Sam Altman Testifies That Elon Musk Wanted Control of OpenAI (nytimes.com) 65
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman took the stand Tuesday in Elon Musk's trial against the company, testifying that Musk repeatedly sought control of OpenAI before leaving in 2018. Altman said he opposed putting AI "under the control of any one person," while Musk's lawyer used a pointed cross-examination to attack Altman's trustworthiness. An anonymous reader shares updates from the testimony via the New York Times: Before Elon Musk left OpenAI in a power struggle in 2018, he wanted to merge the nonprofit artificial intelligence lab with Tesla, his electric car company. Mr. Musk and other OpenAI co-founders met several times to discuss the merger. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, was even offered a seat on Tesla's board of directors, according to a court document. But folding OpenAI into Tesla would have eliminated the lab's nonprofit status, and that, Mr. Altman said on the witness stand on Tuesday, was something he wanted to avoid. [...] "I believed that A.I. should not be under the control of any one person," Mr. Altman said. [...] Mr. Altman testified about his feud with Mr. Musk. He said he had become worried that Mr. Musk, who provided the early investment money for OpenAI, wanted to take control of the lab. He described what he called a "particularly harrowing moment" when his OpenAI co-founders asked Mr. Musk what would happen to his control of a potential for-profit when he died. Mr. Altman said Mr. Musk had replied that the control would pass to his children. "I was not comfortable with that," Mr. Altman said. When Mr. Musk lost a power struggle for control of the lab, he left, forcing Mr. Altman to find another big financial backer in Microsoft.
But Mr. Altman ran into trouble in 2023 when OpenAI's board fired him because, as several of its members have testified in the trial, it didn't trust him. Steven Molo, Mr. Musk's lead lawyer, homed in on Mr. Altman's trustworthiness during an aggressive cross-examination. "Are you completely trustworthy?" Mr. Molo asked. "I believe so," Mr. Altman answered. After questioning Mr. Altman's trustworthiness for nearly 20 minutes, Mr. Molo turned to Mr. Altman's relationship with Mr. Musk. Mr. Altman said that after he met Mr. Musk in the mid-2010s, Mr. Musk had occasionally expressed concern about the dangers of A.I. But Mr. Musk spent far more time saying he was worried that companies like Google would get ahead in A.I. development, Mr. Altman said. (Mr. Musk testified in the trial that he had wanted to create OpenAI to prevent Google from controlling the technology.)
Mr. Altman, the lawyer intimated, took advantage of Mr. Musk's concerns and was never sincere about his own A.I. fears. "Are you a person who just tells people things they want to hear whether those things are true or not?" Mr. Molo asked. The lawyer also questioned whether Mr. Atman, who became a billionaire through years of tech investments, was self-dealing through OpenAI. Mr. Molo showed a list of Mr. Altman's personal investments across a number of companies that stand to benefit from their association with OpenAI. They included Helion Energy, a start-up that has deals with Microsoft and OpenAI, and Cerebras, a chip maker in business with OpenAI. Mr. Molo asked if Mr. Altman, who is on OpenAI's board as well as its chief executive, would ever fire himself. "I have no plans to do that," Mr. Altman said.
OpenAI's odd journey from nonprofit lab to what it is today -- a well-funded, for-profit company that is still connected to a nonprofit called the OpenAI Foundation with an endowment that could be worth more than $130 billion -- provided grist for Mr. Molo's questions about Mr. Altman's motivations. He implied that Mr. Altman could have continued to build OpenAI as a pure nonprofit. But the only way to build such a valuable charity was to raise billions through a for-profit venture, Mr. Altman responded. Still, the giant sums being raised appeared to upset Mr. Musk. In late 2022, according to court documents, Mr. Musk sent a text to Mr. Altman complaining that Microsoft was preparing to invest $10 billion in OpenAI. "This is a bait and switch," Mr. Musk said at the time. But Mr. Altman, under questioning from his own lawyers, said: "Every step of the way, I have done my best to maximize the value of the nonprofit. I would point out that there are not a lot of historical examples of a nonprofit at this scale." Before Altman took the stand, OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor continued his testimony that began on Monday. He said Elon Musk's 2024 bid to buy the company's assets appeared to conflict with his lawsuit and was rejected because the board did not believe OpenAI's mission should be controlled by one person. "We did not feel like it was appropriate for one person to control our mission," he said.
Recap:
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Testifies In OpenAI Trial (Day Nine) Sam Altman Had a Bad Day In Court (Day Eight)
Sam Altman's Management Style Comes Under the Microscope At OpenAI Trial (Day Seven)
Brockman Rebuts Musk's Take On Startup's History, Recounts Secret Work For Tesla (Day Six)
OpenAI President Discloses His Stake In the Company Is Worth $30 Billion (Day Five)
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)
But Mr. Altman ran into trouble in 2023 when OpenAI's board fired him because, as several of its members have testified in the trial, it didn't trust him. Steven Molo, Mr. Musk's lead lawyer, homed in on Mr. Altman's trustworthiness during an aggressive cross-examination. "Are you completely trustworthy?" Mr. Molo asked. "I believe so," Mr. Altman answered. After questioning Mr. Altman's trustworthiness for nearly 20 minutes, Mr. Molo turned to Mr. Altman's relationship with Mr. Musk. Mr. Altman said that after he met Mr. Musk in the mid-2010s, Mr. Musk had occasionally expressed concern about the dangers of A.I. But Mr. Musk spent far more time saying he was worried that companies like Google would get ahead in A.I. development, Mr. Altman said. (Mr. Musk testified in the trial that he had wanted to create OpenAI to prevent Google from controlling the technology.)
Mr. Altman, the lawyer intimated, took advantage of Mr. Musk's concerns and was never sincere about his own A.I. fears. "Are you a person who just tells people things they want to hear whether those things are true or not?" Mr. Molo asked. The lawyer also questioned whether Mr. Atman, who became a billionaire through years of tech investments, was self-dealing through OpenAI. Mr. Molo showed a list of Mr. Altman's personal investments across a number of companies that stand to benefit from their association with OpenAI. They included Helion Energy, a start-up that has deals with Microsoft and OpenAI, and Cerebras, a chip maker in business with OpenAI. Mr. Molo asked if Mr. Altman, who is on OpenAI's board as well as its chief executive, would ever fire himself. "I have no plans to do that," Mr. Altman said.
OpenAI's odd journey from nonprofit lab to what it is today -- a well-funded, for-profit company that is still connected to a nonprofit called the OpenAI Foundation with an endowment that could be worth more than $130 billion -- provided grist for Mr. Molo's questions about Mr. Altman's motivations. He implied that Mr. Altman could have continued to build OpenAI as a pure nonprofit. But the only way to build such a valuable charity was to raise billions through a for-profit venture, Mr. Altman responded. Still, the giant sums being raised appeared to upset Mr. Musk. In late 2022, according to court documents, Mr. Musk sent a text to Mr. Altman complaining that Microsoft was preparing to invest $10 billion in OpenAI. "This is a bait and switch," Mr. Musk said at the time. But Mr. Altman, under questioning from his own lawyers, said: "Every step of the way, I have done my best to maximize the value of the nonprofit. I would point out that there are not a lot of historical examples of a nonprofit at this scale." Before Altman took the stand, OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor continued his testimony that began on Monday. He said Elon Musk's 2024 bid to buy the company's assets appeared to conflict with his lawsuit and was rejected because the board did not believe OpenAI's mission should be controlled by one person. "We did not feel like it was appropriate for one person to control our mission," he said.
Recap:
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Testifies In OpenAI Trial (Day Nine) Sam Altman Had a Bad Day In Court (Day Eight)
Sam Altman's Management Style Comes Under the Microscope At OpenAI Trial (Day Seven)
Brockman Rebuts Musk's Take On Startup's History, Recounts Secret Work For Tesla (Day Six)
OpenAI President Discloses His Stake In the Company Is Worth $30 Billion (Day Five)
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)
Surprise, surprise, surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, literally nobody, it would be a completely unexpected behavior from him.
But then, who would expect that Scam Slopman, that selfless benefactor of humanity, can eveb be accused of trying to take over the company with shady tactics, like "a consistent pattern of lying, undermining his execs, and pitting his execs against one another"?
They are good guys, the cream of humanity, the captains of the industries of the future, who will take us to Mars and beyond, Heaven knows why did their joint venture and b
Nothing wrong with clashing personalities (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with two pieces of shit smearing each other with feces, as long as they don't do it where people live.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we have the more paranoid one? (Score:1)
Musk wanting control? Who might have guessed?
Seriously. ;-)
That said, who is more paranoid about AI. Sam or Elon? I want that person in control.
Re:Can we have the more paranoid one? (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk set up OpenAI as an OPEN SOURCE NON PROFIT because he is paranoid about AI.
Sometime people we don't like can be on the right side of history and grownup people understand that.
Which is why he's created his own AI and is working to integrate it into whatever he touches.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Musk set up OpenAI as an OPEN SOURCE NON PROFIT because he is paranoid about AI.
Yeah, he was paranoid about it turning into MechaHitler when someone else was controlling it, because he wants to be in control of MechaHitler.
Re: (Score:1)
Mod parent funnier for insurance, though the moderation is so broken it scarcely seems to matter. If I understand the current status, it has two mod points, and is only displaying the funny one. I expected the second to be something constructive, probably "insightful" the way some folks see things around here, but turns out to be another censor troll mod.
But if I had my own malignant AI, I'm pretty sure the first question would be "How do I delete Facebook? Not my account. The entire website."
Just joking an
Re: (Score:2)
"Musk set up OpenAI as an OPEN SOURCE NON PROFIT because he is paranoid about AI."
OpenAI was set up as a nonprofit by numerous people, stop trying to pull a Tesla and turn Musk into the sole founder.
Re: (Score:1)
And then he tried to take control and merge it into a for-profit enterprise named "Tesla" ?
Or did you conveniently forget that part?
And when he was told to fuck himself, he had a little piss fit, and took his ball and went home. OpenAI found a new benefactor with deep pockets. And then Musk sued because his little piss fit didn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all surprising. He also took control of Tesla, someone else's company that he did not start, and he's been raping it for cash ever since.
I'm kinda sick of this tbh (Score:4, Interesting)
This is like the OJ trial if OJ wore a shirt that read "I did murder people and this is a legally binding disclaimer." and the prosecuter wore a shirt that said "My prosecution is unfair, biased and illegal." and also both of them were on record eating deep fried babies.
Just fuck off to mars or whatever. All of the people involved in this. Just leave us alone, instead of squabbling over who gets to bury their swollen, pigass face deeper into the through no person with a shred of a human soul is allowed anywhere near.
Re:I'm kinda sick of this tbh (Score:5, Informative)
It may be unpleasant, but we can't just ignore what these guys are doing. Or the others who are building AI systems.
If it's allowed to flourish without supervision, AI could be an existential threat to humanity. We need to stay involved with how it will integrate into our lives. And it will, like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OJ
Re: (Score:2)
The jury found OJ "Not Guilty". Innocent is a different thing, entirely.
Has OpenAI made that video yet? (Score:1)
Sam and Elon should get a room and bang.
Has OpenAI made that video yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Has OpenAI made that video yet?
That's why Elon left and made Grok.
Re: (Score:2)
Sam and Elon should get a room and bang.
Has OpenAI made that video yet?
That's why Elon left and made Grok.
[*blinking*] Okay...
So you're saying OpenAI would not create an AI video of Altman and Musk in a dalliance, so Musk left and created Grok so he could do it himself?
Yeah, alright.
Re: Has OpenAI made that video yet? (Score:2)
That was the whole reason. A lot of people don't know that.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk apparently created Grok as an "anti-woke" alternative to OpenAI. And that might indirectly include supporting porn. But you're not going to convince me that he did this to make Altman and himself co-stars in one of its salacious outputs.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You should stick to watching porn.
This is being done for the benefit of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So ghey (Score:4, Insightful)
You may not "give a shit" over who wins in the billionaire-vs.-billionaire fight. I don't.
But you should care about what they're fighting over, because AI is a major transformative technology for humanity. Possibly even a threat to humanity, if mishandled.
Stay connected with the issue. Don't just swipe left.
Re:So ghey (Score:5, Informative)
"This is being done for the benefit of humanity."
You are an even worse liar than Musk or Altman, but we've all known that for a long time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off, you demented moron.
You know we can all read your posts, right?
Re: (Score:1)
No! They might have demon-seed kids. The next generation doesn't deserve such horror.
Snake vs giant centipede (Score:2)
IYKYK
On the next episode of As the Billionaires Turn (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
If they had better judgement they'd agree to a compromise or split instead of have a pettiness contest in public.
Oh really? (Score:1)
'Altman said he opposed putting AI "under the control of any one person,"'
Anyone believe that bullshit? Unless that one person is him.
"Tesla would have eliminated the lab's nonprofit status, and that, Mr. Altman said on the witness stand on Tuesday, was something he wanted to avoid."
Anyone believe that bullshit? The problem is not the nonprofit status which they actively seek, it's that it would have been Tesla. But that drives a big nail into Musk's claim. of course. How can anyone think that either of
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking. Really. (Score:1)
Musk already admitted control was a priority (Score:3, Informative)
He said, she said... (Score:3)
The problem with this kind of trial is that it's all about personal motivation, and personal memories. Insight into motivations is difficult at the best of times, and there is little way to prove them.
Memory is worse. Human memory is fallible. Especially in cases of conflict, we unconsciously edit our memories to cast ourselves in the best light, and our adversaries in the worst light. As a personal example: We have a couple next to us who are a$$hole neighbors, who have (imho) deliberately sought conflict with us multiple times. At one point, i went back to the correspondence we had on one issue and...it was very different than what I had "remembered". They were still jerks, but my memories had morphed to make things far more black-and-white than they actually were.
So Musk saying what Altman wanted, and Altman saying what Musk wanted - you can believe as much of it as you want, but likely very little of it is accurate. Remember that there are three sides to every story: What person A remembers, what person B remembers, and what actually happened.
Two a*holes (Score:2)
Run that through an LLM please (Score:2)
Good lord those paragraphs give me a headache, this may be one of the few cases where an LLM can provide value.
Oh the drama (Score:2)
Imagine this happens after you donate (Score:3, Interesting)
That's warranted in my opinion (Score:2)
- Per Sam Altman, his funding was 1/3, not 60%.
If Sam is right, 1/3 of funding should give a man executive control
If Musk is right, 60% should give him irrevocable control.
I remember OpenAI wanting to be a non-profit (Score:3)
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]