A trial that may shape the future of OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, is now in its final stage, with a lawyer for Elon Musk asking a federal jury to hold the company’s leadership responsible for “betraying the mission of the organization” to create open-source AI tools. The case has garnered a lot of attention from both the tech industry and AI ethicists and focuses on the alleged shift of OpenAI and its Chief Executive Sam Altman from its original charitable mission to creating safe artificial intelligence for the greater good to a mission of self-enrichment.
During the last few days in an Oakland, California federal courtroom, jurors have heard starkly conflicting versions of what was driving the two tech giants. OpenAI’s response has always been that the for-profit business model has amplified its strength and ability to achieve its safety mission. They note that they are still shareholders in the new corporate entity, though it is the nonprofit. The other group of people that Altman’s folks were alluding to were also suggesting that Musk’s genuine complaint was not about mission creep, but about losing control: He wanted to be the one controlling OpenAI, and sued only when he didn’t.
However, in his closing argument on Thursday, attorney Steven Molo got the jury focused on Altman’s honesty. Molo noted that witnesses have testified that Altman was dishonest in business dealings. “Credibility is an issue here,” Molo added, telling jurors to “use common sense” when evaluating what the CEO has said. His point to the court was that in the case of hundreds of millions of dollars and the course of a transformative technology, a leader’s word is important. He challenged the jury’s trust for a man who had come across as deceptive in his leadership of an organization that was supposed to be “transparent and public good.
The entire trial has been marked by intense cross-examinations in the courtroom. One of the more explosive moments of the week was when Altman was directly asked by Molo, with a previous video interview with the OpenAI chief playing onscreen. The sketch in the courtroom showed Altman taking a few questions quickly on how he was affecting the restructuring of the company. The trial has sparked greater discussion about their motivations: Is it a principled defense of the safety of AI, or a vendetta against Musk, and does the for-profit route offer the best interests of humankind or the narrow interests of a few insiders and investors?
Lawyers on both sides will soon debate what remediation should take place if the case heads to a jury verdict, in favor of Musk. That might include monetary compensation or court-manding alterations to OpenAI’s oversight, which could lead to changes in its for-profit business model, and even its dissolution. The broader story of the AI sector could prove to be a precedent on how to leverage charitable trusts for technology, and when the founders and donors can hold leaders accountable for changes to the mission.
It’s not clear how jurors will balance the competing accounts. On the other hand, Musk’s team has outlined a very clear plan: a not-for-profit born on a foundation of safety, which was followed by a gradual transition toward profitability and finally huge investments by Microsoft. OpenAI, on the flip side, has a solid point to make, namely that a nonprofit foundation alone would never have afforded the research and computing power to compete in the international arena, and the cost of capital is tremendous. This trial has garnered mixed reactions from a lot of the tech community, who are on the one hand deeply concerned by Musk’s idealism, but also understand that idealism doesn’t exactly cover rent or bring in the best talent.
