Following the presentation of closing arguments this week, jurors are now deliberating on whether OpenAI engaged in any misconduct during its transition to a "slightly-more-for-profit" organizational structure, a central issue in the legal dispute with Elon Musk.
As discussed on a recent episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast by Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and myself, a dominant theme in the trial’s concluding days revolved around the trustworthiness of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Specifically, Musk’s attorney, Steve Molo, rigorously questioned Altman regarding the veracity of statements he had made during congressional testimony.
Kirsten Korosec observed that Musk himself has made numerous misleading statements, suggesting that the issue of trust extends beyond just Altman.
She emphasized, “This is a fundamental question [for] a lot of tech journalists, policymakers, and more and more consumers, about all the AI labs. It’s really come down to trust, because we don’t have the insight, necessarily — these are all privately held companies, there’s a lot behind the veil still.”
Below is an excerpt from our conversation, edited for clarity and length.
Anthony Ha: The trial’s conclusion prompted a thought-provoking headline from our writer Tim Fernholz: “Who trusts Sam Altman?” I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Kirsten Korosec: Anthony, I’ll pose that question right back to you. Do you trust Sam Altman?
Anthony Ha: It’s an intriguing question, one that might seem unconventional in a journalistic setting, yet it has proven to be the very essence of the trial in many respects.
Sean O’Kane: That’s not a yes.
Anthony Ha: Indeed, it appears to be fundamental to understanding much of what has transpired at OpenAI, particularly the significant executive power struggle now referred to as “The Blip.”
It seems a considerable number of individuals who have collaborated with Altman harbor distrust. He has, to some extent, acknowledged this, recognizing his past conflict-averse tendencies and habit of telling people what they want to hear, and states he is actively working to address these traits.
While this explanation sounds plausible and I can appreciate how it might lead to misunderstandings, I too am a conflict-averse individual, and I would hope that if my actions ever led to a trial, the question of “Is Anthony Ha trustworthy?” would not be raised.
Sean O’Kane: Still not a yes!
Kirsten Korosec: I believe people would affirm your trustworthiness. While provocative, that question doesn't fully encompass the trial's scope. I would broaden the perspective to state this is a fundamental question for many tech journalists, policymakers, and an increasing number of consumers concerning all AI labs. It fundamentally boils down to trust, largely because we lack necessary insight—these are all privately held companies, with much remaining undisclosed.
Perhaps initial public offerings will eventually offer greater transparency, but the core issues remain trust, potential misuse, and the integrity of intent. I would also add that even noble and worthy intentions can lead to misuse, potentially resulting in significant complications. The inquiry extends beyond merely who trusts Sam Altman – though that was a compelling aspect of this trial – to a larger question applicable across the entire industry.
Sean O’Kane: I'll state it plainly: I don't trust him. However, I generally have a low level of trust in most people, so that’s my baseline perspective.
We await the outcome as the trial concludes today. I am keenly interested in the jury's verdict. From the outset, a significant motivator for this action appeared to be Elon Musk’s attempt to discredit a perceived rival and someone he felt had wronged him. It remains unclear whether this objective was fully achieved or if he has a strong chance of winning. Regardless, it seems all parties involved have emerged from this process with somewhat diminished public standing.
Anthony Ha: To be specific about why this issue arose this week, Altman was on the stand and was rigorously questioned about past statements made under oath to Congress, where he claimed to have no equity in OpenAI. This was inaccurate, as he held a stake through Y Combinator, which he formerly led. He attempted to dismiss this by stating, “I assume that everybody understands what it means to be a passive investor in a VC fund.” Elon Musk’s lawyer, quite reasonably, countered with, “Really? You think the congressman who was interviewing you knew that?”
Kirsten Korosec: Yes, he was clearly engaging in semantic maneuvering. What I found particularly insightful was the stark contrast in how Sam Altman answered questions compared to Elon Musk during their respective testimonies.
In numerous instances, Elon Musk has been known to publish false or misleading information on platforms like Twitter, only to correct the record while under oath. This suggests a history of, shall we say, non-truthfulness or outright fabrication in Musk’s public discourse. However, his demeanor in court was notably combative. Altman, in contrast, adopted a more conciliatory stance, expressing an attitude of “I’m working on it” and striving to appear affable. It remains to be seen if this approach will serve him well.
Ultimately, the decision should hinge on the core facts, and hopefully, the jury will focus on those. Nevertheless, I found the differing ways in which both individuals, having been untruthful, chose to address it, to be remarkably insightful.
The Editorial Staff at AIChief is a team of professional content writers with extensive experience in AI and marketing. Founded in 2025, AIChief has quickly grown into the largest free AI resource hub in the industry.