer 101,” Musk joked smirking, eliciting some laughs from the courtroom including Altman’s legal team.
Musk then acknowledged “I’m not a lawyer.”
Lawyers kicked off the day’s proceedings squabbling over how much AI safety could be raised in front of the jury – again leading Rogers to step in.
“We all could die from artificial intelligence,” Musk’s attorney Steven Molo.
OpenAI’s lawyer started to butt in.
“Both of you stop,” the judge said. “We don’t need to have this whole thing explode in this courtroom in this way.” This is not a trial of the safety risks of artificial intelligence. We are not going to get sidetracked on that issue.”
At one point, Musk referred to a worst case scenario where AI creates s “terminator situation.”
Musk’s attorney Steven Molo asked Musk what he meant by a “terminator situation.”
Musk: “We’ve all seen the movie,” Musk deadpanned. “It’s not a good situation.”
Musk also said xAI, in developing its own models, has “partly” distilled some of OpenAI’s technology by a process known as “distillation,” which takes one AI tech and uses it to create another.
Savitt asked Musk if xAI “distilled” technology from OpenAI. OpenAI’s terms of service doesn’t allow distillation of the company’s systems. AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic have raised warnings that Chinese companies are distilling their technology.
“Generally AI companies distill other AI companies,” Musk said.
“Is that a ‘yes’?” Savitt asked. Musk answered, “Partly.”
Musk is seeking $180 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, pledging to donate any proceeds from a court victory to OpenAI’s charitable arm. He is also asking the court to restore OpenAI’s nonprofit status and remove Altman and Brockman from leadership roles.
Musk in court yesterday said that he was a “fool” to trust Sam Altman with the future of OpenAI – “I was a fool who provided them free funding to create a startup,” Musk said. “I gave them $38 million of essentially free funding to create what would become an $800 billion company.”
