Musk v. Altman trial reveals real losers: the public who trusted OpenAI's nonprofit mission
Neither Musk nor Altman protected the public interest, says legal experts and former employees.
Attorneys delivered closing arguments in the Musk v. Altman trial on Thursday, each painting their client as the true steward of OpenAI's founding nonprofit mission. But according to legal experts and former employees who filed amicus briefs, neither Elon Musk nor Sam Altman has adequately protected the public interest. Northwestern law professor Jill Horwitz noted, "The public interest in the nonprofit is at risk no matter who wins." The case reveals that OpenAI's stated goal—ensuring AGI benefits humanity—took a backseat to building a multibillion-dollar for-profit company. Daniel Kokotajlo, a former OpenAI researcher, said, "Musk and Altman are locked in a race to build superintelligence. The rest of us should fear them both."
Musk claims his $38 million investment was misused to turn OpenAI into an $850 billion company, enriching cofounders. OpenAI counters that Musk simply has sour grapes after losing control. Meanwhile, OpenAI's lawyers argued that giving the nonprofit a $200 billion stake fulfills the mission. Public advocacy groups like Encode disagree: money is useful but not the goal. The trial highlights a decade-long battle where employees, policymakers, and the public who believed in the nonprofit mission are the real losers. A judgement could come as soon as next week.
- Closing arguments completed; verdict expected next week in Musk v. Altman suit over OpenAI’s for-profit conversion.
- Former OpenAI researcher Daniel Kokotajlo and others filed amicus briefs arguing the nonprofit structure was critical to their joining.
- OpenAI's lawyers claim a $200 billion nonprofit stake suffices, but advocacy groups say governance and mission oversight are missing.
Why It Matters
The trial exposes how AI's race to AGI undermines public trust, regardless of who wins.