Altman’s appearance in federal court in Oakland came during the third week of a trial that has framed OpenAI’s growth and governance as part of an all-out fight between former collaborators. Musk, who is also seeking Altman’s ouster from company leadership, has accused Altman and Brockman of betraying the vision behind OpenAI when it began as a nonprofit. In his testimony, Altman disputed that his leadership was dishonest and sought to put his decisions into a different context for the jury.
Musk, the world’s richest man and an OpenAI co-founder, is pursuing the ouster as part of a civil case alleging that Altman and Brockman shifted toward a profit-oriented approach after the company’s early nonprofit era. The lawsuit also asks for money that Musk says should be used to fund OpenAI’s charitable arm, according to the trial account presented to jurors.
Altman testified as attorneys for Musk asked him about trial testimony that characterized him in damaging terms. Under that questioning, Altman said he did not agree with the depiction. “I believe I am an honest and trustworthy businessperson,” Altman said.
The trial’s jury has heard testimony from people portrayed as both supporters and critics of Altman during his time leading OpenAI. Jurors have already heard from former OpenAI board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley, who testified about the decision to fire Altman in 2023, and said the circumstances around their own ousters later returned Altman to the CEO role.
Toner previously described what she said was a starting point for the decision to oust Altman. “A phrase we used was ‘a pattern of behavior,’ so no one single cause,” Toner said. “The pattern of behavior related to his honesty and candor, his resistance of board oversight.”
Altman’s testimony also brought the jury back to the central dispute about control and mission—issues that the trial has treated as intertwined with OpenAI’s nonprofit origins. In the same courtroom environment, Musk has faced counterarguments that his claims are rooted in personal grievance and attempts to undercut OpenAI’s growth, while boosting his own AI efforts through xAI, which is part of SpaceX.
Altman, for his part, said he had concerns about Musk’s attempts to gain more control over OpenAI. He testified that he believed the founding goal was incompatible with allowing any single person to control artificial general intelligence. “Part of the reason we started OpenAI is we didn’t think AGI could be under the control of any one person, no matter how good their intents are,” Altman said.
Altman described what he characterized as a tense exchange with Musk about what would happen to OpenAI if Musk gained control. He said co-founders asked Musk a question about whether control should pass to Musk’s children after he died, and that he did not feel comfortable with Musk’s response. Altman also testified that Musk was “fairly mercurial” and that Musk only trusted himself to make decisions.
Altman also told the court that Musk made repeated attempts to have Tesla absorb OpenAI, a proposal Altman said would not align with OpenAI’s mission. Despite Musk’s allegations that OpenAI violated the nonprofit’s purpose, Altman said OpenAI ended up creating what he described as “through a ton of hard work, this extremely large charity.”
As the testimony moved through its final segments, Altman returned to the personal history between him and Musk, saying that he had thought highly of Musk during their early involvement before their relationship deteriorated. Altman said he felt Musk abandoned them, did not follow through on promises, and put the company in a difficult position, adding that Musk continued publicly attacking OpenAI. “I felt like he had abandoned us, not come through on his promises, put the company in a very difficult place, jeopardized the mission, didn’t really care about the things I thought he cared about,” Altman said. He said it had been painful to have someone he respected not acknowledge what he said OpenAI had been building.
Outside the courtroom, legal experts have said the trial’s implications extend beyond the immediate question of leadership. Sarah Kreps, director of Cornell University’s Tech Policy Institute, said she did not view the evidence as pointing to any winner between the two sides. “This is not looking good for any of them, and I think that’s a little bit unfortunate for the AI industry at a time when the public perception of AI is quite negative and seems to be getting worse,” Kreps said.
While the trial has centered on testimony about character, governance, and mission, it has also served as a stage for public attention and internet humor, including memes linked to messages from early in the saga. One example described in court material was a text exchange in 2023, during Altman’s short-lived ouster as CEO, when Altman asked whether events were moving “directionally good or bad” and Mira Murati replied, “Sam this is very bad.”