Musk Trial Exposes Details of Sam Altman's Ouster and OpenAI's Internal Conflicts

Mira Murati's deposition pulled back the curtain on Sam Altman's ouster

The week leading up to Thanksgiving 2023 was the AI industry's biggest soap opera moment. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was abruptly ousted from his role at the ChatGPT-maker. The explanation? That Altman was "not consistently candid in his communications with the board." Now, via witness testimony and trial exhibits in Musk v. Altman, the public is getting a concrete look behind the scenes of that dramatic weekend for the first time, much of it centered on former CTO Mira Murati. It was a unique situation in that the rollercoaster of a power play -- which seemed to change every hour -- took place, in many ways, publicly. The board's strikingly vague blog post announcing Altman's ouster was posted on OpenAI's website, immediately sparking a laundry list of conspiracy theories bandied about on X. (It turned out that the impetus had allegedly been a pattern of lying or omission by Altman, whether about OpenAI's safety processes, about his own ownership stake in OpenAI's startup fund, or about the release of certain tools or features like ChatGPT.) Other OpenAI executives and AI industry leaders made public statements in support of Altman. An online campaign began among hundreds of OpenAI employees whether they posted a heart if they supported Altman's reinstatement, and many posted the phrase, "OpenAI is nothing without its people." Rumors swirled as countless onlookers waited with bated breath for any new kernel of information. (I covered the whole thing from a backpacking trip in Patagonia, armed with only an iPhone notes app (and no laptop).) Throughout it all, one unassuming character seemed to be everywhere at once: OpenAI CTO Mira Murati. At first, she was made interim CEO, before immediately ceding the position to outsider Emmett Shear. Within days, Altman was back at the helm of the company, and the board that had come together to remove him was largely gone. Murati had publicly supported Altman's reinstatement and posted online in favor of him returning to his role at the company. But over time, reports surfaced that she had had a significant hand in his ouster. She had, by some accounts, more or less started the internal conversation about concerns surrounding Altman and funneled a significant amount of information -- including screenshots, documentation of text messages, and allegations of mismanagement during Altman's time at Y Combinator -- to cofounder Ilya Sutskever, who then took his concerns to the OpenAI board in the form of a 52-page memo. In testimony this week, former board member Helen Toner said that Murati and Sutskever's concerns had materially advanced the board's own, relating to a pattern of deceit, Altman's "resistance" of board oversight, and his "manipulation" of board processes and management problems. On November 16, 2023, four members of OpenAI's board of directors -- Toner, Ilya Sutskever, Adam D'Angelo, and Tasha McCauley -- unanimously signed a document terminating Altman's employment with OpenAI and naming Murati the new interim CEO. Though Murati had, by many accounts, played an integral part in the entire lead-up to Altman's ouster, Murati almost immediately seemed to switch her support to Altman. In 78 text messages exchanged over a 14-hour period, between Sunday early evening and Monday morning, Murati and Altman talked at length about whether his reinstatement would be possible and what would happen next. Altman said that D'Angelo, a board member, was "trying to get the board to agree to a configuration" but that Altman and Nadella had told D'Angelo that that "doesn't work and that [they] need to start preparing for plan b." Around 2:30am on Monday morning, Altman asked, "can you indicate directionally good or bad? satya and others anxious." Murati responded, "Directionally very bad. Sam this is very bad." Altman asked to join the meeting and Murati said the board didn't want him to. Altman then texted, "what do you want to make it better? i'm still willing to just walk away if that helps. if they are ramped up for crazy lawsuits against me then i'm not sure what." Murati said the board was convinced of their decision for Altman to leave the company, adding, "They've walked me through all the reasons and the issues with you and why you can't be ceo." Altman asked why the board, then, had been "saying all weekend they wanted me back." Murati responded, "They want to have a new ceo in place tonight (not me." Altman asked who, and Murati responded, "New guy is rando twitch guy," referencing Shear. Murati told Altman she was "hoping Satya can help undo this." Between November 17 and 20, Murati and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who was squarely on Altman's side during the conflict and had offered to hire every OpenAI employee over to Microsoft to work under Altman, also exchanged a number of text messages (largely one-sided, with Murati reaching out to Nadella). In one, Murati mentions that she's "not putting [her] name on this," seeming to reference a statement by the board issued that Sunday that "the board firmly stands by its decision as the only path to advance and defend the mission of OpenAI," and that "put simply, Sam's behavior and lack of transparency in his interactions with the board undermined the board's ability to effectively supervise the company in the manner it was mandated to do." Within days, more than 750 OpenAI employees signed a letter to OpenAI's board, threatening to quit and join the new Microsoft subsidiary that would be led by Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman. They wrote that "the process through which you terminated Sam Altman and removed Greg Brockman from the board has jeopardized all of this work and undermined our mission and company." The very first signatory on that letter? Murati herself. One of the most interesting parts of the letter is near the end, when the signatories specifically note to the board that "within two days of your initial decision, you again replaced interim CEO Mira Murati against the best interests of the company." But remember: Murati, apparently, had told the board that she didn't want to serve as interim CEO unless the board was able to "legitimize" the decision, according to Toner's testimony. Toner said Murati "did not seem to understand, either willfully or not, that she had a pivotal role to play in legitimizing this decision herself." "She was waiting to see which way the wind would blow, and she didn't realize that she was the wind," Toner said. Toner also said that Murati had been "strikingly unsupportive" and "remarkably passive" after Altman's removal, adding, "She seemed totally uninterested in telling her team that her conversations with us had been a significant factor in our decision to fire Sam." During the 78 text messages between Murati and Altman, Altman asked if it was time to send the board the letter from the employees; Murati told him it "wouldn't matter" and that the board members "don't care if everyone quits," just that they didn't want Altman's "hand on agi." Altman asked if D'Angelo knew that Murati had rehired Altman, and she said yes. Early on the morning of Monday, November 20, Murati texted Microsoft CTO Kevin Scott that they were "close to having the board resign." Scott responded, "For real this time?" Murati said, "It seems so. Ilya [Sutskever] signed our petition." Later that morning, Murati asked Nadella to "please make a public statement soon that shows support for the joint [OpenAI] team, basically bringing the team together? It's very important that we don't lose researchers to Demis or Elon." A little over a year before, in a document dated September 30, 2022, Murati had written a list of complaints about Altman and his management style that was apparently shared directly with him. She wrote that "constant panic around our projects, people, goals, etc generates chaos and churn," and that "we talk about focus but in practice our approach is do-everything and do it fast because we constantly get pressure to change priorities and shuffle around people and projects." She also wrote about Altman and the executive team's misalignment about the importance of the applied AI team, and requested that Altman talk about his concerns with her directly: "I don't want to find out from others ...It's a missed opportunity for us to resolve important issues for the company and it undermines the leadership of the company when you do this." Murati also mentioned, in that 2022 document, the idea that "doing what the users want is not in the DNA of OpenAI" -- that the company's top-cited goal was to generate $100 million in revenue, and that Altman's position was that "it didn't matter how we got to this number, we needed to get there." Murati also said that one of the top proposed solutions for Altman to remedy these issues would be to "get informed" and use official channels to bring up proposed changes. "Often I hear from you two things simultaneously, that to me seem in conflict: (1) We're not moving fast enough or a particular area or person is failing & (2) You don't know what's going on, so you might be wrong," she wrote in the 2022 document. "When unsure of how things are going or if there's a feeling that things are not going well, go directly to Mira to get information and set up in-depth reviews until you are satisfied that you understand the situation." As part of Murati's deposition played at the trial in Musk v. Altman this week, she said she stood by her criticisms of Altman and that her concerns were "completely management related ... I had an incredibly hard job to do in an organization that was very complex. I was asking Sam to lead, and lead with clarity, and not undermine my ability to do my job." Murati may have not been present in the courtroom, but her testimony -- and what was revealed in documentation -- was among the most memorable.

Is A.I. a Threat to Humanity? Not in This Trial.

Since he had a testy fireside chat about artificial intelligence with the Google co-founder Larry Page more than a decade ago, Elon Musk has had one big fear: that A.I. could eventually destroy humanity. It was one reason, he has often said, that he started the nonprofit A.I. lab OpenAI with Sam Altman, Greg Brockman and a group of A.I. researchers. They were going to build the technology safely for the benefit of humanity and to protect the world from people like Mr. Page, who didn't believe A.I. was a threat. But the nine jurors deciding Mr. Musk's landmark lawsuit against OpenAI probably won't hear much about his nightmares. Before he returned to the witness stand for a third day on Thursday, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is presiding over the trial, told Mr. Musk's lawyer that she didn't want talk of A.I.'s existential threat to humanity to seep into the trial. "We are not going to get into issues of catastrophe and extinction," Judge Gonzalez Rogers said. When Musk's lead counsel, Steven Molo, started arguing with OpenAI's lawyer over the issue, the judge raised her voice, insisting that they stop bickering. "I suspect that there are a number of people who do not want to put the future of humanity in Mr. Musk's hands," the judge said. "But we're not going to get into that. We just are not going to have this whole thing explode for the world to view it." Whether the lawyers can discuss "human extinction" is important to Mr. Musk's case. His lawyers have gone to great lengths to stress the existential nature of his concerns, in an effort to underscore that he is trying to protect the world from what OpenAI could create, not just hurt a competitor to his own A.I. start-up. Judge Gonzalez Rogers's decision to eliminate that line of questioning could be a blow to Mr. Musk.

'Without me, OpenAI wouldn't exist,' says Elon Musk as courtroom clash with Sam Altman turns personal -- and exposes a deeper fight over who really built the company behind ChatGPT

* Elon Musk claims OpenAI wouldn't exist without his early backing * Trial reveals tensions over control, direction, and original mission * Courtroom exchanges show how personal the dispute has become "Without me, OpenAI wouldn't exist!" The outburst from Elon Musk came in a heated moment during the OpenAI trial, when OpenAI's lawyer, William Savitt, probed Musk about his contributions to OpenAI. As reported by CNBC, the exchange continued with Musk saying, "I contributed my reputation!", adding that he named the company, and, "These things all have value." The outburst was prompted by Savitt asking Musk to confirm that his donations amounted to $38 million, which fell short of the "up to $1 billion" Musk had offered the non-profit. Savitt also asked Musk if OpenAI used money donated by him to pay rent at the Pioneer Building, which Musk had leased and which was also used by his other company, Neuralink. "You were on the hook for the entire lease, weren't you?" the lawyer asked. Musk said yes, but he would have found another sub-tenant if he had not rented it out to OpenAI. Getting personal As the legal battle between Musk and Sam Altman continued in court this week, this was the moment that neatly captured the tone of a trial that has kept drifting away from technical arguments and into something more personal and alarmist -- Musk has even been making Terminator references. At its core, the case is about the future direction of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. But moments like this make it clear that it is also about the past -- specifically, who gets to claim credit for building the company in the first place. Musk has long argued that his early involvement and funding were critical to OpenAI's creation, framing the company as something closer to a mission-driven effort that, in the pursuit of profit, has since lost its way. Altman and OpenAI, by contrast, have positioned the company's evolution as a necessary response to the realities of building and scaling modern AI systems. A clash of egos That clash of perspectives has played out in increasingly direct terms during the trial. Alongside broader arguments about governance, safety, and commercialization, the courtroom has seen flashes of frustration, disbelief, and competing versions of the same origin story. Musk maintained that "$38 million is still a lot of money" and that the value of his contributions to OpenAI was worth much more, but it feels more like he is trying to stake his personal place in history as not just the financial backer of the company, but also the most important founder. For Musk, this is clearly personal, and as the trial continues, those questions are unlikely to get any less so. If anything, they are becoming the story. Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

Under Threat of Perjury, OpenAI's Former CTO Is Admitting Some Very Interesting Stuff About Sam Altman

Can't-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech The bizarre and messy court battle between OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and former OpenAI investor Elon Musk trudges on. And this week, as revealed in court, OpenAI's former Chief Technology Office had some extremely interesting -- and at points, alarming -- things to say about her time working under Altman. Appearing in a video deposition on Wednesday, former OpenAI CTO and current Thinking Machines Lab CEO Mira Murati, while under threat of perjury, had much to say about Altman's long-alleged perfidy -- a rumored trait so widely discussed that it was the subject of a remarkable investigation by The New Yorker just last month. Perhaps most strikingly, Murati reportedly told lawyers during her deposition that Altman once incorrectly told her that OpenAI's legal team had cleared a new AI model to bypass an internal safety board tasked with reviewing new models before release. Asked whether she believed Altman "was telling the truth when he made that statement" to Murati, the former CTO hit back with a simple: "no." In other words: under oath, the former CTO -- and briefly interim CEO -- of the company behind the world's most popular chatbot, ChatGPT, said that OpenAI's still-reigning head exec falsely told her that lawyers had greenlit the company to leapfrog over certain safety protocols when, to the then-CTO's understanding, that wasn't true. Yikes! Altman is the defendant in the case brought by Musk, who's claiming that OpenAI illegally betrayed the company's non-profit founding by transfiguring into a for-profit company last year. (Musk runs his own for-profit AI company, xAI, so make of his motivations what you will.) Much of the court battle has centered on the event that insiders have referred to as the "Blip," or the dizzying multi-day spell in November 2023 when OpenAI's board suddenly pushed Altman out, alleging he "was not consistently candid in his communications with the board" as its reason for the shock firing. After pushback from staff and intervention from key OpenAI investor Microsoft, however, Altman was rehired just days later -- a triumphant return that kicked off a domino-like chain of other departures, Murati's included. Murati was grilled about her experience of Altman in the lead-up to the "Blip," with lawyers reportedly asking her if "by fall of 2023, did you perceive Altman was not candid with you? Truthful? Honest?" "Not always," Murati responded. Lawyers went on to ask if Altman "undermined" Murati in her role as CTO and whether Altman pitted "other execs against one another," both questions to which Murati straightforwardly responded: "yes."

'This is a real risk, we all could die as a result of artificial intelligence' -- the OpenAI trial took a dramatic turn as Elon Musk and Sam Altman faced off over AI's real-world danger

* Elon Musk and Sam Altman's trial veered into AI extinction debate * The judge shut down claims AI could pose a real-world threat * The case could reshape OpenAI and the future of ChatGPT "This is a real risk, we all could die as a result of artificial intelligence." That stark warning cut through a tense courtroom this week as Elon Musk's legal battle with Sam Altman took an unexpected turn -- briefly shifting from a corporate dispute into a debate about whether AI could wipe out humanity. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers quickly shut it down, reminding Musk's attorney, Steven Molo, to stay focused on the issue at trial, delivering a withering rebuttal: "It's ironic your client, despite these risks, is creating a company that is in the exact space," Rogers said. "There are some people who do not want to put the future of humanity in Mr Musk's hands. But we're not going to get into that business." The Musk vs Altman feud The Musk vs OpenAI trial is the latest chapter in a feud between rival CEOs Musk and Altman that has been building for years. Much of it has played out through public comments and online jabs, but it has now escalated into a month-long federal court case in California. At the heart of Musk's claim is the allegation that OpenAI -- the company he co-founded in 2015 -- drifted away from its original non-profit mission. He argues that Altman betrayed public trust by turning the organization into a profit-driven company. Musk has also named OpenAI president Greg Brockman and Microsoft as part of the case, claiming they played a role in the company's shift toward commercialization -- allegations Microsoft denies. The judge is right, of course. This case isn't about whether AI should exist. It's about the future direction of OpenAI. A Musk victory could trigger a major shake-up at the company and potentially even lead to Altman's removal as CEO. But the fact that extinction came up at all points to the real story here -- whether AI could pose an existential threat to humanity. An old debate The technology being debated in abstract terms is already here, embedded in tools like ChatGPT and rapidly spreading into everyday life. The people at the center of the case are the same figures shaping the future of AI itself, and moments like this week's courtroom exchange point to unresolved issues beyond a corporate battle. Even as AI becomes more embedded in everyday products, there is still no consensus among its creators about how risky it really is. Some frame it as a transformative tool that will improve productivity, creativity, and access to information. Others continue to warn, sometimes in uncompromising terms, about long-term dangers that are harder to define, let alone regulate. The same companies racing to roll out smarter, faster AI tools are also, at times, the ones raising concerns about where that race could lead. That tension is not new -- but it is rarely expressed this directly, and almost never in a legal setting like this. The trial is expected to run for several weeks, with billions of dollars and the future structure of OpenAI on the line. But it also captures the central contradiction of the AI era right now: the people building the technology are still debating how dangerous it might be -- even as they continue to build it at speed. Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button! And of course you can also follow TechRadar on TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.

Are we losing our minds to AI?

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers didn't mince words in court this week while adjudicating the ongoing trial between Elon Musk and OpenAI in Oakland, California. Musk and Sam Altman, OpenAI's CEO, needed to stop being messy bitches. While she didn't put it like that (she advised both men: "Control your propensity to use social media to make things worse outside this courtroom"), the underlying message was clear. The fact that the case even made it to court is indication enough of how strongly both men feel about one another. Social media name-calling is hardly necessary to make that plain. But the reason they're so eager to throw digital barbs at each other stems from a fundamental difference in belief about the future of AI. Musk doesn't trust Altman to oversee it. Many people might say the same about Musk. The anger and messiness between the two is simply the highest-profile example of how the debate over AI is pushing everyone closer to the brink. The wider cultural debate around artificial intelligence is increasingly polarized -- some might say unhinged -- and is spilling into dangerous territory.

Battle of paradigm shifters: Musk vs Altman over OpenAI's original purpose can shape AI's moral & commercial future - The Economic Times

Cambridge, UK: In a courtroom in Oakland, two of the most powerful men in tech have been fighting since Tuesday over a question that is not just legal but civilisational: who owns AI's future? Elon Musk's case against Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, OpenAI and Microsoft is about a breach of mission, corporate structure and an alleged betrayal of OpenAI's founding purpose. Musk says OpenAI was created as a non-profit to build AI for the benefit of humanity, not to become a profit-driven giant. OpenAI's defence is equally convincing: Musk wanted control, failed to get it, left, built a rival company in xAI, and is now using the courtroom to fight a commercial and personal battle. But to see this merely as Musk vs Altman is to miss the larger pattern. Every great technology seems to reach a moment when its founding myth is dragged to court. While legal filings may speak of contracts, fiduciary duties and damages, the emotional language is more primal: betrayal, legacy, control, copying and, above all, ego. This is not the first fight between two big egos. History is full of such dramas. They often begin as quarrels between large personalities, but end up shaping entire industries. Take Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. In the 1980s, Apple accused Microsoft of copying the look and feel of the Macintosh graphical interface. Beneath the claim was Jobs' fury that Microsoft, once an Apple partner, helped popularise a computing world that looked suspiciously like the one Apple believed it had created. Apple lost because Gates hinted that both stole from Xerox PARC. But the consequences were enormous. Windows became the dominant architecture of personal computing, and the case helped establish that broad interface ideas could not easily be monopolised by one company. What began as Jobs' anger at Gates became part of the story of how the PC age was organised. Or consider Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse. 'War of the Currents' was fought over Edison's DC v Westinghouse's AC. However, it was not merely a technical dispute, but a battle of systems, standards and industrial future. More significantly, it was a battle between Edison's inventor ego and Westinghouse's promise of scalability. AC won by lighting up Niagara Falls and Chicago World Fair, and helped determine the architecture of the modern electric grid. The Wright brothers' fight with Glenn Curtiss is another ego battle. Having achieved one of humanity's greatest breakthroughs in powered flight, Wilbur and Orville Wright fought to enforce their aircraft patents against rivals. They had a legitimate claim. But the founder's claim to moral ownership became the industry's choke point. That is why Musk v Altman matters beyond the Silicon Valley circus. It's not only about whether Musk is right, or whether Altman is right. It is about whether AI can be both a public good and a trillion-dollar business. OpenAI began with the aura of a public-good institution: safe, beneficial AI, counterweight to Big Tech concentration. But it quickly morphed into one of the most commercially consequential companies, deeply tied to Microsoft, with enormous computing infra and the economics of frontier AI. This is the central contradiction of AI today. While the narrative is humanitarian, the structure is starkly carnivo-capitalistic. The mission might talk about 'benefiting humanity', but the balance sheet is about cloud, chips, capital and market share. If Altman wins, the industry will probably read it as a validation of this contradictory 'mission plus money' model. The message will be that frontier AI is too expensive to be built like a university project, and to compete with Google, Meta, etc, companies need billions of dollars, hyperscale cloud partnerships and Wall Street. It strengthens the argument that a company can balance a public-interest mission, while also building a massive commercial enterprise, and accelerate the industrialisation of AI. We would see more hybrid structures, more public-benefit language, more non-profit wrappers around commercial engines, and more alliances between AI labs and Big Tech infrastructure providers. However, OpenAI may still lose part of the public narrative. Many people believed the word 'open' in OpenAI meant something real. A victory could, therefore, create a new cynicism around AI governance and safety. If Musk wins, OpenAI could implode, with Altman and Brockman under pressure to dial back, or move out. The earlier coup engineered by board members and ex-founders would look prescient. In the industry, founding documents and mission statements would no longer be seen as decorative wallpaper. The industry structure would change with Google and Anthropic emerging as clear winners, OpenAI and Microsoft as potential losers, and Musk's ego satisfied. It could force AI companies to adopt much clearer governance models, and boards might start questioning the structuring of AI labs. A judge and jury may finally settle the Musk-Altman trial. But the larger verdict will be delivered by history. History, as Mark Twain may or may not have said, does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. In every age, builders of the future first fight over who invented it, then who controls it and, finally, who gets to profit from it. The Oakland trial is AI's version of this ancient battle. The writer is founder-MD,The Tech Whisperer

Sam Altman Extends Invitation To Elon Musk Amid Legal Battle: 'World Needs More Love' - Microsoft (NASDAQ

After days of sparring in a federal courtroom, Sam Altman used a Saturday post on social media to extend a small olive branch to rival Elon Musk, saying Musk "can come if he wants" to a limited OpenAI gathering tied to the May 5 rollout of GPT-5.5. The gesture landed as Musk testified he didn't read OpenAI's for-profit fine print and pressed for major governance changes and $150 billion in damages. Altman's invite came as OpenAI circulated an online RSVP form for a small GPT-5.5 release celebration, with Codex set to help pick attendees from responses, reported Business Insider. Non-Profit Built For Humanity On Thursday in a California court, Musk argued he put millions behind OpenAI, expecting a nonprofit built for humanity, then watched the value concentrate in a for-profit structure. In his post, Altman added, "The world needs more love," even as the judge overseeing the case warned both leaders to curb online commentary that could inflame the dispute, according to the report. That caution arrived after a clash between Musk and OpenAI's lawyer before the judge intervened. Musk And Altman Musk's testimony also centered on how closely he tracked OpenAI's restructuring path. He told the court he knew there were early conversations in 2017 about changing the organization, but said he did not dig into the legal specifics at the time. "My testimony is I didn't read the fine print, just the headline," Musk said. He also described where he believes OpenAI's economic weight sits now: "The for-profit is overwhelmingly where the value is." Altman and Musk's relationship predates the current trial, stretching back to OpenAI's 2015 launch and Musk's 2018 departure after disputes over direction, leadership, and safety priorities. Since then, Musk has criticized OpenAI's commercial trajectory while building xAI as a competitor. In court, Musk has asked for sweeping remedies that go well beyond damages, including returning OpenAI to nonprofit control and removing Altman and OpenAI President Greg Brockman from leadership. OpenAI Pushes Back Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has kept the trial's focus on governance and fiduciary duties, limiting wider arguments about AI extinction scenarios. Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. Photo courtesy: jamesonwu1972 / Shutterstock.com Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

Elon Musk vs Altman Turns Personal, Dan Ives Warns

But the bigger shift, according to Ives, isn't just the drama -- it's the direction. The fight, he suggests, is turning "personal." And that could slow everything down. From Mission Dispute To Personal Battle At the center of Musk's case are claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment tied to OpenAI's transition to a for-profit structure. Musk has argued his early contributions -- time, capital, and resources -- were used in ways he never approved, framing the shift as a betrayal of OpenAI's founding mission. He is seeking $134 billion in damages, along with sweeping changes, including removing leadership and reverting the company's structure. OpenAI, for its part, has pushed back hard, calling the lawsuit a "harassment campaign" and arguing the dispute stems from Musk not getting "his way." That back-and-forth is now defining the tone of the trial. High Stakes, Longer Timeline Ives believes that tone shift matters. If the case continues to evolve into a more personal confrontation, it could take significantly longer to resolve -- stretching what might have been a contained legal battle into a prolonged courtroom fight. The trial's liability phase is expected to run through mid-May, with a second phase on remedies potentially following soon after. Even so, Ives' broader takeaway is measured. While the headlines suggest existential stakes, he expects the outcome to result in "scrapes and bruises" rather than any fundamental disruption to OpenAI or Altman's leadership. Big Drama, Limited Fallout? That leaves investors and observers with a paradox. The rhetoric is escalating. The numbers -- $134 billion in claimed damages -- are eye-popping. And the personalities involved are among the most influential in AI. But the likely impact, at least for now, may be far more contained. Because while the Musk Vs. Altman fight is clearly getting more personal, it may not ultimately change who's in control of the AI race. It might just take longer to find out. Photo: Photo Agency/Shutterstock Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

Sam Altman's OpenAI firing was messier than we thought, new court evidence suggests

Altman eventually returned as CEO after hundreds of OpenAI employees threatened to resign. OpenAI's leadership crisis from 2023 is now again in the spotlight after fresh testimony and internal messages surfaced during the Elon Musk vs Sam Altman case. The details now offer a clear picture of the tense days when Altman was removed from the company before returning just days later. During the testimony, former OpenAI Mira Murati has talked about the situation and it was way more critical than we thought. Back in November 2023, OpenAI's board shocked the tech world by announcing Altman's removal, saying he had not been fully transparent in his communication with the board. The explanation triggered widespread speculation while employees, investors and AI leaders scrambled to understand what was happening behind closed doors. Now, testimony from former board member Helen Toner and newly surfaced documents suggest concerns around Altman had been building internally for quite some time. As per testimony, Murati and OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever had shared information with the board related to Altman's leadership style, management decisions and resistance to oversight. This reportedly played a major role in the board's decision to remove him. Also read: OpenAI partners with Nvidia, Microsoft and others to build MRC: What it is The court records also revealed internal messages exchanged during the crisis. Murati, in conversations with Altman, allegedly described the situation as very bad and told him the board no longer wanted him as CEO. At the same time, she publicly supported his return and later signed the employee letter demanding Altman's reinstatement. The documents also reveal that Murati had raised concerns about OpenAI's internal culture as early as 2022. In one internal note, she reportedly criticsed the constant pressure and called out the lack of organisational clarity inside the company. She also expressed frustration about communication gaps within leadership. It eventually ended with Altman rejoining as CEO after more than 700 employees threatened to quit and join Microsoft backed projects led by him. Most of the board members involved in his removal later stepped down.