Musk vs. Altman Lawsuit: Week One Testimony — Admits XAI “Distilled” OpenAI, Warns AI Like the Terminator

Elon Musk’s (Elon Musk) first week of testimony in his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI wrapped up on May 1 in the U.S. Federal Court in Oakland, presided over by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. MIT Technology Review reported that Musk took the stand for three consecutive days, arguing that Altman and Greg Brockman tricked him into providing early-stage nonprofit funding, while warning about end-of-days AI risks. He also, on the spot, admitted that his own xAI had “partially distilled OpenAI models”—an admission that prompted an audible reaction in the courtroom.

Musk’s three-day testimony: claims of being scammed, xAI distillation admission, AI end-times warning

In his testimony, Musk accused Altman and Greg Brockman of deceiving him regarding his early support for OpenAI, and outlined a three-stage shift in mindset: enthusiastic support at first, growing doubts about the leadership’s integrity, and ultimately concluding that the executive team “plundered a nonprofit organization.” Musk admitted that he had invested a total of $38 million, which he considered nonprofit funding, but he said he watched OpenAI evolve into a commercial entity valued at $80 billion. During a hearing on April 28, he directly called Altman a “con man,” and this week’s testimony continued that position.

A key turning point was late 2022—when Microsoft announced an investment of $1 billion in OpenAI. Musk said this was the event that made him “lose trust” in Altman, and he viewed it as decisive proof of OpenAI’s commercialization. In his testimony, he also issued a strong warning about AI risk: “The worst-case scenario is that an AI like ‘The Terminator’ kills all of us.” Judge Rogers immediately pressed him by asking that Musk’s own xAI also operates in the same AI space. Musk then conceded in court that xAI had “partially distilled OpenAI models,” calling it “an industry standard verification practice.”

OpenAI’s rebuttal: lawyer Savitt challenges Musk’s lawsuit intent, saying he’s poaching an investment rival

OpenAI attorney William Savitt led the cross-examination, focusing on Musk’s intent in bringing the lawsuit. Savitt argued that Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI was mainly meant to attack a competitor rather than protect nonprofit principles, and presented evidence suggesting Musk actively recruited talent from OpenAI to Tesla and Neuralink between 2017 and 2018. This cross route was intended to undermine Musk’s self-positioning as protecting a nonprofit mission.

The case carries extreme financial pressure: the planned IPO valuation for OpenAI is approaching $1 trillion, and if this lawsuit drags on—or if the outcome proves unfavorable—it could directly affect the timing of the listing. OpenAI’s CFO admitted at the end of April that 2025’s compute spending may not be covered, creating a synchronized challenge alongside the litigation pressure. Musk’s camp’s xAI, meanwhile, is planning to list via SpaceX in June at an estimated valuation of $1.75 trillion.

Looking ahead: Week two, Russell and Brockman to testify

The trial schedule continues through the end of May. Witnesses slated for week two include UC Berkeley AI safety expert Stuart Russell, and OpenAI president Greg Brockman. Russell’s appearance is expected to provide academic backing for Musk’s “AI end-times risk” framework, while Brockman will need to respond directly to Musk’s “plundering a nonprofit” accusations, who may become the case’s most critical factual witness.

This article “Musk vs Altman lawsuit first-week testimony: admits xAI distilled OpenAI, warns AI like Terminator” first appeared on Chain News ABMedia.