Live updates from Elon Musk and Sam Altman’s court battle over the future of OpenAI

Musk v. Altman week two recap.

Image: The Verge; Getty Images

Oh this tack is more effective. Then OpenAI lawyer is going after Columbia...

Which gets something like $2 billion from hospital operations, more than $1 billion in tuition, and an endowment of $16 billion, plus $2.2 billion in philanthropy. Does this mean that Columbia is deviating from its mission to educate kids and support research?

This cross of Schizer is pretty weak.

Like, yes, sure, he doesn’t understand AI, but we have lots of nonprofits, which are governed by the same set of laws. Sure, yes, he’s getting $1,500 per hour from Musk and that is probably a pretty penny — likely more than my annual salary — but also... who cares. I was not overwhelmed by Schizer’s testimony but this cross isn’t doing anything to knock it down for me.

Basically everything Schizer is saying is couched as a hypothetical...

because the jury is engaged in a fact-finding mission. Anyway, of a hypothetical, he says: “You don’t want to be known as a liar.” Evidently Schizer is unfamiliar with the current president of the United States.

We are now hearing from David Schizer, one of Musk’s expert witnesses.

He’s a professor of law and economics at Columbia Law School. He specializes in nonprofits, nonprofit taxation, and management. We are going through an exhaustive list of his qualifications.

We are still listening to McCauley.

Increasingly I feel that the only thing happening here is Musk just trying to remind the world that Altman is untrustworthy. (Ironic!) McCauley’s testimony about the profit incentives is neither here nor there when it comes to the donations and whether any promises were made to Musk.

Tasha McCauley is testifying now in a video deposition.

We are once again going over concerns about Sam Altman’s dishonesty. “Because of this pattern of lying, people in the company were copying that behavior, and there was a culture of lying and a culture of deceit,” she says.

“Do you have any idea how you ended up in this courtroom?”

Oh sure, Musk’s team objected and the question was withdrawn, but the OpenAI attorney said what I was thinking. Why is she here? She’s not a board member. She’s not an exec. She didn’t witness any decisions that bear on Musk’s donations. I guess the idea is that she’s testifying that OpenAI abandoned its mission? But we’ve established already that there were no known conditions on Musk’s donation yesterday, with Shivon Zilis.

I am having a hard time taking Rosie Campbell seriously.

Look, I’m not bought in on AGI at all, and the “AGI readiness” team getting disbanded in 2024 happened as it became clearer to everyone but the AI cultists that AGI wasn’t possible. (It was clear to some of us from the jump.) I have no idea how this is landing for the jury, but getting safe, beneficial AGI is silly if AI superintelligence isn’t possible.

We are now hearing from Rosie Campbell, a former OpenAI employee.

She initially worked on the “applied” team, but then moved into a research team because it was “more interesting” to work on the “policy” and “AGI readiness” teams, and think about what to do in the case AGI happened. I also prefer daydreaming to actually working.

OpenAI’s board discussed merging with Anthropic during “the Blip.”

They also discussed Dario Amodei becoming CEO of OpenAI. “I thought it was an option worth considering among our set of difficult options,” Toner says.

Helen Toner is now talking about the board’s decision-making process.

Neither Altman or Brockman had been allowed to tell their side of the story, nor were their HR files pulled by the board. There was no input from Microsoft, or any other investors or customers. Toner smiles when she’s frustrated or annoyed, which she sometimes is by this line of questioning.

YGR is back on the bench.

I am expecting a relatively sedate day today. We’re going to see more of former OpenAI board member Helen Toner’s deposition. Right now lawyers are discussing when the case will end; we expect closing arguments a week from today.

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

We are going through the removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI in detail.

It was primarily because Altman was not entirely candid with the board about his interests in an OpenAI startup fund. There was also some drama about Toner’s paper, which Altman told Sutskever that another board member suggested Toner resign from the board. That board member said she’d never said it. Further, Mira Murati and Sutskever also mentioned problems. And, of course, the lack of disclosure of ChatGPT...

Toner is relating how Sam Altman’s firing happened.

She says the starting point was Sutskever reaching out to have a conversation where he expressed serious concerns about Altman. It was a “pattern of behavior” that included issues with “honesty and candor” that led to the firing, not any one action. Toner has already laid out some of this in a 2024 podcast, and it’s similar to Murati’s testimony.

Toner says she found out about ChatGPT by seeing screenshots on Twitter.

She wasn’t surprised she hadn’t been told, though, because “I was used to the board not being very informed about things.” She says that “caused me to believe that [Altman] was not motivated to help the board perform the oversight role.”

Making AI models is “more like alchemy than chemistry,” Toner says.

That means there’s no clear-cut way to test for safety. People are just throwing things together to see what happens. She refers to OpenAI’s safety board’s methods as becoming “somewhat less slapdash” over time.

We are now looking at Helen Toner’s deposition.

This should be about an hour. YGR has told the jury that if she sees them falling asleep, she’s going stop the video and have them stand and stretch.

Microsoft would like to be excluded from this narrative.

Every time a MSFT lawyer gets up to question a witness in Musk v. Altman, it’s “And Microsoft wasn’t there?” with an occasional addition of “And Satya Nadella wasn’t there either?” This gets funnier every time it happens.

”It’s not in my neurons,” Zilis says, instead of “I don’t remember.”

She is asked about texting Musk about the Microsoft deal with OpenAI — that the structure was not maximum profit and Microsoft was not in control. She looks at the evidence, and says she sees it there but... “it’s not in my neurons, it’s not in my brain, but I see it.” Okay.

Sarah Eddy, an attorney representing OpenAI, got sarcastic with Zilis.

Zilis said she now recalled certain messages that she had said she didn’t recall in her deposition, saying that at this point she’d reviewed documents numerous times. Eddy said, “Your long-lost memories have since been recovered.”

Shivon Zilis brainstormed possible scenarios for AI.

Three were Tesla AI. One was OpenAI as a B-corp subsidiary of Tesla. One was Altman as anchor for TeslaAI. But my favorite? “Find a way to get Demis. Seriously…. Demis really does fanboy hard and I don’t think he’s immoral… just amoral. If he hung around E perhaps it would force him to think about humanity more.” Hassabis is really haunting these guys.