The head of artificial intelligence company OpenAI will face questioning in a California courtroom Tuesday and Wednesday as part of a high-profile legal dispute with tech billionaire Elon Musk, court officials announced.
Sam Altman’s testimony comes during the third week of proceedings that could reshape the future of OpenAI and its executive team. The company has secured hundreds of billions in funding from major technology firms and investors as it builds infrastructure for what could become a trillion-dollar public stock offering.
At the heart of the dispute is Musk’s claim that Altman and the artificial intelligence company misled him into contributing $38 million to what he understood would remain a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping humanity. Instead, Musk argues, the company shifted to a profit-driven business model. OpenAI counters that Musk was aware of plans to become profitable but demanded control over the organization.
The high-profile confrontation has captured attention across the technology industry and beyond, with courtroom testimony often examining the character and management approaches of both men. On Monday, former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever told the court he spent approximately one year collecting information for the company’s board showing Altman had demonstrated a “consistent pattern of lying.”
Multiple important witnesses have already appeared before the court, including current and former company leaders. These include President Greg Brockman, former technology executive Mira Murati, and Shivon Zilis, a previous board member who has four children with Musk.
Musk, who wants both Altman and Brockman removed from their positions, has testified that OpenAI originated as his concept before leadership took control of it. He stated his financial contributions were “specifically meant to be for a charity.”
The Tesla founder also acknowledged being aware of early conversations about transforming OpenAI into a profit-making entity, but said Altman assured him the organization would maintain its nonprofit status.
