Musk refers to himself as 'a fool' during his testimony for financing OpenAI.

      On the tense third day of Musk v. Altman, OpenAI’s lead attorney, William Savitt, utilized Musk’s own emails, pledge discrepancies, and texts from Shivon Zilis to argue that the lawsuit is merely a competitive grievance disguised as a philanthropic concern.

      Elon Musk referred to himself as “a fool” for financing OpenAI, accused its leadership of “looting the nonprofit,” and engaged in a confrontational cross-examination with the company's lawyer during the Oakland federal court proceedings on Wednesday.

      This third day of the four-week trial was marked by heightened conflict, as Savitt systematically aimed to leverage Musk’s donations, emails, and personal connections against his argument of charitable intent. Musk stated, “I gave them $38 million of essentially free funding, which they then used to create an $800 billion for-profit company. I actually was a fool who created free funding for them to create a startup. I literally was.”

      This assertion was notable: Musk’s own narrative portrayed him as a misled donor rather than an unsuccessful corporate maneuverer, and labeling himself as a fool reinforces this image for the jury. However, Savitt quickly exploited the disparity between Musk's actual donations of $38 million and the “up to $1 billion” he had pledged at OpenAI's inception.

      “Without me, OpenAI wouldn’t exist!” Musk retorted, raising his voice as Savitt pressed him on the funding shortfall. Musk contended that his contributions went beyond monetary donations, insisting that his reputation, contacts, and credibility held value, and claimed his overall contribution surpassed $100 million in intangible terms.

      Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers intervened at one point, noting that Savitt was finding it “difficult” to obtain straightforward answers from Musk. The judge responded, “That is the challenge of all litigants.”

      The Zilis texts provided a second narrative in the courtroom. The most damaging evidence Savitt introduced came from Musk’s personal communications with Shivon Zilis, a venture capitalist who was then on OpenAI’s board and also the mother of four of Musk’s children.

      Savitt presented a 2018 email in which Zilis inquired if she should stay connected to OpenAI to “keep feeding him information on the company.” Musk confirmed he agreed with this approach. He also acknowledged that Zilis helped maintain communication between him and OpenAI after his departure from the board.

      Savitt’s second exhibit featuring Zilis was more structurally significant: an email sent by Zilis to Sam Teller, an employee of Musk, detailing two options for restructuring OpenAI: “Roll everything into a B corp,” or “OpenAI C Corp and OpenAI nonprofit.” Savitt's argument was clear: Musk was presented with for-profit restructuring options and contemplated them.

      When asked if he ever directed Zilis to submit paperwork to transition OpenAI into a for-profit corporation, Musk replied, “I don’t recall.” Savitt then posed his most pointed question of the day: “You were never really committed to OpenAI being a nonprofit, were you, Mr. Musk?” Musk challenged that premise. Yet, the jury is now presented with two conflicting narratives: a donor claiming he was misled about nonprofit status and a co-founder who was deliberating over for-profit conversions in internal discussions.

      During questioning from his attorney on redirect, Musk discussed the series of events that shifted him from skepticism to litigation. He stated that it was Microsoft’s $10 billion investment, rather than the initial for-profit structure, that he viewed as the critical breach.

      “At a $10 billion scale, there’s no way Microsoft is just giving that as a donation or any kind of charitable way,” he explained. Musk recounted texting Sam Altman, saying, “What the hell is going on?... I think I said, ‘This is a bait and switch.’”

      Musk also reiterated the safety concerns he has emphasized since filing the lawsuit in 2024. When asked if a for-profit AI company poses a safety risk, he affirmed, “Yes, I think it creates a safety risk.” Savitt countered that Musk couldn’t truly know OpenAI’s safety protocols from an external perspective, stating, “You just don’t know.” Musk conceded he lacked specific knowledge about OpenAI’s internal safety efforts but maintained that the for-profit structure itself was problematic, saying, “It does worry me that a nonprofit suddenly is a for-profit with unlimited profit.”

      Savitt pressed Musk on xAI directly, asking whether Grok “lags much farther behind” ChatGPT. Musk acknowledged that xAI, now integrated into SpaceX, has a “very small market share” and is “much smaller” than OpenAI at present, while asserting that xAI is only “technically” a competitor.

      The implication was clear: a man creating a direct AI rival to OpenAI is using the legal system to hinder it, cloaked in the language of altruism.

      What’s