Jimmy Kimmel torched Elon Musk after the Tesla CEO had a meltdown over Christopher Nolan…
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
#Elon #Musk #Sam #Altman #stole #nonprofit #trial #showed #similar #aims #TechCrunchElon Musk,OpenAI,sam altman,Tesla">
Watching the closing arguments last week, OpenAI’s attorneys detailed point-by-point how the law was on their client’s side, while the plaintiffs team focused on Sam Altman’s apparent lack of credibility and expressed disbelief that anyone would disagree with Musk’s accusations.
The final effect was that, after the verdict, some found it hard to believe Musk had lost — including the man himself. In a post he later deleted, Musk called Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers a “terrible activist Oakland judge,” then announced his plans to appeal, declaring “there is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity.”
But Altman and Brockman weren’t the only figures who benefitted from OpenAI’s non-profit investments. As much as Musk and his legal team tried to make the trial about Altman, the proceedings revealed just as much about Musk himself.
One incident that came out in court showed Musk benefiting from OpenAI in an uncomfortably familiar way. Greg Brockman testified that in 2017, Musk asked him to bring a team of OpenAI researchers down to Tesla’s headquarters to help with the autopilot team for a few weeks. “It was pretty clear that was not something we could say no to,” Brockman said.
Brockman described taking a team of leading scientists, including Andrej Karpathy, Ilya Sutskever, and Scott Grey, to consult with the “demoralized” Tesla workers. They helped come up with ideas to improve the vehicle’s self-driving technology, with Sutskever telling the team that if they could find 10,000 images of a tricky corner case, they would be able to fix their software. Musk even asked Brockman to recommend employees to fire, which he declined to do.
Another person familiar with the episode confirmed Brockman’s account, and said Tesla did not reimburse OpenAI for the time and effort of its employees. Musk’s family office, Excession, didn’t reply to a request for comment.
The heart of Musk’s case is that Altman, Brockman and OpenAI committed a “breach of charitable trust” — that Musk donated funds for a specific charitable purpose, and his cofounders instead used them for something else. He also accuses them of “unjust enrichment” due stock and other benefits from OpenAI’s for-profit.
In the case of the OpenAI scientists parachuting into Tesla, Musk’s charitable donations were intended to hire scientists focused on securing the benefits of AGI. Instead, he had them work for free at his for-profit company.
Dorothy Lund, a Columbia Law School professor and the co-host of the Beyond Unprecedented podcast, told TechCrunch that this arrangement wouldn’t be legal, calling it “a bit rich for Musk to be suing for breach of a charitable trust, when he appears to have been redirecting assets in a way that was inconsistent with that mission.”
It’s true that the self-driving work involved artificial intelligence, but witnesses for Musk emphasized that Tesla’s self-driving project was very different from OpenAI’s research agenda. That’s in part because Karpathy left OpenAI for Tesla shortly after this incident. OpenAI’s attorneys portrayed the departure as Musk violating his duty to the lab, where he was co-chair of the board, by recruiting one of its key researchers to his own company.
The other fact that no doubt influenced the jury was the amount of time Musk spent trying to gain sole control of a potential OpenAI for-profit affiliate in 2017. Musk deployed good cop, bad cop tactics in an attempt to convince his cofounders to let him have total control of OpenAI’s for-profit affiliate — giving them free Teslas, and threatening to withhold his donations.
His efforts put his attorneys in a tricky spot, facing a need to convince the jury there was a significant difference between what Musk envisioned, and the for-profit that was ultimately created. They suggested a “small adjunct” for-profit would be permissible, though OpenAI’s witnesses showed non-profits with large commercial arms are common.
Indeed, there’s a very plausible counter-factual where Musk took one of the offers his cofounders made to split their equity more evenly, and finds himself today as one of OpenAI’s largest shareholders — just not the controlling one. But several times during the trial, Musk’s associates testified that he refuses to invest in any business he could have sole control over.
The failure of Musk’s claims because he filed them too late has been cited as a technicality, but the statute of limitations has substance behind it: People and businesses make important decisions and spend resources based on their understanding that what they are doing is permissible. If someone like Musk waits too long to sue, then the cost of unravelling all those decisions can outweigh a just reimbursement.
No members of the jury have spoken about how they arrived at their verdict. However, they were asked to consider if, before Aug. 5, 2021, Musk should have known that OpenAI was spending resources outside its mission or launching for-profit affiliate. The answer to that is clear: Musk himself was doing those things.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
#Elon #Musk #Sam #Altman #stole #nonprofit #trial #showed #similar #aims #TechCrunchElon Musk,OpenAI,sam altman,Tesla">Elon Musk said Sam Altman “stole” a non-profit — but the trial showed he had similar aims | TechCrunchThe jury’s speedy decision to reject Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the other founders of OpenAI and Microsoft confirmed what we saw in the courtroom: Musk’s case was a weak one, in part because he waited so long to file it.
Watching the closing arguments last week, OpenAI’s attorneys detailed point-by-point how the law was on their client’s side, while the plaintiffs team focused on Sam Altman’s apparent lack of credibility and expressed disbelief that anyone would disagree with Musk’s accusations.
The final effect was that, after the verdict, some found it hard to believe Musk had lost — including the man himself. In a post he later deleted, Musk called Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers a “terrible activist Oakland judge,” then announced his plans to appeal, declaring “there is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity.”
But Altman and Brockman weren’t the only figures who benefitted from OpenAI’s non-profit investments. As much as Musk and his legal team tried to make the trial about Altman, the proceedings revealed just as much about Musk himself.
One incident that came out in court showed Musk benefiting from OpenAI in an uncomfortably familiar way. Greg Brockman testified that in 2017, Musk asked him to bring a team of OpenAI researchers down to Tesla’s headquarters to help with the autopilot team for a few weeks. “It was pretty clear that was not something we could say no to,” Brockman said.
Brockman described taking a team of leading scientists, including Andrej Karpathy, Ilya Sutskever, and Scott Grey, to consult with the “demoralized” Tesla workers. They helped come up with ideas to improve the vehicle’s self-driving technology, with Sutskever telling the team that if they could find 10,000 images of a tricky corner case, they would be able to fix their software. Musk even asked Brockman to recommend employees to fire, which he declined to do.
Another person familiar with the episode confirmed Brockman’s account, and said Tesla did not reimburse OpenAI for the time and effort of its employees. Musk’s family office, Excession, didn’t reply to a request for comment.
The heart of Musk’s case is that Altman, Brockman and OpenAI committed a “breach of charitable trust” — that Musk donated funds for a specific charitable purpose, and his cofounders instead used them for something else. He also accuses them of “unjust enrichment” due stock and other benefits from OpenAI’s for-profit.
In the case of the OpenAI scientists parachuting into Tesla, Musk’s charitable donations were intended to hire scientists focused on securing the benefits of AGI. Instead, he had them work for free at his for-profit company.
Dorothy Lund, a Columbia Law School professor and the co-host of the Beyond Unprecedented podcast, told TechCrunch that this arrangement wouldn’t be legal, calling it “a bit rich for Musk to be suing for breach of a charitable trust, when he appears to have been redirecting assets in a way that was inconsistent with that mission.”
It’s true that the self-driving work involved artificial intelligence, but witnesses for Musk emphasized that Tesla’s self-driving project was very different from OpenAI’s research agenda. That’s in part because Karpathy left OpenAI for Tesla shortly after this incident. OpenAI’s attorneys portrayed the departure as Musk violating his duty to the lab, where he was co-chair of the board, by recruiting one of its key researchers to his own company.
The other fact that no doubt influenced the jury was the amount of time Musk spent trying to gain sole control of a potential OpenAI for-profit affiliate in 2017. Musk deployed good cop, bad cop tactics in an attempt to convince his cofounders to let him have total control of OpenAI’s for-profit affiliate — giving them free Teslas, and threatening to withhold his donations.
His efforts put his attorneys in a tricky spot, facing a need to convince the jury there was a significant difference between what Musk envisioned, and the for-profit that was ultimately created. They suggested a “small adjunct” for-profit would be permissible, though OpenAI’s witnesses showed non-profits with large commercial arms are common.
Indeed, there’s a very plausible counter-factual where Musk took one of the offers his cofounders made to split their equity more evenly, and finds himself today as one of OpenAI’s largest shareholders — just not the controlling one. But several times during the trial, Musk’s associates testified that he refuses to invest in any business he could have sole control over.
The failure of Musk’s claims because he filed them too late has been cited as a technicality, but the statute of limitations has substance behind it: People and businesses make important decisions and spend resources based on their understanding that what they are doing is permissible. If someone like Musk waits too long to sue, then the cost of unravelling all those decisions can outweigh a just reimbursement.
No members of the jury have spoken about how they arrived at their verdict. However, they were asked to consider if, before Aug. 5, 2021, Musk should have known that OpenAI was spending resources outside its mission or launching for-profit affiliate. The answer to that is clear: Musk himself was doing those things.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
#Elon #Musk #Sam #Altman #stole #nonprofit #trial #showed #similar #aims #TechCrunchElon Musk,OpenAI,sam altman,TeslaThe jury’s speedy decision to reject Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the other founders of OpenAI…
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.”
I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you?
Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company.
To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.”
Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride.
On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
“I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote.
He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”
Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).
![Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of: Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026 “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice). #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX](https://i1.wp.com/gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/03/elon-musk-laughing-1-1280x897.jpeg?ssl=1 "Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of: Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026 “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice). #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX")
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.”
I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you?
Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company.
To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.”
Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride.
On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
“I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote.
He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”
Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).
![Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of: Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026 “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice). #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX](https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/03/elon-musk-laughing-1-1280x897.jpeg "Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of: Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026 “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice). #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX")
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.”
I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you?
Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company.
To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.”
Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride.
On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
“I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote.
He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”
Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could…
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
#Elon #Musks #SpaceXAI #bleeding #staff #merger #TechCrunchElon Musk,SpaceX,spacexai,xAI">
Rivals like Meta and Thinking Machine Labs are reportedly scooping up former staff, with the company’s core pre-training team dwindling to just a handful of people. Since February, at least 11 xAI employees have defected to Meta, according to The Information’s report. At least seven have left to join Mira Murati’s Thinking Machine Labs. TechCrunch has previously reported on 11 of the xAI departures announced directly after the merger, including two co-founders.
SpaceX acquired xAI — two companies owned by Musk — in February and has since installed new leadership at the company. Musk renamed the combined company SpaceXAI earlier this month.
The pre-training departures, which followed the exit of team lead Juntang Zhuang, have particularly concerned employees and people close to SpaceXAI, per The Information. Pre-training is the first step to building new AI models, and many have questioned whether the company is still committed to developing leading models.
The report also found that Musk’s culture of extreme work led some staff to leave — something Musk employees across his companies, including Tesla, have complained about. A source who spoke to The Information said Musk set unrealistic deadlines for training models, which led to cutting corners on Grok.
Of course, several of the exits could have been driven by a desire to cash out.
SpaceX regularly offers tenders so employees can sell vested shares privately. Others might simply feel confident that their equity is close to liquidity given the company’s blockbuster IPO expectations. Once employees see the financial upside light at the end of the tunnel, they’re less likely to work at a company that puts undue pressure on them and may not be building the leading models they want to work on.
TechCrunch has reached out to SpaceX for comment.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
#Elon #Musks #SpaceXAI #bleeding #staff #merger #TechCrunchElon Musk,SpaceX,spacexai,xAI">Elon Musk’s SpaceXAI has been bleeding staff since its merger | TechCrunchElon Musk’s newly rebranded SpaceXAI is reportedly losing top talent, with more than 50 researchers and engineers departing since February, according to The Information. The exits include key leaders across coding, world models, and Grok voice.
Rivals like Meta and Thinking Machine Labs are reportedly scooping up former staff, with the company’s core pre-training team dwindling to just a handful of people. Since February, at least 11 xAI employees have defected to Meta, according to The Information’s report. At least seven have left to join Mira Murati’s Thinking Machine Labs. TechCrunch has previously reported on 11 of the xAI departures announced directly after the merger, including two co-founders.
SpaceX acquired xAI — two companies owned by Musk — in February and has since installed new leadership at the company. Musk renamed the combined company SpaceXAI earlier this month.
The pre-training departures, which followed the exit of team lead Juntang Zhuang, have particularly concerned employees and people close to SpaceXAI, per The Information. Pre-training is the first step to building new AI models, and many have questioned whether the company is still committed to developing leading models.
The report also found that Musk’s culture of extreme work led some staff to leave — something Musk employees across his companies, including Tesla, have complained about. A source who spoke to The Information said Musk set unrealistic deadlines for training models, which led to cutting corners on Grok.
Of course, several of the exits could have been driven by a desire to cash out.
SpaceX regularly offers tenders so employees can sell vested shares privately. Others might simply feel confident that their equity is close to liquidity given the company’s blockbuster IPO expectations. Once employees see the financial upside light at the end of the tunnel, they’re less likely to work at a company that puts undue pressure on them and may not be building the leading models they want to work on.
TechCrunch has reached out to SpaceX for comment.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
#Elon #Musks #SpaceXAI #bleeding #staff #merger #TechCrunchElon Musk,SpaceX,spacexai,xAIElon Musk’s newly rebranded SpaceXAI is reportedly losing top talent, with more than 50 researchers…
Elon Musk has launched a tirade against French judicial authorities currently investigating possible abuses on…
French prosecutors who are investigating Elon Musk and his social media platform X have summoned the billionaire to France to face preliminary charges. The investigation is now officially a criminal probe, according to French officials.
France opened a probe in 2025 to investigate whether X has violated French law, an investigation that has expanded following incidents last year when Musk’s AI chatbot Grok started denying the Holocaust, praising Hitler, and allegedly generating child sexual abuse material when prompted by users.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Musk and former CEO Linda Yaccarino have been asked to travel to France to face preliminary charges. As the Journal explains, after preliminary charges have been filed in France, an investigating magistrate starts a process that can take months and doesn’t necessarily mean a trial will be held. It’s entirely possible that the case could ultimately be dropped.
French authorities are looking into the “complicity” of Musk in creating sexual abuse images of minors and sexually explicit deepfakes, according to the Associated Press. Grok also allegedly spread misinformation in French, including a claim that Auschwitz wasn’t a death camp during the Holocaust but was used for “disinfection with Zyklon B against typhus.”
Musk purchased Twitter in late 2022 and changed the name to X. The billionaire made many changes to the platform, stripping away safeguards that allowed people to know when an account was verified, and inviting back far-right figures who had previously been banned. Musk welcomed users like white supremacist Nick Fuentes and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, among a host of others.
Musk also tinkered with the site in ways that turned it into a hotbed of far-right extremism and pro-Trump propaganda in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. Musk donated over $290 million to Republicans in the 2024 cycle and even ran a program that paid some voters in swing states up to $1 million to sign a “petition,” a move that was just very clearly an attempt at paying people to vote for Trump.
Musk, who is currently worth $803 billion, was rewarded with a job overseeing the dismantling of agencies in the federal government under the auspices of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. Ultimately, about 300,000 government workers lost their jobs, and USAID was unlawfully dissolved. The cuts to global aid are estimated to lead to 23 million deaths by the year 2030, according to an analysis by The Lancet Global Health.
Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice told French authorities the U.S. wouldn’t assist in any investigation of Musk and X, something that wasn’t a surprise given the billionaire oligarch’s ties to the Trump regime.
“This investigation seeks to use the criminal legal system in France to regulate a public square for the free expression of ideas and opinions in a manner contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the April letter said, according to the Wall Street Journal.
X didn’t immediately respond to questions emailed Thursday about whether Musk planned on traveling to France. Gizmodo will update this article if we hear back.
French prosecutors who are investigating Elon Musk and his social media platform X have summoned the billionaire to France to face preliminary charges. The investigation is now officially a criminal probe, according to French officials.
France opened a probe in 2025 to investigate whether X has violated French law, an investigation that has expanded following incidents last year when Musk’s AI chatbot Grok started denying the Holocaust, praising Hitler, and allegedly generating child sexual abuse material when prompted by users.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Musk and former CEO Linda Yaccarino have been asked to travel to France to face preliminary charges. As the Journal explains, after preliminary charges have been filed in France, an investigating magistrate starts a process that can take months and doesn’t necessarily mean a trial will be held. It’s entirely possible that the case could ultimately be dropped.
French authorities are looking into the “complicity” of Musk in creating sexual abuse images of minors and sexually explicit deepfakes, according to the Associated Press. Grok also allegedly spread misinformation in French, including a claim that Auschwitz wasn’t a death camp during the Holocaust but was used for “disinfection with Zyklon B against typhus.”
Musk purchased Twitter in late 2022 and changed the name to X. The billionaire made many changes to the platform, stripping away safeguards that allowed people to know when an account was verified, and inviting back far-right figures who had previously been banned. Musk welcomed users like white supremacist Nick Fuentes and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, among a host of others.
Musk also tinkered with the site in ways that turned it into a hotbed of far-right extremism and pro-Trump propaganda in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. Musk donated over $290 million to Republicans in the 2024 cycle and even ran a program that paid some voters in swing states up to $1 million to sign a “petition,” a move that was just very clearly an attempt at paying people to vote for Trump.
Musk, who is currently worth $803 billion, was rewarded with a job overseeing the dismantling of agencies in the federal government under the auspices of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. Ultimately, about 300,000 government workers lost their jobs, and USAID was unlawfully dissolved. The cuts to global aid are estimated to lead to 23 million deaths by the year 2030, according to an analysis by The Lancet Global Health.
Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice told French authorities the U.S. wouldn’t assist in any investigation of Musk and X, something that wasn’t a surprise given the billionaire oligarch’s ties to the Trump regime.
“This investigation seeks to use the criminal legal system in France to regulate a public square for the free expression of ideas and opinions in a manner contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the April letter said, according to the Wall Street Journal.
X didn’t immediately respond to questions emailed Thursday about whether Musk planned on traveling to France. Gizmodo will update this article if we hear back.
French prosecutors who are investigating Elon Musk and his social media platform X have summoned the billionaire to France to face preliminary charges. The investigation is now officially a criminal probe, according to French officials.
France opened a probe in 2025 to investigate whether X has violated French law, an investigation that has expanded following incidents last year when Musk’s AI chatbot Grok started denying the Holocaust, praising Hitler, and allegedly generating child sexual abuse material when prompted by users.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Musk and former CEO Linda Yaccarino have been asked to travel to France to face preliminary charges. As the Journal explains, after preliminary charges have been filed in France, an investigating magistrate starts a process that can take months and doesn’t necessarily mean a trial will be held. It’s entirely possible that the case could ultimately be dropped.
French authorities are looking into the “complicity” of Musk in creating sexual abuse images of minors and sexually explicit deepfakes, according to the Associated Press. Grok also allegedly spread misinformation in French, including a claim that Auschwitz wasn’t a death camp during the Holocaust but was used for “disinfection with Zyklon B against typhus.”
Musk purchased Twitter in late 2022 and changed the name to X. The billionaire made many changes to the platform, stripping away safeguards that allowed people to know when an account was verified, and inviting back far-right figures who had previously been banned. Musk welcomed users like white supremacist Nick Fuentes and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, among a host of others.
Musk also tinkered with the site in ways that turned it into a hotbed of far-right extremism and pro-Trump propaganda in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. Musk donated over $290 million to Republicans in the 2024 cycle and even ran a program that paid some voters in swing states up to $1 million to sign a “petition,” a move that was just very clearly an attempt at paying people to vote for Trump.
Musk, who is currently worth $803 billion, was rewarded with a job overseeing the dismantling of agencies in the federal government under the auspices of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. Ultimately, about 300,000 government workers lost their jobs, and USAID was unlawfully dissolved. The cuts to global aid are estimated to lead to 23 million deaths by the year 2030, according to an analysis by The Lancet Global Health.
Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice told French authorities the U.S. wouldn’t assist in any investigation of Musk and X, something that wasn’t a surprise given the billionaire oligarch’s ties to the Trump regime.
“This investigation seeks to use the criminal legal system in France to regulate a public square for the free expression of ideas and opinions in a manner contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the April letter said, according to the Wall Street Journal.
X didn’t immediately respond to questions emailed Thursday about whether Musk planned on traveling to France. Gizmodo will update this article if we hear back.
French prosecutors who are investigating Elon Musk and his social media platform X have summoned…
OpenAI’s former CTO Mira Murati just testified under oath that CEO Sam Altman didn’t tell the truth to her, and that his habits interfered with her ability to do her job. The allegation in question, that Altman lied about safety practices, was already public, having featured heavily in a recent New Yorker feature about Altman. Now it’s court testimony.
For a few weird days in 2023, Murati was an interim CEO of OpenAI after Altman was briefly fired (And then OpenAI very briefly picked another CEO, Emmett Shear). Reports from this chaotic time paint a picture of a working relationship between Altman and Murati that came under strain when Murati lost Altman’s trust. Behind-the-scenes accounts say she sent memos to the company’s board of directors and Altman himself, questioning Altman’s managerial abilities, and that his termination soon followed.
On Wednesday, a video deposition from Murati was shown to the court during the Musk v. Altman court proceedings, in which she testified to the truth of this story. A new model was being prepared for release—which the New Yorker says was GPT-4 Turbo—and in her testimony, as described by the Verge, she said Altman told her OpenAI’s legal department, headed at the time by Jason Kwon, said it wasn’t necessary for the OpenAI safety board to review the model.
The person asking questions in the deposition asked, “As you understand it, was Mr. Altman telling the truth when he made that statement to you?”
To which Murati said, “No.” She later explained in her testimony, according to the Verge, “I confirmed that what Jason was saying and what Sam was saying were not the same thing.” She characterized this as a “misalignment” between Altman and Kwon. Kwon is now OpenAI’s chief strategy officer.
According to Reuters, Murati said in her testimony, “My concern was about Sam saying one thing to one person and completely the opposite to another person.” She also reportedly testified that Altman had been “creating chaos.” She described OpenAI at this time as “at catastrophic risk of falling apart,” and said she was “concerned about the company completely blowing up,” according to Reuters.
According to the New Yorker, Murati’s memos to Altman and the board came soon after this interaction, and “Soon afterward, the board made its decision to fire Altman.” Murati was interim CEO for a handful of days, then Shear stepped in for a few days, and then Altman was reinstated, a move Murati publicly supported.
According to Forbes, Murati testified Wednesday that after his return to OpenAI, Altman continued with behaviors that had worried her, including delays around important decisions, and giving inconsistent messages to different coworkers, which she reportedly said created a “very difficult and chaotic environment.”
About ten months after Sam Altman was reinstated as CEO, Murati left, and a few month later, founded her own AI company.
OpenAI’s former CTO Mira Murati just testified under oath that CEO Sam Altman didn’t tell the truth to her, and that his habits interfered with her ability to do her job. The allegation in question, that Altman lied about safety practices, was already public, having featured heavily in a recent New Yorker feature about Altman. Now it’s court testimony.
For a few weird days in 2023, Murati was an interim CEO of OpenAI after Altman was briefly fired (And then OpenAI very briefly picked another CEO, Emmett Shear). Reports from this chaotic time paint a picture of a working relationship between Altman and Murati that came under strain when Murati lost Altman’s trust. Behind-the-scenes accounts say she sent memos to the company’s board of directors and Altman himself, questioning Altman’s managerial abilities, and that his termination soon followed.
On Wednesday, a video deposition from Murati was shown to the court during the Musk v. Altman court proceedings, in which she testified to the truth of this story. A new model was being prepared for release—which the New Yorker says was GPT-4 Turbo—and in her testimony, as described by the Verge, she said Altman told her OpenAI’s legal department, headed at the time by Jason Kwon, said it wasn’t necessary for the OpenAI safety board to review the model.
The person asking questions in the deposition asked, “As you understand it, was Mr. Altman telling the truth when he made that statement to you?”
To which Murati said, “No.” She later explained in her testimony, according to the Verge, “I confirmed that what Jason was saying and what Sam was saying were not the same thing.” She characterized this as a “misalignment” between Altman and Kwon. Kwon is now OpenAI’s chief strategy officer.
According to Reuters, Murati said in her testimony, “My concern was about Sam saying one thing to one person and completely the opposite to another person.” She also reportedly testified that Altman had been “creating chaos.” She described OpenAI at this time as “at catastrophic risk of falling apart,” and said she was “concerned about the company completely blowing up,” according to Reuters.
According to the New Yorker, Murati’s memos to Altman and the board came soon after this interaction, and “Soon afterward, the board made its decision to fire Altman.” Murati was interim CEO for a handful of days, then Shear stepped in for a few days, and then Altman was reinstated, a move Murati publicly supported.
According to Forbes, Murati testified Wednesday that after his return to OpenAI, Altman continued with behaviors that had worried her, including delays around important decisions, and giving inconsistent messages to different coworkers, which she reportedly said created a “very difficult and chaotic environment.”
About ten months after Sam Altman was reinstated as CEO, Murati left, and a few month later, founded her own AI company.
OpenAI’s former CTO Mira Murati just testified under oath that CEO Sam Altman didn’t tell the truth to her, and that his habits interfered with her ability to do her job. The allegation in question, that Altman lied about safety practices, was already public, having featured heavily in a recent New Yorker feature about Altman. Now it’s court testimony.
For a few weird days in 2023, Murati was an interim CEO of OpenAI after Altman was briefly fired (And then OpenAI very briefly picked another CEO, Emmett Shear). Reports from this chaotic time paint a picture of a working relationship between Altman and Murati that came under strain when Murati lost Altman’s trust. Behind-the-scenes accounts say she sent memos to the company’s board of directors and Altman himself, questioning Altman’s managerial abilities, and that his termination soon followed.
On Wednesday, a video deposition from Murati was shown to the court during the Musk v. Altman court proceedings, in which she testified to the truth of this story. A new model was being prepared for release—which the New Yorker says was GPT-4 Turbo—and in her testimony, as described by the Verge, she said Altman told her OpenAI’s legal department, headed at the time by Jason Kwon, said it wasn’t necessary for the OpenAI safety board to review the model.
The person asking questions in the deposition asked, “As you understand it, was Mr. Altman telling the truth when he made that statement to you?”
To which Murati said, “No.” She later explained in her testimony, according to the Verge, “I confirmed that what Jason was saying and what Sam was saying were not the same thing.” She characterized this as a “misalignment” between Altman and Kwon. Kwon is now OpenAI’s chief strategy officer.
According to Reuters, Murati said in her testimony, “My concern was about Sam saying one thing to one person and completely the opposite to another person.” She also reportedly testified that Altman had been “creating chaos.” She described OpenAI at this time as “at catastrophic risk of falling apart,” and said she was “concerned about the company completely blowing up,” according to Reuters.
According to the New Yorker, Murati’s memos to Altman and the board came soon after this interaction, and “Soon afterward, the board made its decision to fire Altman.” Murati was interim CEO for a handful of days, then Shear stepped in for a few days, and then Altman was reinstated, a move Murati publicly supported.
According to Forbes, Murati testified Wednesday that after his return to OpenAI, Altman continued with behaviors that had worried her, including delays around important decisions, and giving inconsistent messages to different coworkers, which she reportedly said created a “very difficult and chaotic environment.”
About ten months after Sam Altman was reinstated as CEO, Murati left, and a few month later, founded her own AI company.
OpenAI’s former CTO Mira Murati just testified under oath that CEO Sam Altman didn’t tell…
On May 4, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended complaint to add the Elon Musk Revocable Trust dated July 22, 2003 (the “Revocable Trust”) as a defendant to this action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to timely file a beneficial ownership report with the Commission after the Revocable Trust acquired beneficial ownership of more than five percent of the outstanding shares of Twitter, Inc. common stock, in violation of the beneficial ownership reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The SEC simultaneously moved for entry of a consent final judgment as to the Revocable Trust. Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint as to the Revocable Trust, the Revocable Trust consented to entry of a final judgment, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin it from violating Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13d-1 thereunder and order it to pay a civil penalty of $1.5 million.
As explained in the consent motion, if the court enters the proposed final judgment as to the Revocable Trust as proposed by the Revocable Trust and the SEC, the SEC will file a stipulated dismissal of Elon Musk in his personal capacity, which will resolve this case in its entirety.
On May 4, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended complaint to add the Elon Musk Revocable Trust dated July 22, 2003 (the “Revocable Trust”) as a defendant to this action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to timely file a beneficial ownership report with the Commission after the Revocable Trust acquired beneficial ownership of more than five percent of the outstanding shares of Twitter, Inc. common stock, in violation of the beneficial ownership reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The SEC simultaneously moved for entry of a consent final judgment as to the Revocable Trust. Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint as to the Revocable Trust, the Revocable Trust consented to entry of a final judgment, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin it from violating Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13d-1 thereunder and order it to pay a civil penalty of $1.5 million.
As explained in the consent motion, if the court enters the proposed final judgment as to the Revocable Trust as proposed by the Revocable Trust and the SEC, the SEC will file a stipulated dismissal of Elon Musk in his personal capacity, which will resolve this case in its entirety.
On May 4, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended complaint to…
A longtime employee of Musk and the mother to four of his children, Zilis joined OpenAI as an adviser in 2016. She later served as a director of its nonprofit board from 2020 until 2023 and has worked as an executive at Musk’s other companies, Neuralink and Tesla.
When asked about the nature of his relationship with Zilis in court, Musk offered several answers. At one point, he called her a “chief of staff.” Later, a “close adviser.” At another point, he said “we live together, and she’s the mother of four of my children,” though Zilis said in a deposition that Musk is more of a regular guest and maintains his own residence. Last September, Zilis told OpenAI’s attorneys that she became romantic with Musk around 2016 after she had become an informal adviser to OpenAI. They had their first two children in 2021, she said.
But OpenAI’s lawyers have made the case in witness testimonies and evidence that her most important role, as it pertains to this lawsuit, is being a covert liaison between OpenAI and Musk, even years after he left the nonprofit’s board in February 2018.
“Do you prefer I stay close and friendly to OpenAI to keep info flowing or begin to disassociate? Trust game is about to get tricky so any guidance for how to do right by you is appreciated,” Zilis wrote in a text message to Musk on February 16, 2018, days before OpenAI announced he was leaving the board. Musk responded, “Close and friendly, but we are going to actively try to move three or four people from OpenAI to Tesla. More than that will join over time, but we won’t actively recruit them.”
When asked about this exchange on the witness stand, Musk said he “wanted to know what’s going on.”
In the same text thread, Musk wrote, “There is little chance of OpenAI being a serious force if I focus on Tesla AI.” Zilis reaffirmed him, saying: “There is very low probability of a good future if someone doesn’t slow Demis down,” referring to Demis Hassabis, the leader of Google DeepMind, who Musk has said he didn’t trust to control a superintelligent AI system. “You don’t realize how much you have an ability to influence him directly or otherwise slow him down. I think you know I’m not a malicious person, but in this case it feels fundamentally irresponsible to not find a way to slow or alter his path.”
Roughly two months later, in an email from April 23, 2018, Zilis updated Musk on OpenAI’s fundraising efforts and progress on a project to develop an AI that could play video games. In the same message, she said she had reallocated most of her time away from OpenAI to his other companies, Neuralink and Tesla, but told him, “If you’d prefer I pull more hours back to OpenAI oversight please let me know.”
Almost a year earlier, in the summer of 2017, OpenAI’s cofounders had started negotiating changes to the organization’s corporate structure—Musk wanted control of the company to start out. In an email from August 28, 2017, Zilis wrote to Musk that she had met with OpenAI president Greg Brockman and cofounder Ilya Sutskever to discuss how equity would be divided up in the new company. She summarized points from the meeting, including that Brockman and Sutskever thought one person shouldn’t have unilateral power over AGI, should they develop it. Musk wrote back to Zilis, “This is very annoying. Please encourage them to go start a company. I’ve had enough.”
As the first week of trial in Musk v. Altman comes to a close, one person has emerged as a critical behind-the-scenes manager of communications and egos in OpenAI’s early years: Shivon Zilis.
A longtime employee of Musk and the mother to four of his children, Zilis joined OpenAI as an adviser in 2016. She later served as a director of its nonprofit board from 2020 until 2023 and has worked as an executive at Musk’s other companies, Neuralink and Tesla.
When asked about the nature of his relationship with Zilis in court, Musk offered several answers. At one point, he called her a “chief of staff.” Later, a “close adviser.” At another point, he said “we live together, and she’s the mother of four of my children,” though Zilis said in a deposition that Musk is more of a regular guest and maintains his own residence. Last September, Zilis told OpenAI’s attorneys that she became romantic with Musk around 2016 after she had become an informal adviser to OpenAI. They had their first two children in 2021, she said.
But OpenAI’s lawyers have made the case in witness testimonies and evidence that her most important role, as it pertains to this lawsuit, is being a covert liaison between OpenAI and Musk, even years after he left the nonprofit’s board in February 2018.
“Do you prefer I stay close and friendly to OpenAI to keep info flowing or begin to disassociate? Trust game is about to get tricky so any guidance for how to do right by you is appreciated,” Zilis wrote in a text message to Musk on February 16, 2018, days before OpenAI announced he was leaving the board. Musk responded, “Close and friendly, but we are going to actively try to move three or four people from OpenAI to Tesla. More than that will join over time, but we won’t actively recruit them.”
When asked about this exchange on the witness stand, Musk said he “wanted to know what’s going on.”
In the same text thread, Musk wrote, “There is little chance of OpenAI being a serious force if I focus on Tesla AI.” Zilis reaffirmed him, saying: “There is very low probability of a good future if someone doesn’t slow Demis down,” referring to Demis Hassabis, the leader of Google DeepMind, who Musk has said he didn’t trust to control a superintelligent AI system. “You don’t realize how much you have an ability to influence him directly or otherwise slow him down. I think you know I’m not a malicious person, but in this case it feels fundamentally irresponsible to not find a way to slow or alter his path.”
Roughly two months later, in an email from April 23, 2018, Zilis updated Musk on OpenAI’s fundraising efforts and progress on a project to develop an AI that could play video games. In the same message, she said she had reallocated most of her time away from OpenAI to his other companies, Neuralink and Tesla, but told him, “If you’d prefer I pull more hours back to OpenAI oversight please let me know.”
Almost a year earlier, in the summer of 2017, OpenAI’s cofounders had started negotiating changes to the organization’s corporate structure—Musk wanted control of the company to start out. In an email from August 28, 2017, Zilis wrote to Musk that she had met with OpenAI president Greg Brockman and cofounder Ilya Sutskever to discuss how equity would be divided up in the new company. She summarized points from the meeting, including that Brockman and Sutskever thought one person shouldn’t have unilateral power over AGI, should they develop it. Musk wrote back to Zilis, “This is very annoying. Please encourage them to go start a company. I’ve had enough.”
As the first week of trial in Musk v. Altman comes to a close, one…
As the cross-examination began, tension rippled through the courtroom. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started the day by reprimanding someone in the gallery for taking a picture of Musk. OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman sat behind his lawyers with a yellow legal pad in his lap, giving Musk a cold stare as he testified. Musk grew visibly frustrated on the witness stand, pausing frequently to tell OpenAI’s lawyer, William Savitt, that he saw his questions as misleading. Meanwhile, Savitt’s cross-examination was derailed by objections, technical issues, and Musk continuously claiming he doesn’t recall key details of OpenAI’s history.
Savitt showed the courtroom emails from September 2017 between Musk, Brockman, and researcher Ilya Sutskever discussing the formation of what would become OpenAI’s for-profit arm. In the thread, Musk demanded the right to choose four members of its board of directors, giving him more voting power than his cofounders, who would be left with three in total. “I would unequivocally have initial control of the company, but this will change quickly,” said Musk in one message. Sutskever wrote back rejecting the idea because he said he feared it would give Musk too much power.
Months before these negotiations started, Musk had halted payments to OpenAI, which was particularly difficult for the organization because he was then its main source of funding. Since 2016, Musk had been sending $5 million payments to OpenAI quarterly as part of a broader $1 billion pledge he made at the organization’s launch. But in the spring of 2017, he stopped sending the money. In another email from August 2017, the head of Musk’s family office, Jared Birchall, asked Musk if he should continue withholding it. Musk responded simply, “Yes.”
Around the time Musk lost the power struggle, emails show that he held discussions with executives at Tesla and Neuralink, his brain-computer interface company, about hiring OpenAI employees. At the time, Musk was still a board member of OpenAI.
Musk sent an email to a Tesla vice president in June 2017 about hiring an early OpenAI researcher, Andrej Karpathy. “Just talked to Andrej and he accepted as joining as director of Tesla Vision,” Musk wrote. “Andrej is arguably the #2 guy in the world in computer vision … The openai guys are gonna want to kill me, but it had to be done.”
On the stand, Musk argued that Karpathy was already interested in leaving OpenAI when he tried to recruit him to Tesla. “Andrej had made his decision. If he’s going to leave OpenAI, he might as well work at Tesla,” Musk said.
In October 2017, Musk also wrote to Ben Rapoport, a cofounder of Neuralink. “Hire independently or directly from OpenAI,” said Musk. “I have no problem if you pitch people at OpenAI to work at Neuralink.”
When pressed about this by Savitt, Musk argued that it would have been illegal for him not to allow Tesla and Neuralink to hire from OpenAI. “It’s illegal to restrict employment. It would be illegal to say you can’t employ people from OpenAI. You can’t have some cabal that stops people from working at the company they want to work at,” Musk said.
Elon Musk returned to the witness stand on Wednesday to continue telling his side of the story in his legal battle against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman. Under cross-examination from OpenAI’s lawyers, Musk was pressed on all the ways he tried to squeeze the organization over a 2017 power struggle that he ultimately lost. Around this time, Musk tried to hire away OpenAI researchers and stopped sending it funding he had previously promised, according to emails presented as evidence in the case.
As the cross-examination began, tension rippled through the courtroom. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started the day by reprimanding someone in the gallery for taking a picture of Musk. OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman sat behind his lawyers with a yellow legal pad in his lap, giving Musk a cold stare as he testified. Musk grew visibly frustrated on the witness stand, pausing frequently to tell OpenAI’s lawyer, William Savitt, that he saw his questions as misleading. Meanwhile, Savitt’s cross-examination was derailed by objections, technical issues, and Musk continuously claiming he doesn’t recall key details of OpenAI’s history.
Savitt showed the courtroom emails from September 2017 between Musk, Brockman, and researcher Ilya Sutskever discussing the formation of what would become OpenAI’s for-profit arm. In the thread, Musk demanded the right to choose four members of its board of directors, giving him more voting power than his cofounders, who would be left with three in total. “I would unequivocally have initial control of the company, but this will change quickly,” said Musk in one message. Sutskever wrote back rejecting the idea because he said he feared it would give Musk too much power.
Months before these negotiations started, Musk had halted payments to OpenAI, which was particularly difficult for the organization because he was then its main source of funding. Since 2016, Musk had been sending $5 million payments to OpenAI quarterly as part of a broader $1 billion pledge he made at the organization’s launch. But in the spring of 2017, he stopped sending the money. In another email from August 2017, the head of Musk’s family office, Jared Birchall, asked Musk if he should continue withholding it. Musk responded simply, “Yes.”
Around the time Musk lost the power struggle, emails show that he held discussions with executives at Tesla and Neuralink, his brain-computer interface company, about hiring OpenAI employees. At the time, Musk was still a board member of OpenAI.
Musk sent an email to a Tesla vice president in June 2017 about hiring an early OpenAI researcher, Andrej Karpathy. “Just talked to Andrej and he accepted as joining as director of Tesla Vision,” Musk wrote. “Andrej is arguably the #2 guy in the world in computer vision … The openai guys are gonna want to kill me, but it had to be done.”
On the stand, Musk argued that Karpathy was already interested in leaving OpenAI when he tried to recruit him to Tesla. “Andrej had made his decision. If he’s going to leave OpenAI, he might as well work at Tesla,” Musk said.
In October 2017, Musk also wrote to Ben Rapoport, a cofounder of Neuralink. “Hire independently or directly from OpenAI,” said Musk. “I have no problem if you pitch people at OpenAI to work at Neuralink.”
When pressed about this by Savitt, Musk argued that it would have been illegal for him not to allow Tesla and Neuralink to hire from OpenAI. “It’s illegal to restrict employment. It would be illegal to say you can’t employ people from OpenAI. You can’t have some cabal that stops people from working at the company they want to work at,” Musk said.
Elon Musk returned to the witness stand on Wednesday to continue telling his side of…
