Sam Altman testified Tuesday that Elon Musk abandoned OpenAI during a crucial period in the company’s development, rejecting Musk’s claims that OpenAI improperly transformed itself away from its nonprofit mission.
Speaking for roughly four hours in federal court in Oakland, California, Altman told jurors that Musk failed to follow through on commitments to support the company financially as OpenAI struggled to secure the computing resources needed to compete in artificial intelligence research.
“We were kind of left for dead,” Altman testified.
Musk sued OpenAI, Altman, and OpenAI President Greg Brockman in 2024, alleging the company violated its founding principles by shifting toward commercial operations and pursuing profits rather than operating solely for charitable purposes. Musk argues that the roughly $38 million he contributed to OpenAI was used for unauthorized commercial expansion.
Altman disputed that claim in court, saying he never promised Musk that OpenAI would permanently maintain a nonprofit-only structure.
Much of the trial has focused on internal negotiations in 2017 and 2018 involving Altman, Musk, Brockman, and co-founder Ilya Sutskever over how to finance increasingly expensive AI development. According to testimony, OpenAI leaders debated several possible corporate structures, including for-profit models, as they sought billions of dollars in computing and infrastructure funding.
Those discussions ultimately collapsed, and Musk left OpenAI’s board in February 2018.
Altman testified that Musk’s departure created uncertainty inside OpenAI, with employees worrying about how the organization would survive financially. He also said some researchers viewed Musk’s exit as a morale improvement due to dissatisfaction with his management style.
“I don’t think Mr. Musk understood how to run a good research lab,” Altman told the court.
Court filings and testimony also revealed that Musk continued corresponding with OpenAI leadership after leaving the board. In one 2018 email presented during testimony, Musk wrote that OpenAI had “0%” chance of competing with Google DeepMind without dramatically increasing resources and spending billions annually.
Altman said the message remained “burned into my memory.”
OpenAI’s Origins Face Unprecedented Scrutiny
The trial has become one of the most consequential legal disputes in the AI industry because it directly examines how OpenAI evolved from a nonprofit research lab into one of the world’s most valuable private technology companies.
Musk argues OpenAI abandoned its original public-interest mission in favor of commercial expansion tied closely to Microsoft and large-scale investor funding. OpenAI has countered that evolving its structure was necessary to finance advanced AI development and compete against heavily funded rivals.
Testimony from current and former executives has exposed years of internal disagreements over governance, funding, safety priorities, and control of increasingly powerful AI systems.
Earlier in the trial, Sutskever testified that he had previously gathered evidence alleging Altman showed a “consistent pattern of lying” before Altman’s temporary removal as CEO in 2023. The court also heard testimony about previously undisclosed discussions involving a potential merger between OpenAI and rival Anthropic after Altman’s brief ouster.
AI Governance and Corporate Control Move into Public View
Beyond the personal conflict between Musk and Altman, the case highlights broader tensions shaping the AI industry as companies balance nonprofit ideals, investor demands, infrastructure costs, and control over frontier AI systems.
The enormous computing requirements associated with advanced AI development have pushed leading labs toward increasingly commercial models and deep partnerships with cloud providers and investors. At the same time, regulators, policymakers, and courts are beginning to examine how these organizations govern technologies that could have major economic and national security implications.
The outcome of the trial could influence how future AI companies structure governance, investor oversight, and nonprofit commitments as the industry continues consolidating around a small group of heavily capitalized firms.