Musk v. Altman week 3: Elon Musk and Sam Altman traded blows over each other’s credibility. Now the jury will pick a side.

In a courtroom clash that reads like a Silicon Valley thriller, two of the most influential figures in artificial intelligence—Elon Musk and Sam Altman—have faced off in a high-stakes legal battle that could reshape the future of AI development. As the third and final week of the Musk v. Altman trial concluded, the battle lines were drawn not just over corporate structure and financial promises, but over the very soul of artificial general intelligence (AGI). With a jury set to deliver its advisory verdict, the world watches to see whether innovation will be governed by idealism or ambition, transparency or control.

At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question: Was OpenAI founded as a nonprofit mission to serve humanity, or was it always destined to become a profit-driven powerhouse? Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 and donated over $44 million in its early years, claims Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman betrayed their original pledge. He argues they abandoned the nonprofit ethos by creating a for-profit subsidiary in 2019 and later restructuring into a public benefit corporation in 2025—effectively making themselves and investors like Microsoft incredibly wealthy.

Altman and his legal team counter that no formal promise was ever made to keep OpenAI nonprofit in perpetuity. They maintain that the restructuring was necessary to attract the capital required to compete in the AI arms race, especially against tech giants like Google and Meta. OpenAI’s lawyer, Sarah Eddy, argued that Musk’s lawsuit is not about principle but retaliation—an attempt to sabotage a rival now that Musk has launched his own AI venture, xAI, in 2023.

The trial has become a theater of personalities, with both sides weaponizing credibility. Musk’s legal team painted Altman as a serial exaggerator with a history of self-dealing, pointing to his involvement with other startups that later partnered with OpenAI. In cross-examination, Altman was grilled about whether he misled investors and the public about OpenAI’s intentions. But Altman fired back, accusing Musk of seeking to monopolize AGI development for his own strategic and financial gain.

Musk’s vision of AI has long been tinged with apocalyptic warnings. He has repeatedly called AI “the biggest threat to humanity” and once said it could be “more dangerous than nukes.” Yet, his actions suggest a deep desire to control its trajectory. In 2017, he reportedly tried to take over OpenAI, offering to run it himself, but was rebuffed by Altman and other co-founders. That failed power play, legal experts suggest, may have planted the seeds of today’s legal war.

One of the most surreal moments in the trial came when OpenAI’s legal team introduced a golden trophy shaped like a donkey’s rear—a tongue-in-cheek award given internally to an employee who stood up to Musk’s aggressive push for rapid AGI development. The “jackass” trophy, gifted after a tense meeting, became a symbol of OpenAI’s resistance to Musk’s influence. It was presented as evidence that Musk’s leadership style was not just demanding but domineering—a stark contrast to OpenAI’s collaborative culture.

The courtroom theatrics reached a peak during closing arguments. Both sides projected side-by-side mugshot-style photos of Musk and Altman on a giant screen, each framed to highlight perceived flaws in character. Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, accused Altman and Brockman of “betraying a sacred trust,” claiming they used Musk’s donations to build a $100 billion empire while pretending to serve the public good. He argued that the 2025 restructuring—which converted OpenAI’s for-profit arm into a public benefit corporation—was a legal sleight of hand designed to legitimize what was always a profit-driven enterprise.

OpenAI’s defense hinged on pragmatism. Sarah Eddy emphasized that the nonprofit model simply couldn’t sustain the computational demands of modern AI. Training a single large language model can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, requiring massive data centers and specialized chips. Without the ability to raise capital from investors, OpenAI would have been left behind by competitors like Google’s DeepMind and Meta’s Llama models.

The stakes extend far beyond financial damages. Musk is seeking up to $134 billion in restitution—money he wants returned to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm—and the removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership. If successful, the ruling could unravel OpenAI’s current structure, delay its IPO, and destabilize its partnership with Microsoft. It could also set a precedent for how mission-driven tech startups navigate the tension between idealism and scalability.

But legal experts are divided on the likelihood of Musk’s success. While the emotional appeal of “betrayal” is strong, proving a legally binding promise to remain nonprofit may be difficult. “Courts are generally reluctant to enforce vague moral commitments,” says Dr. Lena Torres, a tech law professor at Stanford. “Unless there was a written contract or clear misrepresentation, this case may hinge more on perception than law.”

Meanwhile, the jury’s advisory verdict—expected as early as next week—will guide the judge’s final decision. Though not binding, a strong jury recommendation could sway the outcome. The judge will weigh not only the legal arguments but the broader implications for innovation, corporate ethics, and the governance of transformative technologies.

The Musk-Altman feud also reflects a deeper philosophical rift in the AI community. On one side are those like Musk who believe AGI must be developed cautiously, with strong safeguards and democratic oversight. On the other are pragmatists like Altman who argue that rapid innovation is the best defense against misuse—by building better, safer systems faster than bad actors can.

This divide echoes earlier tech battles. In the 1990s, the open-source movement clashed with proprietary software giants like Microsoft. Today, the fight is over who controls the most powerful technology ever created. Will AGI be a tool for public benefit, or a weapon in the hands of a few billionaires?

As the trial concludes, one thing is clear: the outcome will shape not just the fate of OpenAI, but the trajectory of artificial intelligence itself. Whether driven by altruism, ambition, or a mix of both, the decisions made in this courtroom could echo for generations.

In the end, the Musk v. Altman trial is more than a legal dispute—it’s a referendum on the soul of the digital age. Will the future of AI be shaped by open collaboration and public trust, or by private empires and competitive brinkmanship? As the jury deliberates, the world holds its breath, knowing that the verdict may determine not just who wins in court, but who shapes the future of intelligence itself.

This article was curated from Musk v. Altman week 3: Elon Musk and Sam Altman traded blows over each other’s credibility. Now the jury will pick a side. via MIT Technology Review