On day three, a judge pushed attorneys back toward the core claims as Elon Musk’s testimony touched risks from AI and other disputes.
A stark warning landed in court on day three: the judge made it clear that even sweeping fears about artificial intelligence are not what the case is actually about.
In Oakland, California, Elon Musk’s attorney Steven Molo challenged attempts to curb a discussion about whether AI could pose an “extinction” risk, arguing that humanity could face catastrophic consequences if artificial intelligence goes wrong.. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers interrupted, insisting the focus stay on the lawsuit at the heart of Musk v.. Altman, where Musk alleges OpenAI CEO Sam Altman betrayed public trust.
The exchange mattered because it showed how quickly large, high-level narratives can try to take over a courtroom when the legal question is narrower and more specific.
Rogers also pointed out the irony she said was embedded in the defense’s approach, noting that Musk’s side is simultaneously operating in the same broader AI space. She told the courtroom they would not be pulled into what she described as speculation about who should shape the future of humanity.
As testimony continued, the dispute remained tethered to the larger breakdown between Musk and Altman that has played out for years, including public back-and-forth between the two former associates.. Altman was present during the testimony over Wednesday and Thursday, as the case proceeds on a schedule that could extend for four weeks.
For jurors and court watchers, the tension is more than personality: it reflects the gap between what each side says the other contributed, and what the law will ultimately have to assess.
Musk is seeking an estimated $134 billion in damages involving OpenAI and Microsoft, which is also listed as a co-defendant.. His claim centers on the idea that OpenAI and its leadership benefited from his money, advice, recruiting efforts, and connections, while Altman’s side disputes the credit Musk takes.
Musk’s opponents argue he never fulfilled a $1 billion commitment and that he quit when Altman and other co-founders would not allow him to control OpenAI or fold it into Tesla.. Musk, for his part, has emphasized his original intent to build OpenAI as a nonprofit for public good before later launching xAI in 2023.
In testimony, Musk acknowledged using other AI tools as part of developing and validating his work, describing it as a standard approach. He also said he did not follow through on his original $1 billion promise, explaining that he lost confidence in the team and ended up contributing less instead.
The day’s details also ranged beyond corporate timelines.. Musk addressed questions about Tesla vehicles he said he gifted to people at OpenAI in 2017, describing them as personal purchases made as recognition for work tied to the organization’s charity structure.. He also pushed back on the idea of building a “military army of robots,” saying xAI does not make weapons and that his goal is to help prevent a worst-case human-machine conflict.
In the final stretch of the testimony, the judge’s earlier warning echoed the courtroom’s broader theme: discussions about the stakes of AI can be intense, but the trial is built to decide specific allegations, not entertain doomsday scenarios.