The closing arguments in the Musk v. Altman trial were nothing short of a demolition derby. Steven Molo, Musk's lawyer, stumbled over his words, at one point calling Greg Brockman “Greg Altman” and erroneously claiming Musk wasn’t asking for money, forcing the judge to correct him. OpenAI’s lawyers, Sarah Eddy and William Savitt, methodically dismantled Musk’s case, presenting a mountain of evidence in chronological order and highlighting how often Musk “didn’t recall” critical details. The trial, meant to determine the future of OpenAI, instead became a treasure trove of gossip and a stark reminder that Elon Musk may not be the AI genius he claims to be.
The Gossip That Defined the Trial
The real value of the trial, as many observers noted, was the gossip. From the first week, the biggest bombshell dropped: Musk used OpenAI to improve his own AI company, xAI. Musk admitted that xAI distilled other models, including OpenAI’s, which explained how Grok was developed so quickly. This revelation raised questions about the use of investor money and the ethics of AI development.
Other juicy details emerged throughout the proceedings. Sam Altman confirmed decade-old reports that he had considered running for governor of California. Musk, under cross-examination, lost his temper after claiming he never does. Mira Murati was exposed as playing both sides during the Altman ouster, feeding him board details while publicly complaining about his removal. Brockman and other OpenAI engineers secretly worked on Tesla’s self-driving software while purportedly employed by OpenAI. Shivon Zilis, a board member and mother of Musk’s children, didn’t disclose their relationship until Business Insider uncovered it.
Perhaps the most memorable item was the “jackass trophy,” a Little League-style trophy depicting only the back half of a donkey. Jurors never saw it, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found it amusing. Altman also revealed that Musk wanted his children to inherit OpenAI, a claim that further muddied Musk’s motivations.
The Real Lesson: Elon Musk Sucks at AI
Despite the drama, the trial’s central takeaway was clear: Elon Musk has repeatedly failed at AI. He claimed OpenAI wouldn’t succeed, yet it continues to lead the industry. He tried to kneecap OpenAI by poaching talent like Andrej Karpathy, but xAI remains a money-sucking black hole, now acquired by SpaceX and hemorrhaging researchers. Its data center deals are falling through, and its enterprise users are often strong-armed rather than won over.
Even as early as 2018, Brockman and Ilya Sutskever noted that Musk “really hasn’t done his homework on AI/AGI,” a concern that still holds true. The trial showcased Musk’s inability to build a competitive AI lab, despite vast resources and a desperate desire to win.
As the trial concluded, the only remaining question is whether investors in the upcoming SpaceX IPO will notice—or care—that Musk’s AI ventures have been propped up by others’ work and sheer force of will.
Key Moments from Closing Arguments
- Musk’s lawyer repeatedly made factual errors, including misidentifying defendants and legal claims.
- OpenAI’s lawyers methodically presented evidence showing Musk’s lack of involvement and understanding.
- Altman’s lawyer, William Savitt, highlighted Musk’s failure to read a simple four-page term sheet.
- The trial underscored the messy relationships among AI leaders, including distrust of Demis Hassabis and internal betrayals at OpenAI.
In the end, the trial was less a legal battle and more a public airing of grievances, failures, and embarrassing secrets. The world may never know the full truth about Musk’s intentions, but the evidence suggests he is far from the AI savior he portrays himself to be.
Source: The Verge News