×
Review: The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 foldable is almost too much fun

Review: The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 foldable is almost too much fun

The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip7 is a story of something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue. The blue part is easy — my review sample, provided by Samsung, is the Blue Shadow colorway. The highlight of the phone is definitely the “something new.” Samsung massively updated its pocket-sized foldable phone with a huge cover screen. At 4.1 inches, it’s the largest external display on a flip-style phone to date.

“Something borrowed” comes in the form of the Exynos processor that lives inside the phone. Past versions of Galaxy Z Flips in international markets have been powered by Exynos silicon in the past, but U.S. phones have typically had Snapdragon hardware from Qualcomm, which we strongly prefer. The “borrowed label” is my hope that Samsung will go back to Snapdragon hardware in the future — more on that later.

Finally, “Something old” — one of my biggest frustrations with the phone, which is a little bit better this year (but honestly not that much better than the Galaxy Z Flip6). It has to do with the way apps appear on the external display (what Samsung calls the Cover Screen) and Samsung’s refusal to treat that beautiful canvas like a proper screen. It’s a little maddening, though it didn’t stop me from having fun with the phone.

Shortly after Samsung unveiled the Z Flip 7 (and its incredibly thin older sibling, the excellent Galaxy Z Fold 7) this July, I hit the road to sunny (and devastatingly hot) St. Louis, home of the Gateway Arch, Six Flags, and Meremec caverns. Over the course of five days, I put this “AI Flip Phone” through the ringer for my Galaxy Z Flip 7 review.

The Galaxy Z Flip 7 is the Flex you think it is

Before I dive into the hardware, I need to discuss the highlight. Samsung — finally — responded to market pressure in the U.S. (and abroad) by bringing a large Cover Screen display to its flip phone, and thank goodness. The previous two generations also had larger screens, but they had odd notches in them to accommodate the camera modules, while everyone else was just cutting the display around the cameras.

One of the first things you should do when you get this phone is enable apps to run on this display. The problem is, it takes 13 steps to do it, and unless you’re a geek (which, admittedly, if you’re reading this review, you might be), most people won’t bother. That’s fair, but you’ll be going into this fight with one hand tied behind your back.

The Z Flip 7 has a larger external display with ultra-thin bezels.
Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

The 4.1-inch AMOLED screen is large, gorgeous, and should absolutely be used to the fullest. Like the main display, it has 2,600 nits of peak brightness and a 120 Hz refresh rate. Not all apps can handle the Cover Screen (confusingly, Samsung also refers to this screen as the Flex display and/or FlexWindow), but many of them will. The good news: once you do those 13 steps, you’re done fiddling with settings. You can simply add the apps that you want. The bad news: Samsung doesn’t really want you to do it at all. You might be wondering what I mean by that.

A hobbled experience

If Samsung wanted you to run apps on your home screen, it wouldn’t require you to go into the Labs section of your settings and install a separate app from the Galaxy store to do it. It wouldn’t force you to use the Samsung keyboard on the Flex display, with its lack of voice typing, regardless of which keyboard is your default keyboard (Gboard FTW). Plus, if I had to see “open your phone to continue” one more time, I was ready to throw the phone out the window while riding in a car through central Illinois.

samsung z flip 7 displays message that reads 'open phone to continue'


Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

Everything from adding apps to the launcher to setting up widgets, to reordering widgets, all has to be done with the phone open, for some reason. It makes me sad.

Once you work around those picadillos and get down to business, the cover screen itself is lovely. Most apps work well on there, including Gemini and Gemini Live, which is a fun way to work with Google’s AI. The display also goes right up to the edge of the phone.

The rest of the hardware

Samsung built a really solid phone here, and it’s great to use. The casing is armor aluminum, and the hinge has been redesigned this year, slimming down the phone just a bit. The hardware is more squared off than Motorola’s Razr, which can make one-handed opening a little harder. But it’s tight and functional. When you close the phone, you will do so with one of the most satisfying “Thwaps” you’ve ever heard. Speaking of which, it makes hanging up on people way more satisfying than it already was. 

the samsung z Flip 7 in a hand at a six flags park

While using the phone, you won’t notice the hinge on the main display.
Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

The buttons on the side of the phone aren’t raised by much, which can make it hard to locate them without looking. I often missed the fingerprint sensor in the power button because I had trouble finding it. But the rest of the hardware is absolutely solid. The 6.9-inch AMOLED main screen is also larger than previous generations at 6.9 inches. The screen has the same teardrop shape closing that minimizes the crease, which you can see but won’t care about.

The phone is powered by a 4,300 mAh battery that’s just 100 mAh smaller than its larger sibling, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7. As such, it can easily last all day, especially if you perform most tasks on the cover screen. I noticed the phone tended to run hot, but only when I was already outside baking in a water park or at the St. Louis Zoo, so I suspect the weather was just as likely at fault as the phone itself.

The software on the inside

Having talked about the software on the cover screen, the software when open is… basically the same as any other Samsung phone. OneUI 8.0 is built onto Android 16, making these phones the first to ship with Android’s latest operating system. That’s no surprise — Google and Samsung have been joined at the hip for a while now. OneUI 7 was a divisive operating system because a lot of Samsung users liked how their phones worked before it rolled out (my wife among them).

Personally, I loved OneUI 7.0 because it brought back the vertical scrolling app drawer and the Pill, which apes Apple’s Dynamic Island in a lot of great ways. OneUI 8 adds all those benefits and takes things a step further, bringing 90:10 multitasking to the phones. What that means is you can run two apps, one on top and one underneath, but you can move the separator so you only see 10 percent of one of the apps. Tap that 10 percent and the app pops up to become the 90 percent, and vice versa. It works better on the Galaxy Z Fold 7, but it’s also quite nice on the Flip 7. 

samsung galaxy z Flip 7 taking pictures


Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

When you half-fold the Flip, you activate Flex Mode, which lets you make the most of the foldable design. In Flex Mode, the app lives in the top half of the screen, and the bottom half becomes a sort of control panel in supported apps. In YouTube, for example, the bottom half gets a play bar and play controls, which is pretty neat.

I also love that Dex is available on the Flip7. Samsung Dex basically turns your phone into a CPU when you connect a monitor, mouse, and keyboard to it. It gives you a windows interface similar to Windows. I spent some time with Dex on my trip to St Louis, but most of the time I’m using Dex is on long-haul flights, getting some work done with a set of Xreal One glasses. Now that is a rollicking good time and I’m happy Samsung’s smaller foldable has that capability.

We have to talk about the AI

galaxy z flip 7 in hand


Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

The Flip 7 has a lot of the same AI tricks as other Samsung phones, including camera tricks and AI photo editing, such as moving subjects around or using generative AI to fill in the background. Two notable improvements include Gemini on the Flex screen, including Gemini Live. That’s a nice bonus. Gemini Live also works with the external camera (when the phone is open, to be clear) to become multimodal. At the St. Louis Zoo, I could point the camera at an animal and ask what I was looking at, and in every case, it was correct, which was surprising, to be perfectly honest.

What was a little annoying was how chatty Gemini Live would get. “That’s an Asian Elephant! You can tell by the size of the ears. Would you like to know more about the Asian elephant? Do you have any questions about it? Please for the love of all things holy talk to me!” That’s not an exact quote, but you get the point.

The other AI features, like Samsung’s Now bar, also appear on the Flex screen, even if the Now Brief is still less than good. It still returns news stories that aren’t relevant to me. It kept me up to date with the weather even as I traveled, so that was nice, but I still don’t have much use for it.

Battery life and performance

The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 comes with an Exynos 2500 processor built on a 3nm process, similar to flagship processors from Qualcomm and Mediatek. This is Samsung’s homegrown silicon. What’s odd this year is that all Flip 7s will be sporting the Exynos processor. In the past, Z Flip phones sold overseas had Exynos while the U.S. versions had Snapdragon processors. Because of this, we know that Snapdragon usually outperforms Exynos. This year, we can’t make that comparison, but it’s fair to say history is not on Samsung’s side.

Geekbench is a benchmark tool you can use to get an idea of how a processor performs. Geekbench returns scores of 2,354/7,340 single/multi-core scores on the Flip 7. For context, the Snapdragon 8 Elite in the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 returns a 2,430/8,823 score, so it doesn’t exactly blow it out of the water. Day to day, the only real stutters I noted were in the camera software occasionally, and sometimes when running multiple windows in Dex. They were minor hiccups, but still noteworthy.

running a geekbench performance test on a galaxy z flip 7


Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

As for battery life, despite spending all day, most days out and about, away from Wi-Fi and in hot temperatures besides, the phone never died before bedtime. I wouldn’t call this a multi-day phone, but it’s very not bad, and you’ll get a lot more mileage out of it if you use the cover screen as often as possible.

Cameras are as good as your lighting

There are three cameras on this phone, but you’ll only really ever need to use two of them.

To be honest, I didn’t find much use for the 10MP selfie camera.

One of the key benefits to using a flip-style foldable phone is the ability to turn the Cover Screen into a preview window for taking selfies. The hinge is very rigid, so you can even use the phone as its own tripod and use gesture controls to take photos and videos. I took a bunch of fun selfies at the St. Louis Arch, Meremec caverns, and all points in between using that flex hinge, and I got some great shots. You can also hold the camera half open at a 90-degree angle for a camcorder grip if you’re nostalgic (a feature you’ll also find in the Motorola Razr Ultra). 

author adam doud taking a selfie with z flip 7

Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

author adam doud taking a selfie with z flip 7

Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

The results you get will be highly dependent on your lighting conditions. For example, at Six Flags during the day, my shots were brilliant. Meremec Caverns and the St. Louis aquarium were both a bit hit or miss. I would recommend that if you’re in low-light conditions, take a lot of shots (to increase your odds of getting a good one) and make sure your subjects are as still as possible. Photos of stalactites are going to be very good. Photos of the people standing in front of them, not so much.

The camera software offers shots of up to 10x, but you will never want to go that high. In my experience, the 4x zoom is usable; at 10x you lose all depth and texture. The shots might be OK for social media, but in general, you’ll want to avoid those. As often as not, they’re not good.

photo of a cherry red hot rod

Left:
Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

Right:
Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

st. louis arch on sunny day

Left:
Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

Right:
Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

I also saw a surprising amount of grain in a lot of my lower-light shots. Samsung is usually pretty good at cleaning those things up in low light, but even some of the daytime shots, particularly ultrawide and macroshots, ended up grainy in darker areas.

Shooting video is much the same, though less forgiving. Low-light video is not terrible with the main camera, but don’t move or walk while shooting. The judder gets pretty bad when you start walking. Good shots are possible in the dark, but that’s more the exception than the rule.

close-up portrait-mode photograph of an orchid flower


Credit: Adam Doud / Mashable

Overall, this is a pretty good camera setup that does very well in the day, and even when the sun is starting to go down. Find yourself in a cave — as one does — and your results will fall into the range of “mixed bag” down to “dumpster fire.”

So, is the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 worth it?

Flip phones are really fun. I love using them, especially when taking selfies with the main camera. You can do that with the Fold 7, but holding that phone open is awkward. Holding a tiny little pocket square in your hand is so much easier and a much better experience. For $1,099, I think you will like this phone, too. Plus, it’s cheaper than its primary competition, the Motorola Razr Ultra, which has a comparable camera and a higher price tag.

There are some corners cut here. The Exynos processor is not bad (Motorola’s flagship foldable has a Snapdragon processor), but not the best you can buy. I can’t hate on Samsung’s cover screen software too much because it’s a curated experience that Samsung wants you to have, and it really only makes me sad because I’m a nerd. The cameras are very good for this category, though it wouldn’t hurt Samsung to take some notes from overseas competitors.

So, should you buy the Z Flip 7? Again, if you’re a fan of the form factor, this is the most compelling foldable on offer here in the United States. If you’re already looking at something like the Samsung Galaxy S25 Plus, this one folds in half for only $100 more. I like what Samsung has finally done here, catching up to its contemporaries and restarting a competition war in which the consumer will ultimately win.

Where to buy the Galaxy Z Flip 7

You can buy the Z Flip 7 at Samsung, Amazon, and Best Buy (or just about any place that sells phones) for $1,099.99. The base version only comes with 256GB of storage, but if you pick up this phone at Amazon, you can get a $200 gift card at no extra cost, which is hard to argue with.

At Samsung Galaxy Unpacked, Samsung also debuted a mid-range version of the F Flip 7, following Motorola’s lead. The Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE offers most of the same features for $899.99.

Source link
#Review #Samsung #Galaxy #Flip #foldable #fun

Today’s Wordle answer should be easy to solve if you don’t keep up with the latest trends.

If you just want to be told today’s word, you can jump to the bottom of this article for today’s Wordle solution revealed. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

Where did Wordle come from?

Originally created by engineer Josh Wardle as a gift for his partner, Wordle rapidly spread to become an international phenomenon, with thousands of people around the globe playing every day. Alternate Wordle versions created by fans also sprang up, including battle royale Squabble, music identification game Heardle, and variations like Dordle and Quordle that make you guess multiple words at once

Wordle eventually became so popular that it was purchased by the New York Times, and TikTok creators even livestream themselves playing.

What’s the best Wordle starting word?

The best Wordle starting word is the one that speaks to you. But if you prefer to be strategic in your approach, we have a few ideas to help you pick a word that might help you find the solution faster. One tip is to select a word that includes at least two different vowels, plus some common consonants like S, T, R, or N.

What happened to the Wordle archive?

The entire archive of past Wordle puzzles was originally available for anyone to enjoy whenever they felt like it, but it was later taken down, with the website’s creator stating it was done at the request of the New York Times. However, the New York Times then rolled out its own Wordle Archive, available only to NYT Games subscribers.

Is Wordle getting harder?

It might feel like Wordle is getting harder, but it actually isn’t any more difficult than when it first began. You can turn on Wordle‘s Hard Mode if you’re after more of a challenge, though.

Here’s a subtle hint for today’s Wordle answer:

Drab.

Mashable 101 Fan Fave: Vote for your favorite creators today

Does today’s Wordle answer have a double letter?

The letter D appears twice.

Today’s Wordle is a 5-letter word that starts with…

Today’s Wordle starts with the letter D.

The Wordle answer today is…

Get your last guesses in now, because it’s your final chance to solve today’s Wordle before we reveal the solution.

Drumroll please!

The solution to today’s Wordle is…

DOWDY

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be a new Wordle for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints. Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

Reporting by Chance Townsend, Caitlin Welsh, Sam Haysom, Amanda Yeo, Shannon Connellan, Cecily Mauran, Mike Pearl, and Adam Rosenberg contributed to this article.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Wordle.

#Wordle #today #answer #hints">Wordle today: The answer and hints for May 13, 2026
                                            
                                                            Today’s Wordle answer should be easy to solve if you don’t keep up with the latest trends.If you just want to be told today’s word, you can jump to the bottom of this article for today’s Wordle solution revealed. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.
        SEE ALSO:
        
            Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more: Play games on Mashable
            
        
    

        SEE ALSO:
        
            NYT Connections hints today: Clues, answers for May 13, 2026
            
        
    
Where did Wordle come from?Originally created by engineer Josh Wardle as a gift for his partner, Wordle rapidly spread to become an international phenomenon, with thousands of people around the globe playing every day. Alternate Wordle versions created by fans also sprang up, including battle royale Squabble, music identification game Heardle, and variations like Dordle and Quordle that make you guess multiple words at once. Wordle eventually became so popular that it was purchased by the New York Times, and TikTok creators even livestream themselves playing.What’s the best Wordle starting word?The best Wordle starting word is the one that speaks to you. But if you prefer to be strategic in your approach, we have a few ideas to help you pick a word that might help you find the solution faster. One tip is to select a word that includes at least two different vowels, plus some common consonants like S, T, R, or N.What happened to the Wordle archive?The entire archive of past Wordle puzzles was originally available for anyone to enjoy whenever they felt like it, but it was later taken down, with the website’s creator stating it was done at the request of the New York Times. However, the New York Times then rolled out its own Wordle Archive, available only to NYT Games subscribers. Is Wordle getting harder?It might feel like Wordle is getting harder, but it actually isn’t any more difficult than when it first began. You can turn on Wordle‘s Hard Mode if you’re after more of a challenge, though.
        SEE ALSO:
        
            NYT Pips hints, answers for May 13, 2026
            
        
    
Here’s a subtle hint for today’s Wordle answer:Drab.
        
            Mashable Top Stories
        
        
    
Mashable 101 Fan Fave: Vote for your favorite creators todayDoes today’s Wordle answer have a double letter?The letter D appears twice.Today’s Wordle is a 5-letter word that starts with…Today’s Wordle starts with the letter D.
        SEE ALSO:
        
            Wordle-obsessed? These are the best word games to play IRL.
            
        
    
The Wordle answer today is…Get your last guesses in now, because it’s your final chance to solve today’s Wordle before we reveal the solution.Drumroll please!The solution to today’s Wordle is…DOWDYDon’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be a new Wordle for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints. Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.Reporting by Chance Townsend, Caitlin Welsh, Sam Haysom, Amanda Yeo, Shannon Connellan, Cecily Mauran, Mike Pearl, and Adam Rosenberg contributed to this article.If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Wordle.

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #Wordle #today #answer #hints

Wordle answer should be easy to solve if you don’t keep up with the latest trends.

If you just want to be told today’s word, you can jump to the bottom of this article for today’s Wordle solution revealed. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

Where did Wordle come from?

Originally created by engineer Josh Wardle as a gift for his partner, Wordle rapidly spread to become an international phenomenon, with thousands of people around the globe playing every day. Alternate Wordle versions created by fans also sprang up, including battle royale Squabble, music identification game Heardle, and variations like Dordle and Quordle that make you guess multiple words at once

Wordle eventually became so popular that it was purchased by the New York Times, and TikTok creators even livestream themselves playing.

What’s the best Wordle starting word?

The best Wordle starting word is the one that speaks to you. But if you prefer to be strategic in your approach, we have a few ideas to help you pick a word that might help you find the solution faster. One tip is to select a word that includes at least two different vowels, plus some common consonants like S, T, R, or N.

What happened to the Wordle archive?

The entire archive of past Wordle puzzles was originally available for anyone to enjoy whenever they felt like it, but it was later taken down, with the website’s creator stating it was done at the request of the New York Times. However, the New York Times then rolled out its own Wordle Archive, available only to NYT Games subscribers.

Is Wordle getting harder?

It might feel like Wordle is getting harder, but it actually isn’t any more difficult than when it first began. You can turn on Wordle‘s Hard Mode if you’re after more of a challenge, though.

Here’s a subtle hint for today’s Wordle answer:

Drab.

Mashable 101 Fan Fave: Vote for your favorite creators today

Does today’s Wordle answer have a double letter?

The letter D appears twice.

Today’s Wordle is a 5-letter word that starts with…

Today’s Wordle starts with the letter D.

The Wordle answer today is…

Get your last guesses in now, because it’s your final chance to solve today’s Wordle before we reveal the solution.

Drumroll please!

The solution to today’s Wordle is…

DOWDY

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be a new Wordle for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints. Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

Reporting by Chance Townsend, Caitlin Welsh, Sam Haysom, Amanda Yeo, Shannon Connellan, Cecily Mauran, Mike Pearl, and Adam Rosenberg contributed to this article.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Wordle.

#Wordle #today #answer #hints">Wordle today: The answer and hints for May 13, 2026

Today’s Wordle answer should be easy to solve if you don’t keep up with the latest trends.

If you just want to be told today’s word, you can jump to the bottom of this article for today’s Wordle solution revealed. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

Where did Wordle come from?

Originally created by engineer Josh Wardle as a gift for his partner, Wordle rapidly spread to become an international phenomenon, with thousands of people around the globe playing every day. Alternate Wordle versions created by fans also sprang up, including battle royale Squabble, music identification game Heardle, and variations like Dordle and Quordle that make you guess multiple words at once

Wordle eventually became so popular that it was purchased by the New York Times, and TikTok creators even livestream themselves playing.

What’s the best Wordle starting word?

The best Wordle starting word is the one that speaks to you. But if you prefer to be strategic in your approach, we have a few ideas to help you pick a word that might help you find the solution faster. One tip is to select a word that includes at least two different vowels, plus some common consonants like S, T, R, or N.

What happened to the Wordle archive?

The entire archive of past Wordle puzzles was originally available for anyone to enjoy whenever they felt like it, but it was later taken down, with the website’s creator stating it was done at the request of the New York Times. However, the New York Times then rolled out its own Wordle Archive, available only to NYT Games subscribers.

Is Wordle getting harder?

It might feel like Wordle is getting harder, but it actually isn’t any more difficult than when it first began. You can turn on Wordle‘s Hard Mode if you’re after more of a challenge, though.

Here’s a subtle hint for today’s Wordle answer:

Drab.

Mashable 101 Fan Fave: Vote for your favorite creators today

Does today’s Wordle answer have a double letter?

The letter D appears twice.

Today’s Wordle is a 5-letter word that starts with…

Today’s Wordle starts with the letter D.

The Wordle answer today is…

Get your last guesses in now, because it’s your final chance to solve today’s Wordle before we reveal the solution.

Drumroll please!

The solution to today’s Wordle is…

DOWDY

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be a new Wordle for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints. Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

Reporting by Chance Townsend, Caitlin Welsh, Sam Haysom, Amanda Yeo, Shannon Connellan, Cecily Mauran, Mike Pearl, and Adam Rosenberg contributed to this article.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Wordle.

#Wordle #today #answer #hints

After two weeks of hearing from assorted witnesses that he was a lying snake, the jury finally heard from the lying snake himself: Sam Altman. At the end of the testimony, his lawyer William Savitt asked him how it felt to be accused of stealing a charity.

“We created, through a ton of hard work, this extremely large charity, and I agree you can’t steal it,” Altman said. “Mr. Musk did try to kill it, I guess. Twice.”

Altman was fully in “nice kid from St. Louis” mode, and did a passable impression of a man who was bewildered at what was happening to him. When he stepped down from the stand holding a stack of evidence binders, he even looked a little like a schoolboy. He seemed nervous at the beginning of his direct testimony, though he warmed up fairly quickly. Overall, he seemed to give credible testimony — and at times, it seemed like the jury liked him.

Throughout this trial I’ve had some difficulty imagining what the jury is making of all this because I am a little too familiar with the figures who are testifying. I have heard some audacious lies under oath, like when Elon Musk told us all he doesn’t lose his temper. (He then proceeded to lose his temper on cross-examination.) Or like when Shivon Zilis, the mother of several of his children, told us that she didn’t know Musk was starting xAI — which seemed to be directly contradicted by her text messages. Or when Greg “What will take me to $1B?” Brockman told us he was all about the mission. I certainly believe Altman isn’t trustworthy — I mean, The New Yorker published more than 17,000 words about how much he lies. But unlike with Musk, there are contemporaneous documents backing Altman’s version of the story. At least, mostly.

“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control”

After OpenAI’s Dota 2 win, discussions for a for-profit arm started in earnest. “Mr. Musk felt very strongly that if we were going to form a for-profit he needed to have total control over it initially,” Altman said. “He only trusted himself to make non-obvious decisions that were going to turn out to be correct.”

Altman testified that he was uncomfortable with Musk’s insistence on control, not just because Musk hadn’t been as involved as everyone else, but because OpenAI existed so no one person would control AGI. And at Y Combinator, the startup incubator where he was president, Altman had seen a lot of control fights; no one wanted to give up power when things were going well. With structures like supervoting shares, founders could retain control forever. Curiously, Altman’s example was not the most famous one (Mark Zuckerberg at Meta); it was Musk and SpaceX. When Altman asked Musk about succession plans for OpenAI, he got a particularly “hair-raising” answer: In the event of Musk’s death, Musk said, “I haven’t thought about it a ton, but maybe control should pass to my children.”

I don’t know about that. But I do know that I saw a 2017 email from Altman to Zilis in which he wrote, “I am worried about control. I don’t think any one person should have control of the world’s first AGI — in fact the whole reason we started OpenAI was so that wouldn’t happen.” He went on to say that he didn’t mind the idea of immediate control and was open to “creative structures” — which I understood to mean that, in order to placate Musk, Altman was willing to give him control up to specific milestones in company development.

“I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there”

“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control and that he would’ve had that had we agreed to the structure he wanted,” Altman said on the stand. This sounds basically right. In later video testimony from Sam Teller’s deposition, we heard that Musk no longer invests in anything he doesn’t control. This also fits with Musk’s long-term fixation on making sure he can’t get booted from his own company the way he got booted from PayPal.

Musk also tried to recruit Altman to Tesla. We saw texts between Altman and Teller, in which Teller told Altman that Musk was committed to beefing up Tesla’s AI no matter what, and that he hoped that Altman, Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever would want to join eventually. “I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there, that he’s gonna do this inside of Tesla with or without you,” Altman said. But he felt that Tesla was primarily a car company — allowing it to acquire OpenAI would betray OpenAI’s mission.

Later, in Teller’s testimony, we saw texts Teller sent to Zilis at 12:40AM on February 4th, 2018: “I don’t love OpenAI continuing without Elon,” he wrote. “Would rather disable it by recruiting the leaders.”

When Musk stopped his quarterly donations, OpenAI was operating on a “shoestring” with an “extremely short runway of cash.” OpenAI did have other donors, none of whom have sued it or joined Musk’s suit. (One donor in the exhibit that wasn’t called out to the courtroom was Alameda Research, the firm owned by Sam Bankman-Fried, who is now in prison for fraud and money laundering.) Musk’s resignation from the board meant “people wondered if he was gonna try to take, uh, vengeance out on us or something.” On the other hand, Altman said Musk had “demotivated some of our key researchers” and done “huge damage for a long time to the culture of the organization.” So it sure seems like some people were relieved to be rid of him.

I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trial

We saw a lot of evidence that throughout the time Altman was setting up OpenAI’s for-profit arm, he kept Musk apprised of what was going on, either directly or through Zilis or Teller. At no point did Musk object, and whatever he said publicly about the Microsoft investments, there was plenty of evidence that privately he’d been made aware.

On the cross-examination, we were treated to more than 10 minutes of Steven Molo telling Altman that various and assorted people had called him a liar: Sutskever, Mira Murati, Helen Toner, Tasha McCauley, Daniela and Dario Amodei (former OpenAI employees and founders of Anthropic), employees at Altman’s first startup Loopt, that recent New Yorker article, a book called The Optimist, etc. Molo did score some points by asking Altman about testimony in the trial, which Altman said he wasn’t paying close attention to. Molo acted as though this was inconceivable. Surely someone had informed Altman of what was said?

It was a little funny and also a little tiresome. Altman kept his cool, though, seeming hurt and confused by the focus on whether he was a liar. It was also the most successful part of the cross, which declined in focus precipitously afterward. I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trial, and today was pretty bad. At one point, when Molo was trying to capitalize on Altman being both CEO and on the company’s board, Altman said — truthfully — that CEOs are almost always on the boards of the companies they run.

(At this point in my notes, I had written, “Boy, Molo is not very good at this.”)

The point of this trial isn’t to win — it’s to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI

There was also an unconvincing argument about fundraising in nonprofits, specifically that if Stanford could raise $3 billion a year, OpenAI should have remained a nonprofit. Okay, let’s just think about that for a minute. Stanford has a donor network of thousands of graduates. It’s a school, which has very different capital requirements. It is not competing with any reputable for-profit companies. But leave that all aside and assume that some fundraising genius took over at the OpenAI Foundation: $3 billion is the initial two Microsoft investments combined, and not enough to scale OpenAI to where it is now. If compute is the main bottleneck on building AI models, then Molo’s line of argument suggests OpenAI never would have managed to be successful as a nonprofit alone. He’s making the defense’s case for them.

But the thing is, Molo doesn’t actually have to be good at this job, because the point of this trial isn’t to win — though I’m sure Musk wouldn’t mind a win. The point is to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI. Musk has done that pretty thoroughly — reinforcing in the public’s mind that Altman is a liar and a snake. This morning, I read an exclusive in The Wall Street Journal that assorted Republican AGs and the House Oversight committee wanted to look into Sam Altman’s investments. References to the trial are peppered throughout the article.

So yes, Altman was convincing on the stand. He may even win the suit. But it sure seems like Musk’s vengeance has just begun.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#Sam #Altman #winning #standAI,OpenAI">Sam Altman was winning on the stand, but it might not be enoughAfter two weeks of hearing from assorted witnesses that he was a lying snake, the jury finally heard from the lying snake himself: Sam Altman. At the end of the testimony, his lawyer William Savitt asked him how it felt to be accused of stealing a charity.“We created, through a ton of hard work, this extremely large charity, and I agree you can’t steal it,” Altman said. “Mr. Musk did try to kill it, I guess. Twice.”Altman was fully in “nice kid from St. Louis” mode, and did a passable impression of a man who was bewildered at what was happening to him. When he stepped down from the stand holding a stack of evidence binders, he even looked a little like a schoolboy. He seemed nervous at the beginning of his direct testimony, though he warmed up fairly quickly. Overall, he seemed to give credible testimony — and at times, it seemed like the jury liked him.Throughout this trial I’ve had some difficulty imagining what the jury is making of all this because I am a little too familiar with the figures who are testifying. I have heard some audacious lies under oath, like when Elon Musk told us all he doesn’t lose his temper. (He then proceeded to lose his temper on cross-examination.) Or like when Shivon Zilis, the mother of several of his children, told us that she didn’t know Musk was starting xAI — which seemed to be directly contradicted by her text messages. Or when Greg “What will take me to B?” Brockman told us he was all about the mission. I certainly believe Altman isn’t trustworthy — I mean, The New Yorker published more than 17,000 words about how much he lies. But unlike with Musk, there are contemporaneous documents backing Altman’s version of the story. At least, mostly.“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control”After OpenAI’s Dota 2 win, discussions for a for-profit arm started in earnest. “Mr. Musk felt very strongly that if we were going to form a for-profit he needed to have total control over it initially,” Altman said. “He only trusted himself to make non-obvious decisions that were going to turn out to be correct.”Altman testified that he was uncomfortable with Musk’s insistence on control, not just because Musk hadn’t been as involved as everyone else, but because OpenAI existed so no one person would control AGI. And at Y Combinator, the startup incubator where he was president, Altman had seen a lot of control fights; no one wanted to give up power when things were going well. With structures like supervoting shares, founders could retain control forever. Curiously, Altman’s example was not the most famous one (Mark Zuckerberg at Meta); it was Musk and SpaceX. When Altman asked Musk about succession plans for OpenAI, he got a particularly “hair-raising” answer: In the event of Musk’s death, Musk said, “I haven’t thought about it a ton, but maybe control should pass to my children.”I don’t know about that. But I do know that I saw a 2017 email from Altman to Zilis in which he wrote, “I am worried about control. I don’t think any one person should have control of the world’s first AGI — in fact the whole reason we started OpenAI was so that wouldn’t happen.” He went on to say that he didn’t mind the idea of immediate control and was open to “creative structures” — which I understood to mean that, in order to placate Musk, Altman was willing to give him control up to specific milestones in company development.“I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there”“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control and that he would’ve had that had we agreed to the structure he wanted,” Altman said on the stand. This sounds basically right. In later video testimony from Sam Teller’s deposition, we heard that Musk no longer invests in anything he doesn’t control. This also fits with Musk’s long-term fixation on making sure he can’t get booted from his own company the way he got booted from PayPal.Musk also tried to recruit Altman to Tesla. We saw texts between Altman and Teller, in which Teller told Altman that Musk was committed to beefing up Tesla’s AI no matter what, and that he hoped that Altman, Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever would want to join eventually. “I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there, that he’s gonna do this inside of Tesla with or without you,” Altman said. But he felt that Tesla was primarily a car company — allowing it to acquire OpenAI would betray OpenAI’s mission.Later, in Teller’s testimony, we saw texts Teller sent to Zilis at 12:40AM on February 4th, 2018: “I don’t love OpenAI continuing without Elon,” he wrote. “Would rather disable it by recruiting the leaders.”When Musk stopped his quarterly donations, OpenAI was operating on a “shoestring” with an “extremely short runway of cash.” OpenAI did have other donors, none of whom have sued it or joined Musk’s suit. (One donor in the exhibit that wasn’t called out to the courtroom was Alameda Research, the firm owned by Sam Bankman-Fried, who is now in prison for fraud and money laundering.) Musk’s resignation from the board meant “people wondered if he was gonna try to take, uh, vengeance out on us or something.” On the other hand, Altman said Musk had “demotivated some of our key researchers” and done “huge damage for a long time to the culture of the organization.” So it sure seems like some people were relieved to be rid of him.I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trialWe saw a lot of evidence that throughout the time Altman was setting up OpenAI’s for-profit arm, he kept Musk apprised of what was going on, either directly or through Zilis or Teller. At no point did Musk object, and whatever he said publicly about the Microsoft investments, there was plenty of evidence that privately he’d been made aware.On the cross-examination, we were treated to more than 10 minutes of Steven Molo telling Altman that various and assorted people had called him a liar: Sutskever, Mira Murati, Helen Toner, Tasha McCauley, Daniela and Dario Amodei (former OpenAI employees and founders of Anthropic), employees at Altman’s first startup Loopt, that recent New Yorker article, a book called The Optimist, etc. Molo did score some points by asking Altman about testimony in the trial, which Altman said he wasn’t paying close attention to. Molo acted as though this was inconceivable. Surely someone had informed Altman of what was said?It was a little funny and also a little tiresome. Altman kept his cool, though, seeming hurt and confused by the focus on whether he was a liar. It was also the most successful part of the cross, which declined in focus precipitously afterward. I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trial, and today was pretty bad. At one point, when Molo was trying to capitalize on Altman being both CEO and on the company’s board, Altman said — truthfully — that CEOs are almost always on the boards of the companies they run.(At this point in my notes, I had written, “Boy, Molo is not very good at this.”)The point of this trial isn’t to win — it’s to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAIThere was also an unconvincing argument about fundraising in nonprofits, specifically that if Stanford could raise  billion a year, OpenAI should have remained a nonprofit. Okay, let’s just think about that for a minute. Stanford has a donor network of thousands of graduates. It’s a school, which has very different capital requirements. It is not competing with any reputable for-profit companies. But leave that all aside and assume that some fundraising genius took over at the OpenAI Foundation:  billion is the initial two Microsoft investments combined, and not enough to scale OpenAI to where it is now. If compute is the main bottleneck on building AI models, then Molo’s line of argument suggests OpenAI never would have managed to be successful as a nonprofit alone. He’s making the defense’s case for them.But the thing is, Molo doesn’t actually have to be good at this job, because the point of this trial isn’t to win — though I’m sure Musk wouldn’t mind a win. The point is to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI. Musk has done that pretty thoroughly — reinforcing in the public’s mind that Altman is a liar and a snake. This morning, I read an exclusive in The Wall Street Journal that assorted Republican AGs and the House Oversight committee wanted to look into Sam Altman’s investments. References to the trial are peppered throughout the article.So yes, Altman was convincing on the stand. He may even win the suit. But it sure seems like Musk’s vengeance has just begun.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Elizabeth LopattoCloseElizabeth LopattoPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Elizabeth LopattoAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIOpenAICloseOpenAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All OpenAI#Sam #Altman #winning #standAI,OpenAI

Elon Musk told us all he doesn’t lose his temper. (He then proceeded to lose his temper on cross-examination.) Or like when Shivon Zilis, the mother of several of his children, told us that she didn’t know Musk was starting xAI — which seemed to be directly contradicted by her text messages. Or when Greg “What will take me to $1B?” Brockman told us he was all about the mission. I certainly believe Altman isn’t trustworthy — I mean, The New Yorker published more than 17,000 words about how much he lies. But unlike with Musk, there are contemporaneous documents backing Altman’s version of the story. At least, mostly.

“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control”

After OpenAI’s Dota 2 win, discussions for a for-profit arm started in earnest. “Mr. Musk felt very strongly that if we were going to form a for-profit he needed to have total control over it initially,” Altman said. “He only trusted himself to make non-obvious decisions that were going to turn out to be correct.”

Altman testified that he was uncomfortable with Musk’s insistence on control, not just because Musk hadn’t been as involved as everyone else, but because OpenAI existed so no one person would control AGI. And at Y Combinator, the startup incubator where he was president, Altman had seen a lot of control fights; no one wanted to give up power when things were going well. With structures like supervoting shares, founders could retain control forever. Curiously, Altman’s example was not the most famous one (Mark Zuckerberg at Meta); it was Musk and SpaceX. When Altman asked Musk about succession plans for OpenAI, he got a particularly “hair-raising” answer: In the event of Musk’s death, Musk said, “I haven’t thought about it a ton, but maybe control should pass to my children.”

I don’t know about that. But I do know that I saw a 2017 email from Altman to Zilis in which he wrote, “I am worried about control. I don’t think any one person should have control of the world’s first AGI — in fact the whole reason we started OpenAI was so that wouldn’t happen.” He went on to say that he didn’t mind the idea of immediate control and was open to “creative structures” — which I understood to mean that, in order to placate Musk, Altman was willing to give him control up to specific milestones in company development.

“I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there”

“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control and that he would’ve had that had we agreed to the structure he wanted,” Altman said on the stand. This sounds basically right. In later video testimony from Sam Teller’s deposition, we heard that Musk no longer invests in anything he doesn’t control. This also fits with Musk’s long-term fixation on making sure he can’t get booted from his own company the way he got booted from PayPal.

Musk also tried to recruit Altman to Tesla. We saw texts between Altman and Teller, in which Teller told Altman that Musk was committed to beefing up Tesla’s AI no matter what, and that he hoped that Altman, Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever would want to join eventually. “I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there, that he’s gonna do this inside of Tesla with or without you,” Altman said. But he felt that Tesla was primarily a car company — allowing it to acquire OpenAI would betray OpenAI’s mission.

Later, in Teller’s testimony, we saw texts Teller sent to Zilis at 12:40AM on February 4th, 2018: “I don’t love OpenAI continuing without Elon,” he wrote. “Would rather disable it by recruiting the leaders.”

When Musk stopped his quarterly donations, OpenAI was operating on a “shoestring” with an “extremely short runway of cash.” OpenAI did have other donors, none of whom have sued it or joined Musk’s suit. (One donor in the exhibit that wasn’t called out to the courtroom was Alameda Research, the firm owned by Sam Bankman-Fried, who is now in prison for fraud and money laundering.) Musk’s resignation from the board meant “people wondered if he was gonna try to take, uh, vengeance out on us or something.” On the other hand, Altman said Musk had “demotivated some of our key researchers” and done “huge damage for a long time to the culture of the organization.” So it sure seems like some people were relieved to be rid of him.

I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trial

We saw a lot of evidence that throughout the time Altman was setting up OpenAI’s for-profit arm, he kept Musk apprised of what was going on, either directly or through Zilis or Teller. At no point did Musk object, and whatever he said publicly about the Microsoft investments, there was plenty of evidence that privately he’d been made aware.

On the cross-examination, we were treated to more than 10 minutes of Steven Molo telling Altman that various and assorted people had called him a liar: Sutskever, Mira Murati, Helen Toner, Tasha McCauley, Daniela and Dario Amodei (former OpenAI employees and founders of Anthropic), employees at Altman’s first startup Loopt, that recent New Yorker article, a book called The Optimist, etc. Molo did score some points by asking Altman about testimony in the trial, which Altman said he wasn’t paying close attention to. Molo acted as though this was inconceivable. Surely someone had informed Altman of what was said?

It was a little funny and also a little tiresome. Altman kept his cool, though, seeming hurt and confused by the focus on whether he was a liar. It was also the most successful part of the cross, which declined in focus precipitously afterward. I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trial, and today was pretty bad. At one point, when Molo was trying to capitalize on Altman being both CEO and on the company’s board, Altman said — truthfully — that CEOs are almost always on the boards of the companies they run.

(At this point in my notes, I had written, “Boy, Molo is not very good at this.”)

The point of this trial isn’t to win — it’s to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI

There was also an unconvincing argument about fundraising in nonprofits, specifically that if Stanford could raise $3 billion a year, OpenAI should have remained a nonprofit. Okay, let’s just think about that for a minute. Stanford has a donor network of thousands of graduates. It’s a school, which has very different capital requirements. It is not competing with any reputable for-profit companies. But leave that all aside and assume that some fundraising genius took over at the OpenAI Foundation: $3 billion is the initial two Microsoft investments combined, and not enough to scale OpenAI to where it is now. If compute is the main bottleneck on building AI models, then Molo’s line of argument suggests OpenAI never would have managed to be successful as a nonprofit alone. He’s making the defense’s case for them.

But the thing is, Molo doesn’t actually have to be good at this job, because the point of this trial isn’t to win — though I’m sure Musk wouldn’t mind a win. The point is to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI. Musk has done that pretty thoroughly — reinforcing in the public’s mind that Altman is a liar and a snake. This morning, I read an exclusive in The Wall Street Journal that assorted Republican AGs and the House Oversight committee wanted to look into Sam Altman’s investments. References to the trial are peppered throughout the article.

So yes, Altman was convincing on the stand. He may even win the suit. But it sure seems like Musk’s vengeance has just begun.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#Sam #Altman #winning #standAI,OpenAI">Sam Altman was winning on the stand, but it might not be enough

After two weeks of hearing from assorted witnesses that he was a lying snake, the jury finally heard from the lying snake himself: Sam Altman. At the end of the testimony, his lawyer William Savitt asked him how it felt to be accused of stealing a charity.

“We created, through a ton of hard work, this extremely large charity, and I agree you can’t steal it,” Altman said. “Mr. Musk did try to kill it, I guess. Twice.”

Altman was fully in “nice kid from St. Louis” mode, and did a passable impression of a man who was bewildered at what was happening to him. When he stepped down from the stand holding a stack of evidence binders, he even looked a little like a schoolboy. He seemed nervous at the beginning of his direct testimony, though he warmed up fairly quickly. Overall, he seemed to give credible testimony — and at times, it seemed like the jury liked him.

Throughout this trial I’ve had some difficulty imagining what the jury is making of all this because I am a little too familiar with the figures who are testifying. I have heard some audacious lies under oath, like when Elon Musk told us all he doesn’t lose his temper. (He then proceeded to lose his temper on cross-examination.) Or like when Shivon Zilis, the mother of several of his children, told us that she didn’t know Musk was starting xAI — which seemed to be directly contradicted by her text messages. Or when Greg “What will take me to $1B?” Brockman told us he was all about the mission. I certainly believe Altman isn’t trustworthy — I mean, The New Yorker published more than 17,000 words about how much he lies. But unlike with Musk, there are contemporaneous documents backing Altman’s version of the story. At least, mostly.

“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control”

After OpenAI’s Dota 2 win, discussions for a for-profit arm started in earnest. “Mr. Musk felt very strongly that if we were going to form a for-profit he needed to have total control over it initially,” Altman said. “He only trusted himself to make non-obvious decisions that were going to turn out to be correct.”

Altman testified that he was uncomfortable with Musk’s insistence on control, not just because Musk hadn’t been as involved as everyone else, but because OpenAI existed so no one person would control AGI. And at Y Combinator, the startup incubator where he was president, Altman had seen a lot of control fights; no one wanted to give up power when things were going well. With structures like supervoting shares, founders could retain control forever. Curiously, Altman’s example was not the most famous one (Mark Zuckerberg at Meta); it was Musk and SpaceX. When Altman asked Musk about succession plans for OpenAI, he got a particularly “hair-raising” answer: In the event of Musk’s death, Musk said, “I haven’t thought about it a ton, but maybe control should pass to my children.”

I don’t know about that. But I do know that I saw a 2017 email from Altman to Zilis in which he wrote, “I am worried about control. I don’t think any one person should have control of the world’s first AGI — in fact the whole reason we started OpenAI was so that wouldn’t happen.” He went on to say that he didn’t mind the idea of immediate control and was open to “creative structures” — which I understood to mean that, in order to placate Musk, Altman was willing to give him control up to specific milestones in company development.

“I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there”

“My belief is he wanted to have long-term control and that he would’ve had that had we agreed to the structure he wanted,” Altman said on the stand. This sounds basically right. In later video testimony from Sam Teller’s deposition, we heard that Musk no longer invests in anything he doesn’t control. This also fits with Musk’s long-term fixation on making sure he can’t get booted from his own company the way he got booted from PayPal.

Musk also tried to recruit Altman to Tesla. We saw texts between Altman and Teller, in which Teller told Altman that Musk was committed to beefing up Tesla’s AI no matter what, and that he hoped that Altman, Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever would want to join eventually. “I read a vague, like, a lightweight threat in there, that he’s gonna do this inside of Tesla with or without you,” Altman said. But he felt that Tesla was primarily a car company — allowing it to acquire OpenAI would betray OpenAI’s mission.

Later, in Teller’s testimony, we saw texts Teller sent to Zilis at 12:40AM on February 4th, 2018: “I don’t love OpenAI continuing without Elon,” he wrote. “Would rather disable it by recruiting the leaders.”

When Musk stopped his quarterly donations, OpenAI was operating on a “shoestring” with an “extremely short runway of cash.” OpenAI did have other donors, none of whom have sued it or joined Musk’s suit. (One donor in the exhibit that wasn’t called out to the courtroom was Alameda Research, the firm owned by Sam Bankman-Fried, who is now in prison for fraud and money laundering.) Musk’s resignation from the board meant “people wondered if he was gonna try to take, uh, vengeance out on us or something.” On the other hand, Altman said Musk had “demotivated some of our key researchers” and done “huge damage for a long time to the culture of the organization.” So it sure seems like some people were relieved to be rid of him.

I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trial

We saw a lot of evidence that throughout the time Altman was setting up OpenAI’s for-profit arm, he kept Musk apprised of what was going on, either directly or through Zilis or Teller. At no point did Musk object, and whatever he said publicly about the Microsoft investments, there was plenty of evidence that privately he’d been made aware.

On the cross-examination, we were treated to more than 10 minutes of Steven Molo telling Altman that various and assorted people had called him a liar: Sutskever, Mira Murati, Helen Toner, Tasha McCauley, Daniela and Dario Amodei (former OpenAI employees and founders of Anthropic), employees at Altman’s first startup Loopt, that recent New Yorker article, a book called The Optimist, etc. Molo did score some points by asking Altman about testimony in the trial, which Altman said he wasn’t paying close attention to. Molo acted as though this was inconceivable. Surely someone had informed Altman of what was said?

It was a little funny and also a little tiresome. Altman kept his cool, though, seeming hurt and confused by the focus on whether he was a liar. It was also the most successful part of the cross, which declined in focus precipitously afterward. I’ve seen some fairly shoddy lawyering from Musk’s side throughout this trial, and today was pretty bad. At one point, when Molo was trying to capitalize on Altman being both CEO and on the company’s board, Altman said — truthfully — that CEOs are almost always on the boards of the companies they run.

(At this point in my notes, I had written, “Boy, Molo is not very good at this.”)

The point of this trial isn’t to win — it’s to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI

There was also an unconvincing argument about fundraising in nonprofits, specifically that if Stanford could raise $3 billion a year, OpenAI should have remained a nonprofit. Okay, let’s just think about that for a minute. Stanford has a donor network of thousands of graduates. It’s a school, which has very different capital requirements. It is not competing with any reputable for-profit companies. But leave that all aside and assume that some fundraising genius took over at the OpenAI Foundation: $3 billion is the initial two Microsoft investments combined, and not enough to scale OpenAI to where it is now. If compute is the main bottleneck on building AI models, then Molo’s line of argument suggests OpenAI never would have managed to be successful as a nonprofit alone. He’s making the defense’s case for them.

But the thing is, Molo doesn’t actually have to be good at this job, because the point of this trial isn’t to win — though I’m sure Musk wouldn’t mind a win. The point is to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI. Musk has done that pretty thoroughly — reinforcing in the public’s mind that Altman is a liar and a snake. This morning, I read an exclusive in The Wall Street Journal that assorted Republican AGs and the House Oversight committee wanted to look into Sam Altman’s investments. References to the trial are peppered throughout the article.

So yes, Altman was convincing on the stand. He may even win the suit. But it sure seems like Musk’s vengeance has just begun.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#Sam #Altman #winning #standAI,OpenAI

Post Comment