Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI made their closing arguments this week, and it will be up to jurors to decide whether OpenAI, which has now morphed into a slightly more profit-driven organization, did anything wrong.
But as Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I noted in the latest episode of the TechCrunch Equity podcast, the biggest topic of the trial’s final days was whether OpenAI CEO Sam Altman could be trusted. For example, Musk’s attorney Steve Molo questioned whether statements Altman made in his congressional testimony were truthful.
Kirsten pointed out that Musk has made many misleading statements of his own and that trust isn’t just an issue for Altman.
“This is a fundamental question for all AI labs for many technology journalists, policymakers, and increasingly consumers,” she said. “It really requires trust because we don’t have the insight. These are all private companies and there is still a lot behind the veil.”
Continue reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
Anthony Ha: (As the trial concluded) there came a really provocative headline from one of our writers, Tim Fernholz. (That means) “Who believes Sam Altman?” Does anyone want to answer this?
Kirsten Korosek: Yes, Anthony, I’ll give it back to you right away. Do you believe Sam Altman?
Anthony: It’s an interesting question because it feels like a rather absurd question to discuss in a journalistic context, but it’s actually, in many ways, the heart of the trial.
Sean O’Kane: That’s not ‘yes’.
Anthony: And this actually seems to be the key to understanding much of what happened at OpenAI, especially the massive executive power struggle we now call The Blip.
Many people who worked with Altman don’t seem to trust him. And he acknowledged this to some extent. Because he’ll talk about the fact that he hates conflict and recognizes that he’s telling people what they want to hear and working on that.
I mean, it sounds plausible, and I can understand how that could lead to misunderstandings in some situations. (But) I’m also a person who hates conflict, and I’d like to think that if any of this goes to trial, people won’t ask, “Can you trust Anthony Ha?”
Sean: Still not!
Kirsten: I think people will say you are trustworthy. I would say that while that question is provocative, it does not simply sum up what this trial is about. I’d like to expand even further and say that this is, for many technology journalists, policymakers, and increasingly consumers, a fundamental question for all AI labs. It actually requires trust because we don’t necessarily have insight. These are all privately held companies and there is still a lot behind the veil.
Maybe we’ll all get a glimpse of it when it IPOs, but this is fundamentally about trust and misuse, and do we trust the intent? And the point I want to make again is that intentions, while sometimes valuable and noble, can still be misused. It could still end up being a bit of a shit show. I think it’s more important than who trusts Sam Altman. Although this trial was very interesting, the larger questions that apply to the industry as a whole are more important.
Sean: I will say this: I don’t trust him. But you know, I don’t trust most people. So I think it’s just a baseline.
Let’s see where this goes. The trial concludes today. I was very curious to hear how the jury decided all this. I think a big motivation when this started was Elon Musk’s desire to throw mud at anyone he perceived as a competitor and who he felt was disrespecting him. And I don’t know if we know enough yet to say that’s been fully accomplished, and whether he’s even likely to win. But I think all these people came out a little bit worse.
Anthony: More specifically, the reason this story is coming up this week is because (Altman) was on the stand and was basically criticized for some comments he had made in the past in his testimony to (Congress). Basically he said he has no equity in OpenAI. And this is not true because he held his shares through Y Combinator, which he ran. And he tried to ignore it by saying, “I assume everyone understands what it means to be a passive investor in a VC fund.” And I think (Elon Musk’s) lawyer said, somewhat fairly, “Really? Do you think the congressman who interviewed you knew that?”
Kirsten: Yeah, I mean, he was playing the whole semantics game. What I found most interesting was Sam Altman’s style of answering questions on the stand compared to Elon Musk.
So Elon Musk can point to the fact that in many, many, many scenarios and many, many instances, he has posted lies or little lies on Twitter and then corrected the record on the stand. So there’s a history in Elon Musk’s world of untruths, slash lies, blatant or otherwise, but the way he’s dealt with it has been incredibly combative and he’s actually taken this (attitude) as “I’m trying” and tried to seem somewhat affable, and I don’t know if that’s going to work for him.
Because it really comes down to the core facts, and you want the jury to pay attention to those. But I thought it was really interesting. Neither is true, but the way they handled it was very different.
If you purchase through links in our articles, we may receive a small commission. This does not affect our editorial independence.
