Musk Admits to Financial Folly on the Stand
The testimony unfolded in an Oakland federal court, where Musk faced intense scrutiny from OpenAI’s lead attorney, William Savitt. During the cross-examination, Musk asserted that he provided approximately $38 million in funding to a nonprofit entity, which was subsequently leveraged to build a valuation now estimated at $800 billion for the current for-profit iteration.
Musk stated to the jury, “I actually was a fool who created free funding for them to create a startup. I literally was.” By framing himself as a deceived donor rather than a calculated investor, Musk aimed to bolster his legal argument that the transition to a for-profit model constituted a betrayal of the original mission.
The Funding Gap and Intangible Contributions
Attorney William Savitt utilized the courtroom proceedings to highlight a significant discrepancy between Musk’s actual donations and the “up to $1 billion” pledge he originally made during the company’s inception. Savitt pressed Musk on these shortfalls, challenging the narrative that his financial support was the primary driver of OpenAI’s existence.
In response, Musk contended that his contributions extended far beyond liquid capital. He argued that his reputation, professional network, and personal credibility were instrumental to the firm’s early success. According to Musk, when these intangible assets are factored into the equation, his total contribution exceeded $100 million in value.
The Role of Shivon Zilis and Internal Communications
The defense introduced evidence concerning Musk’s private communications with Shivon Zilis, who served on the OpenAI board and maintains personal ties to Musk. Savitt presented emails indicating that Zilis acted as an information conduit, providing Musk with updates on internal company developments long after he officially departed the board.
Furthermore, the trial revealed that Musk had been privy to internal discussions regarding potential restructuring options, including the possibility of converting OpenAI into a C Corporation. When questioned about whether he had explicitly ordered the filing of paperwork to finalize a for-profit transition, Musk testified that he did not recall issuing such instructions.
Strategic Competition and the Safety Argument
The proceedings also touched upon the competitive landscape, specifically regarding Musk’s own venture, xAI, which was now absorbed into SpaceX. Savitt suggested that Musk’s lawsuit serves as a tactical maneuver to hinder a primary competitor, a claim Musk vehemently denied despite acknowledging the company’s current market share disparity.
Musk maintained that his primary concern remains the safety implications of for-profit artificial intelligence development. He argued that the transition to a model with unlimited profit potential inherently creates systemic risks, regardless of the specific internal safety protocols employed by OpenAI leadership.
Implications and Future Testimony
The legal stakes remain exceptionally high as the trial progresses toward a potential resolution. As previously reported at the outset of this litigation, a 2017 diary entry from Greg Brockman, which suggested that early commitments to a nonprofit structure might have been insincere, remains a critical piece of evidence cited by the judge.
Looking ahead, the court expects to finalize the cross-examination of Musk before moving to testimony from Jared Birchall, who manages Musk’s family office. The jury’s advisory findings on liability will ultimately influence Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who holds the authority to decide on significant remedies, including the possible removal of OpenAI’s top leadership.
Follow Hashlytics on Bluesky, LinkedIn , Telegram and X to Get Instant Updates
