The legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI is set to begin on April 27th. OpenAI has dropped a bombshell: Musk not only supported OpenAI's transition to a for-profit model but also demanded absolute control over the company. On the surface, this lawsuit is a dispute between non-profit and for-profit structures, but in reality, it is an ultimate power struggle over who will control Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).
If there's any tech drama that can get the global audience's adrenaline pumping, it's the epic fallout between Sam Altman and Elon Musk.
Just now, this high-profile "feud of the titans" in the tech world has escalated dramatically!
First, the court unsealed over 100 legal documents, revealing that Altman indirectly holds shares in OpenAI while simultaneously serving as an independent director and CEO of the non-profit organization.
OpenAI President Greg Brockman also reportedly wanted to oust Musk long ago to form a for-profit company.
Musk claims these revelations are just the tip of the iceberg.
On the other side, OpenAI could no longer remain passive, directly publishing a manifesto titled "The truth Elon left out" on its official blog.
The article presents a trove of internal emails and text messages from around 2017, along with excerpts from co-founder Greg Brockman's private diary—all evidence unsealed during the legal proceedings.
OpenAI's argument is blunt: Musk is not a "betrayed idealist"; he was actually the first person advocating to turn OpenAI into a for-profit company!
The reason the negotiations broke down back then was simple—he demanded absolute control, and OpenAI refused.
Ironically, Altman promptly shared a link to this article on Musk's platform, X.
Even more explosively, Altman revealed further details in his post.
He stated that Musk's legal filings take statements out of context, selectively presenting content favorable to his case while ignoring anything detrimental.
Altman also disclosed that Musk wanted to raise $800 billion to build a self-sustaining city on Mars.
Most shockingly, Musk unexpectedly mentioned the possibility of his children controlling AGI in the future!
Let's rewind the timeline to 2015.
That year, Musk, Altman, Ilya Sutskever, and other Silicon Valley luminaries founded the non-profit OpenAI with a highly idealistic vision: to develop safe AGI for the benefit of all humanity, preventing tech giants from monopolizing it.
Musk was a co-founder, board member, and the largest donor, pledging $1 billion (with $45 million actually delivered). He worked alongside Altman to promote the cause, positioning himself as a guardian of AI safety.
But by 2017, harsh reality set in: developing AGI is incredibly expensive, and the non-profit structure couldn't raise sufficient funds.
Meanwhile, Google's DeepMind was aggressively poaching talent and investing heavily.
OpenAI feared it couldn't survive without changing its structure. The debate about whether to transition began during this period.
The email records from this era are now the core evidence in this courtroom battle—and the battleground where each side accuses the other of lying.
Was Musk the hidden force pushing for "profitability"?
OpenAI's latest blog post systematically refutes the allegations Musk made in his lawsuit.
Musk's Alleged Consensus: 'Non-Profit'
In Musk's legal narrative, he is a staunch defender of the non-profit ideal, while Altman and others are the betrayers.
However, as early as September 2017, OpenAI's founders had already realized that a non-profit organization could not build AGI.
At that time, not only Altman but Musk himself agreed: a transition was necessary.
Consider this record from a September 2017 call, where Musk said: "We need to figure out how to transition from a non-profit to what is essentially a charitable B-corp or C-corp... We must tell this story well and not lose the moral high ground."
In other words, Musk was also a proponent of the transition at the time.
Even more interestingly, OpenAI's key figure, Ilya Sutskever, suggested whether they could keep the non-profit organization and establish a separate C-corp.
Musk expressed agreement, believing this sounded like the right step forward.
A Stepping Stone for Mars Colonization?
This is perhaps the most explosive part of the recent revelations.
Perhaps Musk's fight for control of OpenAI is merely about finding funding and an engine for his Mars dream.
During the most intense phase of negotiations, Musk made a staggering demand: he needed majority equity and complete control of OpenAI.
Why?
Because he wanted to amass $800 billion in wealth to establish a self-sustaining city on Mars.
Musk even mentioned the future possibility of his children controlling AGI.
Even before formal discussions about restructuring OpenAI began, Musk was already treating OpenAI like his personal resource.
In early 2017, he demanded that OpenAI send a team to help Tesla fix its Autopilot system.
Top talents, including Scott Gray, Ilya Sutskever, Greg Brockman, and Andrej Karpathy, spent significant time working on Tesla projects.
Only Joining Tesla Offers a Chance
One of Musk's most potent attacks in the court filings cites a diary entry by Greg Brockman dated November 6, 2017.
In the diary, Brockman admitted that he and Ilya "did want a for-profit B-corp."
However, OpenAI's blog provides context, stating that Musk issued an ultimatum: either give him more board seats and control, with a stipulation that he couldn't resign for a period, or he would leave and build a competing product himself.
Greg and Ilya were conflicted.
They wanted to preserve the non-profit organization, but they knew it couldn't survive without massive funding.
They worried that if they agreed to Musk's demands now (committing to remain non-profit) but found months later that they had to transition to a for-profit model to survive, it would constitute lying.
Greg wrote: "If we commit to non-profit now and then do a B-corp in 3 months, that's a lie... That would be moral bankruptcy."
According to OpenAI, it was precisely because Greg and Ilya did not want moral bankruptcy and did not want to deceive Musk that they rejected his ultimatum!
By early 2018, the split was inevitable.
Musk told the OpenAI team that their ambition to raise billions was a pipe dream. Even attempting an ICO wouldn't secure the funds, he claimed.
He asserted that OpenAI was "on a path to die" compared to Google.
As he left, Musk delivered a crushing blow: if they didn't want to work with him, that was fine, but he assessed their chance of success at 0%. Only by merging with Tesla would they have a sliver of a chance.
The Battle for AGI Control
Looking past the fog of emails, the surface conflict appears to be a legal dispute about whether OpenAI should be for-profit.
Musk stands on the moral high ground of non-profit ideals, accusing Altman of becoming a "traitor."
But fundamentally, this is an ultimate war over who controls AGI.
The core logic Musk exposed in the emails is starkly clear: AGI is too dangerous and too powerful, so it must be under my control.
If I cannot control it—for instance, under Tesla's umbrella or through my majority ownership—then it should not exist.
The logic of Altman and the OpenAI team is different: AGI requires immense resources (computing power, electricity, data), which demands massive capital.
To secure that capital, they must compromise by adopting a partially for-profit structure.
However, they cannot hand control to a single dictator, be it Musk or even OpenAI's own leadership.
This is the deadlock at the heart of the conflict.
In fact, Ilya later briefly led a "coup" against Altman in 2023, ousting him as CEO (though Altman returned days later with Microsoft's support).
The following year, Ilya left OpenAI to found his own AI safety company.
This indicates that concerns about AGI control were never just about one individual.
Musk fears Google monopolizing AGI, worries about OpenAI being controlled by Microsoft, and suspects Altman might become "Scam Altman" (a nickname Musk gave him).
OpenAI fears Musk becoming an "AGI dictator" and worries about any single individual gaining absolute control over the most powerful technology.
Ilya's concerns might run even deeper—he fears the entire industry is forgetting about safety in the pursuit of profit.
Epilogue: See You in Court
On April 27th, Musk and Altman will testify under oath before a jury in an Oakland federal courtroom.
This will be a battle of credibility with stakes worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
Musk will strive to prove he is a victim of deception, while Altman aims to prove that Musk is merely a sore loser—a former partner who, unable to become the "AI savior" himself, seeks to drag his competitor down.
Regardless of the winner, this lawsuit has already taught the world a lesson: when humanity's most powerful technology is on the verge of being born, the power struggles surrounding it can be intensely fierce, profoundly ugly, and utterly... human.
After all, AGI could change everything—wealth, power, even the trajectory of human destiny.
With such high stakes, even former friends, former comrades, and individuals who once co-signed founding documents can turn against each other, face off in court, and call each other "traitors" and "thieves" on social media.
Perhaps the words Ilya wrote in 2017 should be inscribed on the wall of every AI company: OpenAI's goal is for the future to be good and to avoid an AGI dictatorship.
The rest, we leave for the judge and jury to decide.
Comments