Introduction
The third and final week of the Musk v. Altman trial has concluded with both sides delivering powerful closing arguments that painted the opposing party as untrustworthy. The jury now faces the task of deciding whose credibility holds more weight—Elon Musk or OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. At the heart of the case is Musk's claim that Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman betrayed a promise to keep OpenAI as a nonprofit dedicated to safe AI development, while Altman argues that Musk simply wanted control over artificial general intelligence (AGI).
The Clash of Credibility
During the trial's final week, Altman faced intense cross-examination about his alleged history of deception and self-dealing involving companies that do business with OpenAI. Musk's lawyer, Steven Molo, pressed Altman on these accusations, suggesting a pattern of dishonesty. However, Altman countered by portraying Musk as a power-hungry individual who sought to dominate the development of AGI—highly capable AI that can match human cognitive abilities. Altman testified that in 2017, during discussions about forming a for-profit arm of OpenAI, Musk reportedly asked what would happen to his control if he died. According to Altman, Musk replied, “Maybe the control of OpenAI should pass to my children,” a statement that underscores Musk's desire for personal authority.
Altman's Defense and Counterattack
OpenAI's legal team, led by attorney Sarah Eddy, argued that Altman and Brockman never made a binding promise to keep OpenAI as a nonprofit. Eddy stressed that although the organization underwent restructuring, it remains a nonprofit focused on safe AI development. She further claimed that Musk filed his lawsuit too late and that his real motivation is to hamper a rival—his own AI company, xAI, founded in 2023. This framing positioned Musk as a competitor using litigation to gain an edge rather than a champion of ethical AI.
The Golden Donkey Trophy
In a surprising turn, OpenAI introduced a physical exhibit to demonstrate their commitment to AI safety: a golden donkey's ass trophy. This trophy was awarded to an employee after he was called a “jackass” for opposing Musk's aggressive push toward AGI. The item served as a visual reminder of internal conflicts and the company's dedication to cautious development, even at the risk of personal criticism.
Closing Arguments and Legal Strategies
Both legal teams presented their final arguments with dramatic flair, displaying unflattering mugshot-style photos of Musk and Altman side by side on a large screen. Musk's lawyer argued that Altman and Brockman broke their promise to use Musk's donations to maintain OpenAI as a purely nonprofit entity, instead creating a for-profit subsidiary that made them wealthy. Conversely, Altman's lawyer countered that Musk's real motive is to undermine a competitor, given that xAI is expected to go public as part of Musk's rocket company SpaceX at a target valuation of $1.75 trillion—rivaling OpenAI's near-trillion-dollar IPO prospects.
The Stakes for OpenAI and xAI
Musk is seeking a court order to unwind OpenAI's 2025 restructuring that converted its for-profit subsidiary into a public benefit corporation, and to remove Altman and Brockman from their leadership roles. He also demands up to $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, to be awarded to OpenAI's nonprofit. If the judge rules in Musk's favor, it could delay or derail OpenAI's plans for an initial public offering at a valuation approaching $1 trillion. Meanwhile, xAI is on track to go public in June as part of SpaceX, which could value the AI firm at $1.75 trillion. The outcome of this trial has enormous financial and strategic implications for the future of AI development.
What Comes Next?
The jury will begin deliberations on Monday and is expected to deliver an advisory verdict as soon as next week. It is important to note that the jury's verdict is not binding on the judge, who will make the final decision. Should the judge side with Musk, it could fundamentally reshape the AI landscape. Regardless of the outcome, this trial has exposed deep rifts between two of the most influential figures in technology and raised fundamental questions about the control and ethical direction of AI.