Elon Musk took the witness stand on Tuesday during the second day of his federal lawsuit against OpenAI, providing testimony that sheds light on his original vision for the artificial intelligence company and his grievances over its transformation into a for-profit enterprise. The trial, overseen by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, centers on Musk's allegation that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman reneged on promises to keep the company a nonprofit organization.

Musk is seeking damages after claiming his $38 million in contributions to OpenAI were used for unauthorized commercial purposes following the company's creation of a for-profit subsidiary after he left its board in 2018. While Musk initially sought up to $134 billion in personal damages, he has since adjusted his request to ask that any "ill-gotten gains" be directed to an OpenAI charity instead.

Why Did Elon Musk Start OpenAI in the First Place?

During his testimony, Musk repeatedly emphasized that his motivation for founding OpenAI had nothing to do with profit. Instead, he explained that he wanted to create a nonprofit, open-source alternative to Google because he believed the search giant was not taking artificial intelligence safety seriously enough. Musk said he got the idea after a heated argument with Google co-founder Larry Page, who Musk claimed called him "a speciesist for being pro-human" when discussing AI safety concerns.

Musk

"I could have started it as a for profit and I chose not to," Musk said on the stand.

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX

This testimony underscores a fundamental disagreement between Musk and OpenAI's leadership about the company's original charter. Musk's legal team argues that the company's transformation into a for-profit entity violated the foundational principles he helped establish.

What Are the Key Arguments in This High-Stakes Trial?

The trial features competing narratives about OpenAI's structure and intentions. Musk's lead attorney, Steven Molo, presented opening arguments emphasizing that Musk never intended to create a for-profit venture and that the company's pivot violated its original mission. Meanwhile, OpenAI's legal team, represented by attorney William Savitt, has characterized the lawsuit as a baseless "harassment campaign" and expressed confidence that "both the truth and the law are on our side".

During his testimony, Musk acknowledged that he was not entirely opposed to the creation of a small for-profit subsidiary, but only under specific conditions. He stated that he was comfortable with such a structure "as long as the tail didn't wag the dog," suggesting he believed the nonprofit mission should remain primary.

Musk

How to Understand the Stakes of This Lawsuit

• Financial Impact: The case involves Musk's $38 million in contributions to OpenAI and questions about how those funds were deployed after the company's structural changes in 2018.
• Governance Questions: The trial examines whether OpenAI's leadership violated commitments to maintain a nonprofit structure and whether the for-profit subsidiary became the dominant entity rather than a minor component.
• Industry Precedent: The outcome could influence how other AI companies structure themselves and whether founders can hold organizations accountable to stated missions after leadership transitions.

OpenAI has dismissed Musk's claims as baseless, and the company posted on X (formerly Twitter) that it "can't wait to make our case in court where both the truth and the law are on our side". The trial is being closely watched by the technology industry, given Musk's prominence as the world's richest person and his leadership of multiple high-profile companies including Tesla and SpaceX.

The proceedings represent a rare moment where the inner workings of one of the world's most influential AI companies are being examined in a public courtroom. Musk's testimony on day two provided the first detailed account of his perspective on OpenAI's founding principles and his understanding of how the company's structure was supposed to evolve. As the trial continues, additional witnesses and evidence will likely shed further light on the company's early agreements and the circumstances surrounding its transformation into a for-profit entity.