Brockman Challenges Musk’s Account of Startup History

Greg Brockman, President of OpenAI, concluded his testimony on Tuesday, presenting a narrative that largely countered Elon Musk’s account of the artificial intelligence startup’s formative years and subsequent negotiations. Brockman asserted that he never made any commitments regarding the company’s corporate structure to Musk, nor did he recall anyone else doing so. He strongly reiterated OpenAI’s status as a non-profit entity.

“This entity remains a non-profit,” Brockman stated. “It is the best-resourced non-profit in the world.”

The trial stemming from Musk’s lawsuit against the AI powerhouse commenced its second week on Monday. Musk initiated legal action against OpenAI, Brockman, and CEO Sam Altman two years ago, alleging a breach of their commitment to maintain the company’s non-profit status. Musk himself testified during the trial’s initial week, repeatedly accusing Altman and Brockman of attempting to “steal a charity.”

Speaking from the witness stand in federal court in Oakland, California, over two days, Brockman also revealed that Musk had previously engaged several OpenAI employees to dedicate months of unpaid work to his electric vehicle company, Tesla. This effort, primarily in 2017, was aimed at overhauling Tesla’s approach to developing self-driving technology.

Throughout his testimony, Brockman addressed questions concerning his personal financial aspirations, his understanding of OpenAI’s organizational framework, and Musk’s involvement since their co-founding of the company in 2015.

In his testimony last week, Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, emphasized the critical role of his financial contributions and resources in OpenAI’s ascent, asserting that he was instrumental in recruiting top-tier talent. Brockman, however, offered a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging Musk’s effectiveness in attracting some individuals while describing him as a polarizing figure for others.

“Elon had a reputation of being an extremely hard driver,” Brockman remarked. He elaborated that while “certain candidates were very attracted” by Musk’s involvement, “certain candidates were very turned off.”

Brockman further testified that Musk’s general unavailability for meetings necessitated reliance on proxies, including employees like Sam Teller and former OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis. Critically, Brockman stated that Musk never expressed interest in making OpenAI’s technology open-source, nor did he formally mandate it for the non-profit. This directly challenges Musk’s earlier assertion that open-sourcing OpenAI’s models was a foundational principle.

“Honestly, it was not a topic of conversation,” Brockman affirmed.

Discussions surrounding OpenAI’s strategic direction, involving Musk, Altman, and Brockman, occurred around 2017. These conversations included exploring the establishment of a for-profit subsidiary in which Musk would hold an equity stake. Musk departed the company’s board in 2018, and OpenAI subsequently launched a for-profit arm post-his exit.

Brockman recounted Musk’s volatile reaction when attempts were made to negotiate equity stakes in a potential for-profit affiliate. He described a significant shift in Musk’s demeanor when the topic of equity arose: “Something just shifted in him. You could sense it. He was angry, he was upset.” According to Brockman, Musk rejected the proposal during an in-person meeting, then dramatically removed a painting of a Tesla Model 3 from the wall and stormed out. Before departing, Musk allegedly demanded to know when Brockman and his co-founders would be leaving the company, a moment Brockman described as one where he feared physical altercations.

Brockman’s Financial Nexus

Musk’s attorney, Steven Molo, pressed Brockman on his substantial equity stake in OpenAI’s for-profit subsidiary, valued at approximately $30 billion. Molo highlighted that Brockman had not fulfilled an offer to contribute $100,000, or any funds, to the non-profit. “I did not end up donating, that is true,” Brockman admitted.

Brockman maintained a personal and professional journal, from which Molo presented an excerpt from 2017: “Financially, what will take me to $1B?” This question led Molo to probe whether Brockman’s primary motivation was funding the non-profit or personal financial gain. Brockman maintained that OpenAI’s mission had “always been my primary motivation,” with fair compensation for his foundational work being a secondary consideration.

Brockman testified that he believed $1 billion worth of shares would have been “good” for him, a statement Molo repeatedly emphasized. Molo’s pointed question regarding why Brockman had not returned the remaining $29 billion in equity value to the OpenAI Foundation did not elicit a direct response.

The trial is scheduled to resume on Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. PT.