Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Courts

OpenAI President Discloses His Stake In the Company Is Worth $30 Billion (apnews.com) 167

Posted by BeauHD from the day-five dept.
OpenAI president Greg Brockman's testimony dominated the fifth day of the trial for Elon Musk's lawsuit against the AI company. Brockman took the witness stand on Monday, disclosing that his stake in OpenAI is worth nearly $30 billion, despite not personally investing money in OpenAI. The judge also declined to admit a pretrial text in which Musk allegedly warned Brockman that he and Altman would become "the most hated men in America." From a report: Brockman's disclosure would put him on the Forbes list of the world's richest people, with wealth comparable to Melinda French Gates. [...] Late Sunday, OpenAI lawyers tried to admit as evidence a text message Musk sent to Brockman two days before the trial began. According to a court filing -- which did not include the actual text exchange -- Musk sent a message to Brockman to gauge interest in settlement.

When Brockman replied that both sides should drop their respective claims, Musk shot back, according to the filing, "By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be." Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is overseeing the trial, did not admit the text exchange as evidence. Brockman acknowledged that he had promised to personally donate $100,000 to OpenAI's charity but never did. In explaining the delay, Brockman put the onus on Altman: "I asked Sam when I should donate this, and he said he would let me know," reports Business Insider.

The first witness to testify on Monday was Stuart Russell, an artificial intelligence expert who teaches computer science at the University of California, Berkeley. "The most memorable part of Russell's testimony was when he talked about how much Musk's legal team paid him," notes Business Insider. "He received an eye-popping $5,000 per hour for 40 hours of preparatory work. Expert witnesses in high-profile cases typically make between $500 to $1,000 per hour."

Recap:
Musk Concludes Testimony At OpenAI Trial (Day Four)
Elon Musk Says OpenAI Betrayed Him, Clashes With Company's Attorney (Day Three)
Musk Testifies OpenAI Was Created As Nonprofit To Counter Google (Day Two)
Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Head To Court (Day One)

OpenAI President Discloses His Stake In the Company Is Worth $30 Billion More | Reply

OpenAI President Discloses His Stake In the Company Is Worth $30 Billion

Comments Filter:

  • Or 300M plus interest per year over 5 years.

    Not including Federal capital gains taxes on sale of any company shares that he liquidates, or California income taxes, likely at the 14.4% tax bracket.

    Or he could try and find a bank to lend him 300M in cash every year, secured against his equity stake. Anyone?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by G00F ( 241765 )

      he wont owe anything, just update his primary address and hes a Texan or Floridian with a vacation home in cali.

      • Yeah, that's not how that works.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by G00F ( 241765 )

          I know people who work in new york, but "live" in say kentucky and that's how it exactly works. And they are not even rich to get special teams of lawyers. Granted newyork and cali who's been chasing away people have tried to create more laws to still rape people leave pelenty of loop holes for the rich to not get caught.

          Even when I traveled a lot, I spent greater than 70% of my time in another state, my state of residence didn't change.

    • The asset tax is dumb. how is he supposed to pay that tax without diluting his ownership stake? When he announces he's selling shares, the value of OpenAI will drop just by that. So does he pay tax on the new or old valuation? I don't see how anyone would just go along with that. He'll be fucking pissed. I mean, if you had $30 billion and someone pisses you off beyond anything by taking what you put your heart and soul into you'd do every legal means to makes sure whoever done that to you pays. He'll hire a

      • Re:If the asset tax passes, he'll owe 1.5B (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @03:18AM (#66128284)

        "The asset tax is dumb. how is he supposed to pay that tax without diluting his ownership stake? "

        That's the goal. The government exists for the benefit of the people, the people suffer when all wealth accumulates at the top. Massive ownership stake is not only NOT a goal of the government, it is the problem to solve.

        "When he announces he's selling shares, the value of OpenAI will drop just by that."

        The very existence of this phenomenon IS the problem.

        "So does he pay tax on the new or old valuation?"

        Yes.

        "I mean, if you had $30 billion and someone pisses you off beyond anything by taking what you put your heart and soul into you'd do every legal means to makes sure whoever done that to you pays. "

        Slave owners were pissed too. And heart and soul? Fuck off, he got that by exploiting people.

        • "The asset tax is dumb. how is he supposed to pay that tax without diluting his ownership stake? "

          That's the goal. The government exists for the benefit of the people, the people suffer when all wealth accumulates at the top. Massive ownership stake is not only NOT a goal of the government, it is the problem to solve.

          /me - Thumbs through my copy of the US constitution looking for anything in the limited, enumerated federal roles and responsibilities alingning with wealth redistribution.

          Hmm....On a state

          • "/me - Thumbs through my copy of the US constitution looking for anything in the limited, enumerated federal roles and responsibilities alingning with wealth redistribution."

            Funny how most people who cite the constitution gloss over Article III like it's non binding.

            • "/me - Thumbs through my copy of the US constitution looking for anything in the limited, enumerated federal roles and responsibilities alingning with wealth redistribution."

              Funny how most people who cite the constitution gloss over Article III like it's non binding.

              If I recall.....Article 3 of the US constitution has to do with setting up the judicial branch...Supreme Court, etc.

              I fail to see how that has anything to do with wealth redistribution, the subject I was addressing originally where you quo

        • "The very existence of this phenomenon IS the problem."

          That is how markets work. We could solve this by ending public companies and requiring all of them to be private, but then what does the asset tax do? Your company on paper is worth 30 billion, but you can't sell any of it to pay. I guess we close up shop?

          I guess it's an argument that no person should own a company. The government should. I'm not sure I'm that red.

          • Your company on paper is worth 30 billion, but you can't sell any of it to pay.

            If you can't sell it, then its value is $0.

        • First off, Marx was both wrong and evil. The systems he invented result only in brutal totalitarian dictatorships. His intent was to create dictatorships. You are analyzing things through a lens he invented to discredit systems that protected individual rights and freedoms, and to promote his oppressive authoritarianism. All Marxist analysis and its derivatives (i.e. critical theory) are built for this purpose.

          In a Democratic Free Market political economy, nobody stays on top forever. There are a num

        • "The government exists for the benefit of the people,"
          Well, it does, sometimes. That's the intent anyway.

      • While this sort of forced asset sale will introduce volatility into the market, it wouldn't have any expected downward pressure on prices. Instead, as the sales are forced, a buy opportunity will be created for anyone else. The underlying value of the company does not change because someone has to pay their taxes.

        • Those shares are ownership. You could be telling the founder of a company that they can't own it anymore, because you want a cut of their presumed wealth. Which also means you've changed who controls the company, which changes its course and thus its worth. No, you are changing the value of the company. And if it ends up lower, then the person you just taxed is entitled to a refund on their capital loss.

          It is well more complicated than you seem to think.

      • The asset tax is dumb. how is he supposed to pay that tax without diluting his ownership stake?

        The idea is that the ultra-rich DO dilute their ownership. They would have to sell some of their assets in order to pay what they owe. That is by design. Less for them, more for everyone.

        When he announces he's selling shares, the value of OpenAI will drop just by that. So does he pay tax on the new or old valuation?

        When executives sell their shares it doesn't dilute the stock price much, because they normally schedule their sales in advance. Since it is publicly known that they will sell X shares on DATE it is something that larger traders are already planning for -it is essentially baked in to the price of the stock. The overal

        • Selling shares could mean the different between control and loss of control of the company. As in, you have loyal people on the board who understand your vision, and suddenly depending on perent ownership you and your friends will be minority stakeholders and you can get kicked out of your own company. Remember, it happened to Steve Jobs famously. But it's actually fairly common the founders get kicked out of their own company when they no longer have controlling amounts of shares. You'd be handing control

  • Now, this might strike some regulars as harsh, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @01:41AM (#66128244)

    but I would not mind if everyone involved in this case as litigants and their reps dies an unpleasant death.

    Won't solve the basic problem of modern capitalism's complete subversion of democracy, but it might slow it down a bit.

    • but I would not mind if everyone involved in this case as litigants and their reps dies an unpleasant death.

      Won't solve the basic problem of modern capitalism's complete subversion of democracy, but it might slow it down a bit.

      Drone state of the art puts us closer to such a world every day.

      • Well, maybe, but then maybe it is the other way around.

        With drones, what matters is to have a drone for everyone of your enemies. That means a lot of drones and a lot of hands - or in the dreams of the pentagon alcoholic, an AI - that operate against those enemies. If you have a few drones and try to protect yourself against everyone, you're at a severe disadvantage.

        Similar to how the 2nd amendment is worthless for anything but entertainment and shooting your wife or the neighbor you don't like in the face

    • This is an interesting conflation. You start by pointing to the evils of the ultra-rich. I don't dispute that. But the ultra-rich exist in every economic system, not just capitalism. They exist under communism and socialism, as well as, of course, systems built on corruption. So it seems a stretch to blame capitalism for producing ultra-rich people, when they exist everywhere.

      • I think it could be easily argued that the ultra-rich under capitalism got there thru corruption. Example, musk just settled with SEC for peanuts for gaming the twitter purchase, which was illegal. So first it was corruption that got him twitter, and then it was corruption that got him off with near zero cost. Progressive based penalties would be a start. Instead, for the ultra-rich, they are a mosquito bite, annoying maybe, but not a deterrence.

        • Name an economic system, or a country, where the ultra-rich do *not* get there through corruption!

          • Capitalism. Where you get ultra rich by building something massive. Corruption didn't make PayPal a massive success. It didn't make Apple a massive success.

            Contrast that with something like Socialism, where, on its face, there shouldn't be concentrations of wealth and power. Those are the systems where the rich can only become rich through corruption. Which they do.

            • While I largely agree with you, I'm not so sanguine about the cleanliness of Apple and PayPal. Big corporations can and do go to great lengths to skirt regulations, such as Apple's well-known practice of hiding income from taxation through the use of offshore subsidiaries. These measures might technically be legal, but are ethically questionable. And they do contribute to the success of these companies.

              On the socialism angle, we are fully agreed.

              • Well, if it helps, during the relevant period of Apple's early growth, it had neither the need nor the ability to use such tactics.

                • How about the "Blue Box" scheme, which allowed Steve & Steve's devices to enable people to illegally avoid long distance phone charges? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].

                  Or, its aggressive anticompetitive behavior in building its "walled garden"? That started very early in Apple's existence.

                  No, Apple was never a shining example of good ethical behavior.

          • So we should throw our hands up and accept that their will always be a "special" group that gets to trample on everyone else? I don't accept that. Capitalism/democracy does not have to accept that. Punishing wrong doers like musk would be a start. A nice start would have been voiding the purchase of twitter by musk with one caveat. Musk doesn't get his money back, not a penny, and the shares he purchased should be returned to twitter at 0 value to musk. Trifle with SEC rules that even I knew about and get b

            • Nope, we shouldn't give up, though no country or system has succeeded yet. But that's kind of beside the point. The point was that capitalism is somehow worse than other economic systems, in regards to allowing ultra-rich people to ascend through corruption. It is not, in fact, worse.

        • Most of the ultra rich in capitalism got there by developing a new product at just the right time.

          Rockefeller became the world's richest man by producing safe lamp oil. Before Rockefeller, people were burning their houses down with an inferior, inconsistent product. Rockefeller came in with an updated manufacturing process and took over the entire industry. This was not only not corrupt, it was actually a very huge positive for society.

          And those are the types of people who become ultra rich in capitalism. T

          • Most of the ultra rich in capitalism got there by developing a new product at just the right time.

            Not at all. Most of the ultra-rich in capitalism got there by inheritance, and a few - by selling worthless paper (a.k.a. stonks) to those who got rich by inheritance with a promise of an occasional payout.

            Those who developed a product in the garage or its equivalent are few and far between.

            • Out of the top ten richest people in the world, only one (#10, Jim Walton) inherited their wealth.

            • Rockefeller didn't. Carnegie didn't. Jobs and Wozniak sold their possessions to get Apple started. Brin and Page were the children of academics, Brin's being Soviet immigrants who came with nothing but an education.

              Now, you could say that about JP Morgan, but would it be fair? His grandfather was a successful farmer who branched out and invested in other businesses, including an insurance company, and from that JP and his father built what would become one of the world's largest banks. Is that just

              • I know you're completely ignorant of reality, but here you are:

                https://www.theglobeandmail.co... [theglobeandmail.com]

                You're welcome.

                • Were you aware that you just gave me a link to an ad?

                  One that says only 28% inherited their wealth, so you actually gave me supporting evidence. Thanks!

                  • No, it literally says this:

                    A recent study of ultra-rich Americans showed that almost three-quarters had help in building their fortunes. According to a Bank of America Private Bank study into the backgrounds of the ultra wealthy, the remaining 27% did not inherit any money at all.

                    Not a surprise you've got a problem with reading comprehension, though, hardly the first time you've demonstrated it.

                    • If you have $B, but only inherited $100k, your wealth came from your own actions, but you did receive support. See how that works?

                    • According to data:

                      27% of the ultra wealthy are self made: It defines them as people with a "middle-class or poor upbringing and no inheritance." 46% have a head start: Almost half the super rich people surveyed either had some inherited wealth or an affluent upbringing. 28% have legacy wealth: People with both an affluent background and inherited money.

                      "Help", meant a good upbringing for the plurality. What you posted does not sufficiently support your claim. And again, it was an ad.

                      You said "Most of

                    • Yeah, I've seen how that works and it isn't the bullshit story you're peddling.

        • He became ultra-rich by founding and then selling PayPal. Now, you get to explain how that was corrupt.

      • I'm not blaming capitalism for producing ultra-rich, dimwit, I'm explaining that capitalism subverted democracy and made it turn into a meaningless shell of itself.

        Functional literacy is a thing, try to develop some.

        • Your two statements did in fact draw a direct connection between the sins of the ultra-rich, and claimed that capitalism's "subversion of democracy" is tied to the misdeeds of the ultra-rich. I'm suggesting that the two are completely unrelated.

          Capitalism isn't perfect, far from it. But it is more pragmatic (i.e., works better in real life) than any other economic system devised to date. This is because, at its core, capitalism tries to reward people who work to earn money, while other systems try to give m

          • For the vast majority of us, capitalism works far better to "lift all boats."

            The real data show you're quite off the chart with this statement, but it is hardly a surprise.

            https://i.imgur.com/4R8tsVz.pn... [imgur.com]

            • So you agree with me then! Your graph shows people in every income category, making real income gains, which means after adjusting for inflation people in every income category, are better off today than they were in 1979. That does seem like "lifting all boats" to me.

              • The graph shows income stagnation for everyone but the top few percent.

                But the useful idiot is welcome to their own conclusions.

      • The soviet and GDR ultra rich would have been called upper middle class in the west.

        • You need to check your facts. Members of the Politburo were extremely wealthy. They may have made a nominal salary, but salary was not the source of their primary income. They essentially lived like kings, as do today's Russian oligarchs.

          • Right back at you. They were only extremely wealthy in comparison to the piss poor normal people. But living as kings - nope. Seriously, take a look at the photos of their homes and dachas. Take a look at the photos of their parties. Middle management, doctors and top engineers in the west used to live better back then and even more so nowadays. This is nothing like the excesses of russian oligarchs.

    • A political economy subverting itself? Is that even possible? I mean, it happens insofar as people may think Marxism is compatible with democracy, when the structure is only compatible with totalitarian authoritarianism, but past that fundamental misunderstanding I'm not sure it's possible.

  • Sorry, elmo (Score:3)

    by T34L ( 10503334 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @02:06AM (#66128250)

    Musk allegedly warned Brockman that he and Altman would become "the most hated men in America."

    Somebody needs to explain to him that's not a title he can just pass onto somebody else. And don't get me wrong. I wouldn't piss on either if they were on fire, but as far as I'm concerned, they're not even in the running for the top.

    • Re:Sorry, elmo (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @03:34AM (#66128300)

      You cannot explain anything to Musk, he believes that anything he says becomes the truth. Same as trump. The power of positive thinking combined with uncontrolled greed and criminal sociopathy. Envision owning all of humanity and it will become true. Tony Robbins coaching Hitler.

      You dare criticize my cave submarine? Well you're a pedophile. How do people not see this? It has been plain as day for a decade, yet people have only wised up in the last year.

      • Still hard to believe he prevailed in that defamation case. But hey, money and lawyers to trample the underclass. That event is when I went from disliking musk to despising him. To ruin a man because he did something better than you, well despicable.
      • Isn't that what you're doing?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        He must have read that BS book that Oprah was promoting years ago called The Secret [wikipedia.org]. "It is based on the belief of the pseudoscientific law of attraction, which claims that thought alone can influence objective circumstances within one's life."

  • Most hated man? (Score:4, Informative)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @03:57AM (#66128312)

    Simply having money due to AI doesn't make someone hated. On the other hand, destroying the government, aligning with extremists, and acting like a persecuted crybaby while being the richest man alive certainly does tick a lot of boxes for people hating you the most.

    • Simply having money due to AI doesn't make someone hated. On the other hand, destroying the government, aligning with extremists, and acting like a persecuted crybaby while being the richest man alive certainly does tick a lot of boxes for people hating you the most.

      Trump ticks a lot of those same boxes. Maybe they're just common things among these rich guys?

  • of course the Berkeley professor had to be paid (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There are basically two kinds of experts. You've got ordinary "experts" who are just needed procedurally to get a professional opinion into evidence. Like, in a DUI case, the cop would not be able to testify that the driver was drunk unless he was qualified as an expert, but he's not saying anything crazy. "The guy was weaving all over the place, his breath stunk, he slurred his speech and so I had probable cause to take him back to the station for a blood test."

    The other kind is when you need an expert who

    • In my experience around both courtrooms and university professors from a variety of fields, they tend to fall all over themselves leaping at the chance to be expert witnesses.

      It's a LOT of money for very little work, typically way more than they'd make on even a typical Ivy League full professor's salary or an academic book deal. And yes, I am including putting together a fully researched report on those findings as part of that work. Even in highly-compensated fields like CS, law, or business, the num
  • Seems like an irritating waste of time to me. I was sick of this case by day 1. How about we ditch the daily updates and just wait for the verdict?

  • Lots of consternation here... (Score:3)

    by kwelch007 ( 197081 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @03:28PM (#66129232)

    Lots of folks here upset about Musk vs Altman or whoever, rich vs poor, all that.

    Is nobody bothered that the CEO of a non-profit, who has invested none of their own money, has equity is said non-profit that is supposedly valued at $30B? Seems that speaks to what Musk is claiming as much as anything. I personally don't care if Musk gets anything out of this lawsuit, but his point about keeping Non-profits from being gamed seems valid.

  • "By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be."

    Oh Elon, don't fret. There's plenty of hate left over.

Slashdot Top Deals

The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

Close