A single email from 2017 became a pivotal moment in the Musk v. Altman trial, exposing how Elon Musk actively recruited talent from OpenAI while simultaneously claiming he was trying to save the company's nonprofit mission. The message, sent to a Tesla vice president after hiring Andrej Karpathy, a founding member of OpenAI, contained a telling admission: "The OpenAI guys are gonna want to kill me. But it had to be done."

The email surfaced during cross-examination by OpenAI's lawyer, William Savitt, who was building a case that Musk was suing OpenAI not to protect AI safety, but to undermine a competitor. When confronted about the message in the Oakland federal courthouse, Musk appeared flustered and claimed Karpathy had already decided to leave OpenAI when he recruited him to work at Tesla. "I believe it's a free world," he said.

Why Did Musk's Recruitment Strategy Matter to the Trial?

Savitt's line of questioning suggested that Musk's actions contradicted his stated mission. If Musk was genuinely committed to OpenAI's nonprofit structure and AI safety mission, why would he be aggressively poaching its talent? The lawyer presented additional evidence that Musk had also instructed a Neuralink cofounder that they could "hire independently or directly from OpenAI." When pressed on this pattern, Musk again deflected, saying "It's a free country. I can't restrict their ability to hire people from other companies."

The trial, now in its first week, centers on a fundamental question: Is Musk genuinely trying to restore OpenAI to its original nonprofit structure to protect humanity from AI risks, or is he attempting to cripple a business rival? The Karpathy email suggested the latter interpretation had merit. Musk took the stand in a crisp black suit and tie, arguing that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman had deceived him into bankrolling the company with $38 million in essentially free funding, which they then used to create what would become an $800 billion company.

How Does Musk's Competitive Behavior Undermine His Safety Arguments?

Savitt systematically dismantled Musk's claim that he was a "paladin of safety and regulation." The lawyer pointed out that xAI, Musk's own AI company, sued the state of Colorado in April over an AI law designed to prevent algorithmic discrimination. More damaging still, Musk admitted under questioning that xAI uses OpenAI's technology. Specifically, he acknowledged that xAI "partly" distills OpenAI's models, a technique where a smaller AI model is trained to mimic the behavior of larger, more capable models so it can run faster and more cheaply while performing nearly as well. Some people in the courtroom gasped at this admission.

Musk defended the practice by saying "It is standard practice to use other AIs to validate your AI." However, the admission contradicted his narrative that xAI was not a real competitor to OpenAI. When asked directly, Musk claimed "We're not currently tracking to reach AGI first," referring to artificial general intelligence, or AI systems powerful enough to compete with humans on most cognitive tasks. Yet his own company's reliance on OpenAI's models suggested otherwise.

The trial has drawn significant public attention. The federal courthouse in Oakland was packed with armies of lawyers carrying boxes of exhibits, journalists typing away at their laptops, and a handful of concerned OpenAI employees. Outside, protesters lined the streets, carrying signs urging people to quit ChatGPT, boycott Tesla, or both.

What Are the Key Contradictions in Musk's Testimony?

• Nonprofit Commitment: Musk claimed he cofounded OpenAI in 2015 to create AI for the benefit of humanity, yet he discussed creating a for-profit subsidiary as early as 2017 and wanted majority control of it.
• Talent Recruitment: While positioning himself as OpenAI's protector, Musk actively recruited its founding members to his own companies, including Andrej Karpathy to Tesla and others to Neuralink.
• AI Safety Leadership: Musk argued he was a longtime advocate of AI safety, yet his own company xAI sued Colorado over an AI discrimination law and uses OpenAI's models to train its own systems.
• Competitive Intent: Musk denied xAI was a real competitor to OpenAI, but admitted it distills OpenAI's models and is expected to go public as part of SpaceX at a target valuation of $1.75 trillion.

Musk described three phases in his relationship with OpenAI. In phase one, he was "enthusiastically supportive" of the company. In phase two, "I started to lose confidence that they were telling me the truth." In phase three, "I'm sure they're looting the nonprofit." He pinpointed late 2022 as the moment he "lost trust in Altman," specifically when he learned that Microsoft would invest $10 billion in OpenAI. "I texted Sam Altman, 'What the hell is going on? This is a bait and switch,'" he told the jury.

Musk

The outcome of the trial could upend OpenAI's race toward an IPO at a valuation approaching $1 trillion. Meanwhile, xAI is expected to go public as a part of Musk's rocket company SpaceX as early as June. The case raises broader questions about whether tech billionaires can simultaneously claim to be stewards of AI safety while aggressively competing in the AI market.

Next week, Stuart Russell, a computer scientist at UC Berkeley, will testify about AI safety. Greg Brockman, OpenAI's president, who has been taking notes during Musk's testimony, will also take the stand. The trial continues to expose the personal and business tensions that have defined the AI industry's most contentious rivalry.