Elon Musk Testifies in Court: Claims AI Safety Advocacy Amid OpenAI Lawsuit

Elon Musk portrayed himself in court this week as a leading advocate for AI safety — in stark contrast to what he described as the profit-consumed OpenAI that he is suing.

Why it matters: Musk’s self-portrait as a guardian of AI safety clashed with OpenAI’s counterargument: that Musk was fine with a for-profit OpenAI when he thought he could control it. How the debate over Musk’s motivations is resolved could be key to the outcome of the lawsuit the richest man in the world is waging against OpenAI.

The Trial’s Big Picture

Musk was the first witness in his lawsuit against Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, OpenAI, and Microsoft. Under questioning from his own lawyer, Steven Molo, Musk argued that the only way to prevent AI from "killing us all" was to keep it out of the hands of anyone trying to profit from it. He later acknowledged that his own AI company, xAI, operates on a for-profit basis.

Musk avoided elaborating further since SpaceX recently acquired xAI, and the rocket company is currently in an SEC quiet period ahead of a planned public offering.

Musk’s Testimony on AI Risks

Musk began by outlining his views on the risks of AI, repeating a familiar story: OpenAI would not exist if Google co-founder Larry Page had not called Musk a "speciesist" — implying that Musk prioritizes the human species over a potentially sentient AI. Musk also claimed that he met with then-President Barack Obama in 2015 to express his concerns about AI.

"I really just wanted to warn him about AI," Musk testified.

He stated that he spoke to "anyone and everyone" about AI safety, recalling his brother’s reaction: "It's a buzzkill," Musk remembered him saying.

Musk asserted that the path to safety lies in ensuring that those building artificial general intelligence (AGI) are "unencumbered by having to create financial returns."

OpenAI’s Counterargument

OpenAI’s lead counsel, William Savitt, presented a contrasting narrative during his cross-examination of Musk. Instead of disputing Musk’s concerns about AGI dangers, Savitt argued that Musk was at least as motivated — if not more so — by profiting from AGI than OpenAI’s team.

Over hours of questioning, Savitt implied that Musk’s safety concerns appeared to intensify whenever someone else was in control. He also challenged Musk’s self-image as "the paladin of safety and regulation."

"Has anyone but you ever made the claim that your meeting with President Obama was about AI safety?" Savitt asked.

Unmentioned Issues in the Trial

Not yet addressed in this week’s trial is the history of Musk’s Grok chatbot, which has been criticized for posting racist messages, generating non-consensual images of adults, and producing explicit images of children.

OpenAI and Microsoft may choose to introduce Grok’s behavior as evidence or avoid it due to the legal ambiguity surrounding chatbot accountability. Savitt hinted at these issues, suggesting that Grok had been trained on racist and sexist content. Musk responded:

"Just because you may read something that is racist or sexist doesn’t mean you’ll become racist or sexist."

Focus on OpenAI’s Safety Commitments

Savitt also questioned Musk’s concerns about OpenAI’s dedication to safety, though the article does not provide further details on this line of inquiry.