Sam Altman was winning on the stand, but it might not be enough

After two weeks of hearing from assorted witnesses that he was a lying snake, the jury finally heard from the lying snake himself: Sam Altman. At the end of the testimony, his lawyer William Savitt asked him how it felt to be accused of stealing a charity.

Sam Altman was winning on the stand, but it might not be enough

Elon Musk may have done more long-term reputational damage to the OpenAI CEO.

“We created, through a ton of hard work, this extremely large charity, and I agree you can’t steal it,” Altman said. “Mr. Musk did try to kill it, I guess. Twice.”

Altman was fully in “nice kid from St. Louis” mode, and did a passable impression of a man who was bewildered at what was happening to him. When he stepped down from the stand holding a stack of evidence binders, he even looked a little like a schoolboy. He seemed nervous at the beginning of his direct testimony, though he warmed up fairly quickly. Overall, he seemed to give credible testimony — and at times, it seemed like the jury liked him.

Throughout this trial I’ve had some difficulty imagining what the jury is making of all this because I am a little too familiar with the figures who are testifying. I have heard some audacious lies under oath, like when Elon Musk told us all he doesn’t lose his temper. (He then proceeded to lose his temper on cross-examination.) Or like when Shivon Zilis, the mother of several of his children, told us that she didn’t know Musk was starting xAI — which seemed to be directly contradicted by her text messages. Or when Greg “What will take me to $1B?” Brockman told us he was all about the mission. I certainly believe Altman isn’t trustworthy — I mean, *The New Yorker *published more than 17,000 words about how much he lies. But unlike with Musk, there are contemporaneous documents backing Altman’s version of the story. At least, mostly.

“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control”

After OpenAI’s Dota 2 win, discussions for a for-profit arm started in earnest. “Mr. Musk felt very strongly that if we were going to form a for-profit he needed to have total control over it initially,” Altman said. “He only trusted himself to make non-obvious decisions that were going to turn out to be correct.”

Altman testified that he was uncomfortable with Musk’s insistence on control, not just because Musk hadn’t been as involved as everyone else, but because OpenAI existed so no one person would control AGI. And at Y Combinator, the startup incubator where he was president, Altman had seen a lot of control fights; no one wanted to give up power when things were going well. With structures like supervoting shares, founders could retain control forever. Curiously, Altman’s example was not the most famous one (Mark Zuckerberg at Meta); it was Musk and SpaceX. When Altman asked Musk about succession plans for OpenAI, he got a particularly “hair-raising” answer: In the event of Musk’s death, Musk said, “I haven’t thought about it a ton, but maybe control should pass to my children.”

I don’t know about that. But I do know that I saw a 2017 email from Altman to Zilis in which he wrote, “I am worried about control. I don’t think any one person should have control of the world’s first AGI — in fact the whole reason we started OpenAI was so that wouldn’t happen.” He went on to say that he didn’t mind the idea of immediate control and was open to “creative structures” — which I understood to mean that, in order to placate Musk, Altman was willing to give him control up to specific milestones in company development.

“I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there”

“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control and that he would’ve had that had we agreed to the structure he wanted,” Altman said on the stand. This sounds basically right. In later video testimony from Sam Teller’s deposition, we heard that Musk no longer invests in anything he doesn’t control. This also fits with Musk’s long-term fixation on making sure he can’t get booted from his own company the way he got booted from PayPal.

Musk also tried to recruit Altman to Tesla. We saw texts between Altman and Teller, in which Teller told Altman that Musk was committed to beefing up Tesla’s AI no matter what, and that he hoped that Altman, Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever would want to join eventually. “I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there, that he’s gonna do this inside of Tesla with or without you,” Altman said. But he felt that Tesla was primarily a car company — allowing it to acquire OpenAI would betray OpenAI’s mission.

Later, in Teller’s testimony, we saw texts Teller sent to Zilis at 12:40AM on February 4th, 2018: “I don’t love OpenAI continuing without Elon,” he wrote. “Would rather disable it by recruiting the leaders.”

When Musk stopped his quarterly donations, OpenAI was operating on a “shoestring” with an “extremely short runway of cash.” OpenAI did have other donors, none of whom have sued it or joined Musk’s suit. (One donor in the exhibit that wasn’t called out to the courtroom was Alameda Research, the firm owned by Sam Bankman-Fried, who is now in prison for fraud and money laundering.) Musk’s resignation from the board meant “people wondered if he was gonna try to take, uh, vengeance out on us or something.” On the other hand, Altman said Musk had “demotivated some of our key researchers” and done “huge damage for a long time to the culture of the organization.” So it sure seems like some people were relieved to be rid of him.

I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trial

We saw a lot of evidence that throughout the time Altman was setting up OpenAI’s for-profit arm, he kept Musk apprised of what was going on, either directly or through Zilis or Teller. At no point did Musk object, and whatever he said publicly about the Microsoft investments, there was plenty of evidence that privately he’d been made aware.

On the cross-examination, we were treated to more than 10 minutes of Steven Molo telling Altman that various and assorted people had called him a liar: Sutskever, Mira Murati, Helen Toner, Tasha McCauley, Daniela and Dario Amodei (former OpenAI employees and founders of Anthropic), employees at Altman’s first startup Loopt, that recent New Yorker article, a book called The Optimist, etc. Molo did score some points by asking Altman about testimony in the trial, which Altman said he wasn’t paying close attention to. Molo acted as though this was inconceivable. Surely someone had informed Altman of what was said?

It was a little funny and also a little tiresome. Altman kept his cool, though, seeming hurt and confused by the focus on whether he was a liar. It was also the most successful part of the cross, which declined in focus precipitously afterward. I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trial, and today was pretty bad. At one point, when Molo was trying to capitalize on Altman being both CEO and on the company’s board, Altman said — truthfully — that CEOs are almost always on the boards of the companies they run.

(At this point in my notes, I had written, “Boy, Molo is not very good at this.”)

The point of this trial isn’t to win — it’s to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI

There was also an unconvincing argument about fundraising in nonprofits, specifically that if Stanford could raise $3 billion a year, OpenAI should have remained a nonprofit. Okay, let’s just think about that for a minute. Stanford has a donor network of thousands of graduates. It’s a school, which has very different capital requirements. It is not competing with any reputable for-profit companies. But leave that all aside and assume that some fundraising genius took over at the OpenAI Foundation: $3 billion is the initial two Microsoft investments combined, and not enough to