The Real Losers of the Musk v. Altman Trial
The lawyers delivered the closure arguments in the Musk vs. Altman Lawsuit Thursday in a final attempt to convince a judge and jury that their respective clients, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, are the most well-meaning and honest stewards of OpenAI’s nonprofit founding mission. A ruling could be handed down as soon as next week, ending a decade-long battle between two of the tech sector’s most influential entrepreneurs.
But whatever the outcome, there are a lot of losers in this matter. Based on ample evidence, it appears that the people worst off are employees, policymakers, and members of the public who believed in the mission of a nonprofit research lab and supported OpenAI for that reason. What seemed to be a precedent for Musk and the other co-founders of OpenAI, at almost every moment, was to build the world. leading An AI lab, even if it meant creating a multi-billion dollar for-profit company.
“It’s difficult to see how the public interest is protected by any of these parties, and that’s really what’s ultimately at stake in a nonprofit case,” says Jill Horwitz, a law professor at Northwestern University with expertise in nonprofits and innovation, who listened to the closing arguments. “The public interest in nonprofit organization is at risk, regardless of who wins.” »
OpenAI’s stated mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits humanity, but humanity is not a party to this. In practice, OpenAI has spent the last decade trying to compete with multi-billion dollar companies like Google and building AGI first. Additionally, Musk and Altman fought tooth and nail to control OpenAI.
“Musk and Altman are basically in a race to be the first to build superintelligence, and they both rightly fear what the other will do if they win. The rest of us should fear them both,” says Daniel Kokotajlo, a former OpenAI researcher who joined OpenAI in 2022 and has raised concerns about the company’s security culture. He was part of a group of former OpenAI researchers who filed an amicus brief in this case against OpenAI’s conversion to for-profit, arguing that the nonprofit structure was essential in their decision to join the company.
During the trial, OpenAI’s non-profit organization was discussed as if it were another corporate investor. OpenAI’s lawyers have argued that giving the nonprofit a $200 billion stake in the for-profit company is proof that OpenAI is fulfilling its mission. Public advocacy groups disagree that funding alone is enough.
“I’m one of many people who is happy to see how many philanthropic resources the OpenAI Foundation has to do good work,” said Nathan Calvin, vice president of state affairs for the AI security nonprofit Encode, which filed an amicus brief opposing OpenAI’s restructuring earlier in this case. “But it’s worth remembering that the nonprofit also has a governance role and the mission of the nonprofit is not that of a typical foundation, it is specifically about ensuring that AGI benefits all humanity. Money is important to that goal and is useful all things equal, but it is not the goal in itself.”
Origin story
Evidence revealed in this case suggests that Altman and Musk were in agreement about launching OpenAI as a non-profit organization and operating much like a typical startup. They shared the goal of beating Google DeepMind in the AGI race. But creating OpenAI as a nonprofit turned out to be a terribly awkward way to win that race.
Musk accused OpenAI CEO Altman and Greg Brockman, its co-founder and chairman, of straying from the nonprofit’s founding mission. He claims the founders used his $38 million investment to turn OpenAI into an $850 billion company and make several of its co-founders billionaires.
