Sam Altman finally testified in the Musk v. OpenAI trial, and according to The Verge AI, he came across as credible enough that the jury appeared to warm to him. After two weeks of witnesses painting him as a manipulator, Altman took the stand in what The Verge AI describes as “nice kid from St. Louis” mode, calmly rejecting the claim that he stole a charity. “We created, through a ton of hard work, this extremely large charity, and I agree you can’t steal it,” he told the court, before adding that “Mr. Musk did try to kill it, I guess. Twice.”
This is the biggest courtroom moment yet for the lawsuit shaping the future of OpenAI, and Altman’s performance matters because the entire case hinges on whether jurors believe his version of how the for-profit arm came together.
The core of Altman’s defense
Altman’s story, as relayed by The Verge AI, is that Musk wanted total control of any OpenAI for-profit entity and walked away when he didn’t get it. According to Altman’s testimony:
- Musk insisted on “total control” of the for-profit arm because “he only trusted himself to make non-obvious decisions.”
- When asked about succession, Musk allegedly said control of OpenAI “should pass to my children” if he died.
- Altman pointed to SpaceX, not Meta, as his cautionary example of founder control through supervoting structures.
- A 2017 email from Altman to Shivon Zilis reads: “I am worried about control. I don’t think any one person should have control of the world’s first AGI.”
What stands out here is that Altman’s account is backed by contemporaneous documents. The Verge AI notes that while Altman has a well-documented reputation for shading the truth (The New Yorker once published 17,000 words on the subject), the paper trail on this specific dispute mostly lines up with what he said on the stand.
The Tesla recruitment angle
One of the more revealing exchanges involved Musk’s attempt to absorb OpenAI’s talent into Tesla. Altman testified that he read a “lightweight threat” in messages from Musk’s chief of staff Sam Teller, who suggested Musk would build AI inside Tesla with or without the OpenAI team.
The Verge AI also surfaced a 12:40 AM message from Teller to Zilis in February 2018: “I don’t love OpenAI continuing without Elon. Would rather disable it by recruiting the leaders.” That single line reframes the breakup as something closer to a hostile move than a clean exit.
Why it matters for the AI industry
This trial isn’t just billionaire drama. The verdict could determine:
- Whether OpenAI’s for-profit conversion stands. A loss for Altman could destabilize the corporate structure now valued in the hundreds of billions.
- How nonprofit-to-for-profit pivots get scrutinized. Other AI labs watching this case are taking notes on what disclosure standards courts will enforce.
- The credibility of founder narratives. Both Altman and Musk have reputations for selective truth-telling, and the jury’s read on who’s lying more will set precedent for how Silicon Valley feuds get litigated.
The cross-examination was rough. Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo spent over 10 minutes reading off names of people who’ve called Altman a liar, including Ilya Sutskever, Mira Murati, Helen Toner, and the Amodei siblings. That list alone is its own kind of evidence.
But The Verge AI’s read is that Musk’s legal team has shown “fairly shoddy lawyering” throughout, while Altman’s documentary record has mostly held up. Winning the day on the stand isn’t the same as winning the case, though. Juries are unpredictable, and Altman’s history of slipperiness on other matters could still color how this one lands.
Closing arguments and the verdict will tell the rest of the story. More details at the original source.