Former OpenAI employees and people close to both companies<\/a> have been watching this particular lawsuit with a close eye, since the outcome of a jury trial could have affected how OpenAI runs its business and controls its quickly advancing technology. Plus, OpenAI and SpaceX are both reportedly racing to go public this year, so they\u2019re more in the public eye than ever.<\/p>\n The lawsuit discovery process had already unearthed<\/a> a lot of eyebrow-raising communications between AI industry executives, from emails between Altman and Sutskever to entries from Brockman\u2019s own diary. Even texts<\/a> between Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Musk were made public. But that was all before the jury trial started \u2014 now, there\u2019s even more set to be revealed.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s an exhaustive list of all the exhibits that have been made public so far and the biggest takeaways from each one. Admittedly, not every item is necessarily interesting, so we\u2019ve flagged the most important ones with an asterisk. The Verge will keep updating the list as more are added.<\/p>\n Documents released April 29, 2026<\/p>\n A June 2015 email exchange between Altman and Musk. Altman lays out a five-part plan involving an AI lab with a mission to \u201ccreate the first general AI and use it for individual empowerment\u2014ie, the distributed version of the future that seems the safest. More generally, safety should be a first-class requirement.\u201d<\/p>\n He suggests that they start with seven to 10 people and expand from there, using an extra Y Combinator building located in Mountain View. Governance-wise, Altman names five people to start, proposing himself, Musk, Bill Gates, Pierre Omidyar, and Dustin Moskovitz. \u201cThe technology would be owned by the foundation and used \u2018for the good of the world\u2019, and in cases where it\u2019s not obvious how that should be applied the 5 of us would decide,\u201d Altman writes. He adds that the researchers working at the lab would have \u201csignificant financial upside \u2026 uncorrelated to what they build, which should eliminate some of the conflict,\u201d and suggests paying them a \u201ccompetitive salary\u201d and awarding them equity in Y Combinator. He also says they should get someone to \u201crun the team\u201d but that that person \u201cprobably shouldn\u2019t be on the governance board.\u201d<\/p>\n Altman goes on to ask Musk whether he\u2019ll be involved in the AI lab in addition to governance, potentially coming by once a month to talk about progress or at least being publicly supportive to help with recruiting. As a model, he names Peter Thiel\u2019s \u201cpart-time partner\u201d involvement at Y Combinator.<\/p>\n Finally, Altman mentions a \u201cregulation letter,\u201d seeming to imply that the AI lab was going to write a letter calling for AI regulation. He says he\u2019s happy to leave Musk off as a public signatory.<\/p>\n Musk replies, \u201cAgree on all.\u201d<\/p>\n In an October 2015 email exchange between Altman and Musk, Altman suggests starting with a $100 million commitment by Musk and asks if he could donate an additional $30 million over the next five years. He says Bill Gates isn\u2019t yet committed to donating but that he hopes to \u201chave him locked down next week,\u201d adding that he believes Mark Zuckerberg likely won\u2019t come through due to his own AI lab, Facebook AI Research (FAIR). He also suggests that he and Musk start as the first two members of the Safety Board with the potential to add three other members over the following year, calling it the \u201c\u2018second key\u2019 for releasing anything that could be dangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk responds, \u201cLet\u2019s discuss governance. This is critical. I don\u2019t want to fund something that goes in what turns out to be the wrong direction.\u201d<\/p>\n In a November 2015 email exchange between Musk and Altman, the two discuss plans for the forthcoming AI lab. Musk starts off by recounting a \u201cgreat call with Greg [Brockman]\u201d and saying he\u2019s \u201csuper impressed with everyone so far,\u201d calling it a \u201cgreat team.\u201d He suggests creating the lab as an \u201cindependent, pure play 501c3, but with a crystal clear focus on the positive advent of strong AI distributed widely to humanity.\u201d He says the company would \u201cstill aim to bring in revenue in excess of costs at some point, but positive net revenue would just flow to cash reserves.\u201d<\/p>\n With regard to compensation for employees, Musk suggests a cash salary and certain bonuses. He says that if Altman is amenable, employees could convert cash to stock in Y Combinator, adding that it\u2019s fine if they\u2019d rather convert some or all to SpaceX stock instead. (\u201cI can pretty much do what I want on the SpaceX side, as it is private (thank goodness),\u201d Musk writes.) He also offers \u201cinsane amounts of real world sensor data\u201d from Tesla for the AI lab to use, mentioning that the amount of data is \u201cseveral orders of magnitude greater than any other company.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk\u2019s first stab at a name for the AI lab is \u201cFreemind,\u201d as he says it \u201cconveys the sense that we are trying to create digital intelligence that will be freely available to all \u2014 the opposite of Deepmind\u2019s one-ring-to-rule-them-all approach.\u201d He also says he\u2019ll dedicate whatever amount of his time is useful, even though that could mean less time allocated to SpaceX and Tesla. \u201cIf I really believe that this is potentially the biggest near-term existential threat, then action should follow belief,\u201d he writes. He adds later that, despite seemingly trying to be essentially a silent partner, he has to \u201cbite the bullet on admitting real involvement. This will come as a shocker to many, but so be it. Can\u2019t be lukewarm about this.\u201d<\/p>\n Altman suggests the AI lab share a building with Y Combinator and use the incubator\u2019s legal team to help get it started. He also suggests the names \u201cAxon\u201d or something related to famed computer scientist and mathematician Alan Turing.<\/p>\n Musk writes, \u201cSomething Turing-related that doesn\u2019t sound too ominous might be good. Want to avoid the Turing Test association though, as that sounds too much like we are replacing humans.\u201d<\/p>\n A December 2015 email exchange between Altman and Musk drafts the opening paragraphs of OpenAI\u2019s mission and press release. Musk says the \u201cwhole point of this release is to attract top talent.\u201d The two go back and forth on wording, and the final product<\/a> ends up not straying too much from Musk\u2019s original draft.<\/p>\n Musk writes in his draft that \u201cthe outcome of this venture is uncertain and the pay is low compared to what others will offer, but we believe the goal and the structure are right.\u201d Altman writes in his draft that \u201cbecause we don\u2019t have any financial obligations, we can focus on the maximal positive human impact and disseminating AI technology as broadly as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s official articles of incorporation, filed December 8th, 2015. The document states that OpenAI \u201cshall be a nonprofit corporation organized exclusively for charitable purposes\u201d and that its purpose is \u201cto ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity, including by conducting and\/or funding artificial intelligence research. The corporation may also research and\/or otherwise support efforts to safely develop and distribute such technology and its associated benefits, including analyzing the societal impacts of the technology and supporting related educational, economic, and safety policy research and initiatives.\u201d<\/p>\n The document continues, \u201cThe resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to distribute it for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person.\u201d<\/p>\n An April 2016 email exchange between Musk and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang. Musk asks Huang if the OpenAI team can buy an early unit of a supercomputer, making sure to highlight that \u201cOpenAI is unaffiliated with Tesla. It is a non-profit funded by me and a few others with the goal of developing safe AGI (and hopefully not paving the road to hell with good intentions).\u201d<\/p>\n Huang responds that he \u201cwill make sure OpenAI gets one of the first ones.\u201d<\/p>\n A photo of Jensen Huang ostensibly dropping off said computer. Elon Musk stands nearby.<\/p>\n On the wall behind him is a lengthy quote sometimes attributed to US Navy Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, which is echoed in a 2013 blog post<\/a> by Altman. (The Verge couldn\u2019t immediately confirm the whole quote was said by Rickover; in a US Navy post<\/a> attributed to the admiral, only part of the quote appears: \u201cMan has a large capacity for effort. But it is so much greater than we think it is, that few ever reach this capacity.\u201d)<\/p>\n In an August 2017 email exchange between Musk and Shivon Zilis, Musk\u2019s chief of staff who eventually sat on OpenAI\u2019s board, and with whom Musk would eventually share multiple children. Zilis writes a recap of her meeting with Brockman and Sutskever, laying out seven unanswered questions. She says Brockman and Sutskever are fine with Musk spending less time on the company and having less control, or spending more time and having more control, but not less time and more control. They also hope to raise significantly more than $100 million to start, as they worry the data center they need alone would cost that much. She says Brockman is relatively set on an equal equity split. They also, she writes, worry about Musk\u2019s control over the company. In her notes recapping their concerns, Zilis writes, \u201cIs the requirement for absolute control? They wonder if there is a scenario where there could be some sort of creative overrule position if literally everyone else disagreed on direction.\u201d<\/p>\n The biggest point of tension, Zilis writes, seems to be on Musk\u2019s duration of control over the company, despite his ownership stake. \u201c*The* non-negotiable seems to be an ironclad agreement to not have any one person have absolute control of AGI if it\u2019s created. Satisfying this means a situation where, regardless of what happens to the three of them [Greg, Ilya, and Sam], it\u2019s guaranteed that power over the company is distributed after the 2-3 year initial period \u2026 An ironclad 2-3yr minority control agreement, regardless of the fates of Greg \/ Sam \/ Ilya.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk responds, \u201cThis is very annoying. Please encourage them to go start a company. I\u2019ve had enough.\u201d<\/p>\n A September 2017 email to Musk from Jared Birchall, an adviser to Musk and manager of his family office. He attaches a \u201cmore user friendly version of the cap table that Ilya and Greg are proposing.\u201d<\/p>\n In it, Musk is reflected as having 51.20 percent equity, with Altman, Sutskever, and Brockman each having 11.01 percent. There\u2019s also reserved equity for employees, and the cap table denotes each initial employee\u2019s name or nickname followed by a proposed amount of equity.<\/p>\n Documents released April 30, 2026<\/p>\n A November 2015 email exchange between Musk and Altman, in which Altman references what seems to be one of the first names and structures considered for the AI lab \u2014 Y Combinator AI.<\/p>\n Altman writes that the \u201cplan is to have you, me, and Ilya on the Board of Directors for YC AI, which will be a Delaware non-profit,\u201d adding, \u201cWe will write into the bylaws that any technology that potentially compromises the safety of humanity has to get consent of the Board to be released, and we will reference this in the researchers\u2019 employment contracts.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk disagrees in his response: \u201cI think this should be independent from (but supported by) YC, not what sounds like a subsidiary. Also, the structure doesn\u2019t seem optimal. In particular, the YC stock along with a salary from the nonprofit muddies the alignment of incentives. Probably better to have a standard C corp with a parallel nonprofit.\u201d<\/p>\n In a December 2016 email exchange between Musk and his Neuralink associates, he brings up his concerns about beating Google Deepmind again, writing, \u201cDeepmind is moving very fast. I am concerned that OpenAI is not on a path to catch up. Setting it up as a non-profit might, in hindsight, have been the wrong move. Sense of urgency is not as high.\u201d<\/p>\n In June 2017, Musk writes an email saying he hired Andrej Karpathy away from OpenAI to be director of Tesla Vision, saying, \u201cThe OpenAI guys are gonna want to kill me, but it had to be done\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n In July 2017, Musk writes in an email to Sutskever and Brockman that China \u201cwill do whatever it takes to obtain what we develop. Maybe another reason to change course.\u201d Brockman says he agrees, and that the path ahead should be an \u201cAI research non-profit (through end of 2017), AI research and hardware for-profit (starting 2018), [and] government project (when: ??).\u201d<\/p>\n As a token of appreciation for their work at OpenAI, Musk offers to give Sutskever, Brockman, and others on the team Tesla Model 3 cars that are \u201cnot available to the public.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk asks in August 2017 if Altman, Sutskever, and Brockman can meet to discuss the \u201cnext step\u201d for OpenAI \u2014 and volunteers \u201cthe haunted mansion [he] just bought near SF,\u201d although it\u2019s \u201ckinda crazy and weird and will have party carnage.\u201d<\/p>\n An email exchange between Musk and Birchall, his money manager, later in August 2017. Birchall writes that for now, he\u2019s \u201cheld off\u201d on giving OpenAI Musk\u2019s typical quarterly $5 million donation and asks if he should continue holding off. Musk responds affirmatively.<\/p>\n A September 2017 email exchange between Musk, Brockman, and Sutskever, with Sutskever suggesting that Musk have three board seats and Brockman, Sutskever, and Altman each have one. Musk responds that he believes he should have the right to appoint four board seats and later compliments the three others.<\/p>\n Musk writes, \u201cI would not expect to appoint [the four board seats] immediately, but, like I said I would unequivocally have initial control of the company, but this will change quickly. The rough target would be to get to a 12 person board (probably more like 16 if this board really ends up deciding the fate of the world) where each board member has a deep understanding of technology, at least a basic understanding of AI and strong & sensible morals.\u201d<\/p>\n A September 2017 email exchange between Brockman and Musk, with Altman and Sutskever CC\u2019d. Brockman and Sutskever propose a cap table for Musk\u2019s approval, with Brockman noting that himself and Altman are able to invest a lot more than Sutskever, but Sutskever can invest more than $2.5 million if he takes a loan from Altman and\/or Brockman securitized by stock he owns.<\/p>\n Musk replies, \u201cGuys, you are pushing too hard here. I\u2019m not ok with this.\u201d<\/p>\n A September 2017 text message from Musk to Zilis and others. Musk writes, \u201cWe should get going on creating the OpenAI B Corp, as I promised Greg and Ilya. Let\u2019s discuss this eve. Still no word from Sam Altman btw.\u201d<\/p>\n A September 2017 email exchange between Altman, Musk, Zilis, Brockman, Sutskever, and Musk\u2019s chief of staff Sam Teller. It paints a picture of a two-sided negotiation with peak tension, with Musk and Altman essentially on one side and Brockman and Sutskever on the other.<\/p>\n To Elon, Brockman and Sutskever write, \u201cElon: We really want to work with you \u2026 Our desire to work with you is so great that we are happy to give up on the equity, personal control, make ourselves easily firable \u2014 whatever it takes to work with you.\u201d However, they write they were concerned about Musk\u2019s control over the future technology OpenAI may put out.<\/p>\n \u201cThe current structure provides you with a path where you end up with unilateral absolute control over the AGI,\u201d the two write to Musk. \u201cYou stated that you don\u2019t want to control the final AGI, but during this negotiation, you\u2019ve shown to us that absolute control is extremely important to you. As an example, you said that you needed to be CEO of the new company so that everyone will know that you are the one who is in charge, even though you also stated that you hate being CEO and would much rather not be CEO. Thus, we are concerned that as the company makes genuine progress towards AGI, you will choose to retain your absolute control of the company despite current intent to the contrary. We disagree with your statement that our ability to leave is our greatest power, because once the company is actually on track to AGI, the company will be much more important than any individual.\u201d<\/p>\n The two also touch on the team\u2019s often-mentioned fears about Deepmind\u2019s Demis Hassabis. To Musk, they write, \u201cThe goal of OpenAl is to make the future good and to avoid an AGI dictatorship. You are concerned that Demis could create an AGI dictatorship. So do we. So it is a bad idea to create a structure where you could become a dictator if you chose to, especially given that we can create some other structure that avoids this possibility.\u201d<\/p>\n Brockman and Sutskever have different concerns for Altman himself, though.<\/p>\n In the part of the message directed at Altman, they write, \u201cWe haven\u2019t been able to fully trust your judgements throughout this process, because we don\u2019t understand your cost function. We don\u2019t understand why the CEO title is so important to you. Your stated reasons have changed, and it\u2019s hard to really understand what\u2019s driving it.\u201d Separately, they question some of Altman\u2019s motivations, asking him, \u201cIs AGI truly your primary motivation? How does it connect to your political goals? How has your thought process changed over time?\u201d<\/p>\n Altman responded to the email that he \u201cremain[ed] enthusiastic about the non-profit structure!\u201d<\/p>\n A September 2017 response from Musk to the above concerns detailed by Brockman and Sutskever. Musk writes, \u201cGuys, I\u2019ve had enough. This is the final straw. Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAl as a nonprofit. I will no longer fund OpenAl until you have made a firm commitment to stay or I\u2019m just being a fool who is essentially providing free funding for you to create a startup. Discussions are over.\u201d<\/p>\n A September 2017 email exchange between Zilis and Musk. Zilis recounts some of Altman\u2019s feelings, like the idea that Altman \u201clost a lot of trust\u201d for Brockman and Sutskever during the negotiations, feeling that their messaging was \u201cinconsistent\u201d and \u201cchildish at times.\u201d She also says Altman was planning to take a 10-day hiatus from OpenAI to think about how much he trusted Brockman and Sutskever and how much he wanted to work with them.<\/p>\n She also says Altman mentioned that Holden Karnofsky \u2014 a prominent tech executive and leader in effective altruism, who now works at Anthropic and is married to Anthropic co-founder Daniela Amodei \u2014 was \u201cirked by the move to for-profit and potentially offered [a] more substantial amount of money if OpenAI stayed a non-profit.\u201d<\/p>\n Zilis also says that Altman is \u201cgreat with keeping the non-profit\u201d and that though Brockman and Sutskever are also amenable to continuing with the non-profit structure, \u201cthey know they would need to provide a guarantee that they won\u2019t go off doing something else to make it work.\u201d<\/p>\n An October 2017 email from Musk to his Neuralink co-founder Ben Rapoport. Musk writes, \u201cHire independently or directly from OpenAI. I have no problem if you pitch people at Open Al to work at Neuralink.\u201d<\/p>\n On New Year\u2019s Day in 2018, Sutskever writes a note of gratitude to Musk, cc\u2019ing Brockman, calling Musk the \u201cmost overwhelmingly competent person in the world\u201d and adding that he\u2019s thankful Musk pushed OpenAI to build custom hardware.<\/p>\n Brockman sends a similar message as Sutskever did to Musk on New Year\u2019s Day 2018, writing that \u201cit\u2019s an honor to work alongside you.\u201d<\/p>\n In a January 2018 email exchange between Musk, Altman, Brockman, and Sutskever, with Zilis CC\u2019ed, Musk writes of his concerns about Google Deepmind\u2019s advancement in AI. He writes, \u201cOpenAl is on a path of certain failure relative to Google. There obviously needs to be immediate and dramatic action or everyone except for Google will be consigned to irrelevance. I have considered the ICO approach and will not support it. In my opinion, that would simply result in a massive loss of credibility for OpenAl and everyone associated with the ICO. If something seems too good to be true, it is. This was, in my opinion, an unwise diversion.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk continues, \u201cThe only paths I can think of are a major expansion of OpenAl and a major expansion of Tesla Al. Perhaps both simultaneously. The former would require a major increase in funds donated and highly credible people joining our board. The current board situation is very weak \u2026 To be clear, I have a lot of respect for your abilities and accomplishments, but I am not happy with how things have been managed. That is why I have had trouble engaging with OpenAl in recent months. Either we fix things and my engagement increases a lot or we don\u2019t and I will drop to near zero and publicly reduce my association. I will not be in a situation where the perception of my influence and time doesn\u2019t match the reality.\u201d<\/p>\n When Musk forwards the back-and-forth to Andrej Karpathy, Karpathy responds in support of Musk\u2019s thoughts, writing, \u201cWorking at the cutting edge of AI is unfortunately expensive \u2026 It seems to me that OpenAl today is burning cash and that the funding model cannot reach the scale to seriously compete with Google (an 800B company). If you can\u2019t seriously compete but continue to do research in open, you might in fact be making things worse and helping them out \u2018for free,\u2019 because any advances are fairly easy for them to copy and immediately incorporate, at scale.\u201d<\/p>\n Karpathy continues, \u201cA for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream over time and would, with the current team, likely bring in a lot of investment. However, building out a product from scratch would steal focus from Al research, it would take a long time and it\u2019s unclear if a company could \u2018catch up\u2019 to Google scale, and the investors might exert too much pressure in the wrong directions.\u201d<\/p>\n Karpathy says the \u201cmost promising option\u201d he can think of \u201cwould be for OpenAl to attach to Tesla as its cash cow. I believe attachments to other large suspects (e.g. Apple? Amazon?) would fail due to an incompatible company DNA.\u201d<\/p>\n He then goes on to detail what a Tesla-OpenAI merge would look like. \u201cUsing a rocket analogy, Tesla already built the \u2018first stage\u2019 of the rocket with the whole supply chain of Model 3 and its onboard computer and a persistent internet connection. The \u2018second stage\u2019 would be a full self driving solution based on large-scale neural network training, which OpenAl expertise could significantly help accelerate. With a functioning full self-driving solution in ~2-3 years we could sell a lot of cars\/trucks. If we do this really well, the transportation industry is large enough that we could increase Tesla\u2019s market cap to high O(~100K), and use that revenue to fund the Al work at the appropriate scale. I cannot see anything else that has the potential to reach sustainable Google-scale capital within a decade.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk forwards the note to Sutskever and Brockman, writing that Karpathy is right, and that \u201cTesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google. Even then, the probability of being a counterweight to Google is small. It just isn\u2019t zero.\u201d<\/p>\n A February 2018 text message conversation between Musk and Zilis, potentially just after Musk told Altman, Brockman, and Sutskever on a video meeting that he would be departing OpenAI\u2019s board.<\/p>\n Zilis writes, \u201cDo you prefer I stay close and friendly to OpenAl to keep info flowing or begin to disassociate? Trust game is about to get tricky so any guidance for how to do right by you is appreciated.\u201d Musk responded, \u201cClose and friendly, but we are going to actively try to move three or four people from OpenAl to Tesla. More than that will join over time, but we won\u2019t actively recruit them.\u201d<\/p>\n The two discuss who on the team to potentially recruit, with Zilis saying that Sutskever was \u201cvisibly devastated\u201d after Musk left the video meeting and that there is \u201csome probability you could get Ilya if you wanted him, but don\u2019t know if you do. He has been a very good spiritual leader.\u201d Musk responds, \u201cThere is little chance of OpenAI being a serious force if I focus on Tesla AI.\u201d<\/p>\n Zilis goes on to touch on the often-brought-up fear of Google\u2019s progress in the AI race and tries to encourage Musk to \u201cslow down\u201d Hassabis, CEO of Google Deepmind. She writes, \u201cThere is a very low probability of a good future if someone doesn\u2019t slow Demis down. Slowing him down is the only nonnegotiable net good action I can see. You don\u2019t realize how much you have an ability to influence him directly or otherwise slow him down. I think you know I\u2019m not a malicious person but in this case it feels fundamentally irresponsible to not find a way to slow or alter his path.\u201d Musk responds, \u201cI doubt I could do so in a meaningful way,\u201d and says they can speak by phone about it later that evening.<\/p>\n An April 2018 email exchange between Musk and Zilis, with Zilis writing that OpenAI\u2019s first funding round will likely be \u201clargely Reid [Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder] money, potentially some corporates.\u201d Zilis also writes that Quora CEO Adam D\u2019Angelo is primed to take Musk\u2019s place on OpenAI\u2019s board. (D\u2019Angelo would later be involved in Altman\u2019s 2023 ouster from his CEO role.)<\/p>\n In a July 2018 email to Musk, Zilis updates him on the new funding round OpenAI is planning, as well as a public letter detailing concerns about autonomous weapons that the Future of Life Institute is planning to publish soon, which Musk had been listed as a signatory on in the past.<\/p>\n Zilis also recounts rumors she\u2019s heard about Google Deepmind\u2019s Hassabis, writing, \u201cRumor has it that, on top of the folks that secretly converse on Twitter DM because they don\u2019t trust Demis not to spy on their email and gchat, a part of the inner group also meets in a London coffee shop without cell phones to have in person discussions away from him. Heard this from both Altman and another friend.\u201d<\/p>\n An August 2018 email from Altman to Musk, in which he includes OpenAI\u2019s official term sheet. Altman writes that his \u201ccurrent thought\u201d is that he won\u2019t take any equity in OpenAI. He goes on to say, \u201cI\u2019m not doing this for the money anyway, and I like the idea of being completely unconflicted and just focused on the best outcome for the world. If it appeared at some point we weren\u2019t going to build AGI but were going to build something valuable, then maybe I\u2019d want equity then.\u201d<\/p>\n The term sheet includes a large purple warning box at the top, stating within asterisks, \u201cInvesting in OpenAI LP (the Partnership) is a high-risk investment. Investors could lose their capital contribution and not see any return. It would be wise to view any investment in OpenAI LP in the spirit of a donation, with the understanding that it may be difficult to know what role money will play in a post-AGI world.\u201d The term sheet goes on to summarize planned revenue and how technology may be commercialized in the future, as well as the company\u2019s fiduciary duties and planned fundraising.<\/p>\n \u201cOur duty to these principles and the advancement of our mission takes precedence over any obligation to generate a profit,\u201d the term sheet states. \u201cWe may never make a profit, and we are under no obligation to do so. We are free to re-invest any or all of our cash flow into research and development activities and\/or related expenses without any obligation to the Limited Partners \u2026 The fiduciary duties of the Nonprofit Board of Directors flow exclusively to the Nonprofit, not to the Limited Partners.\u201d<\/p>\n In November 2018, Musk writes in an email to Gabe Newell, co-founder of video game developer Valve, that his involvement in OpenAI is \u201cvery limited at this point.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI still provide some financial support and get verbal and email updates every few weeks from Sam Altman, but don\u2019t spend time there,\u201d Musk says. \u201cI lost confidence that OpenAl could muster the resources to serve as an effective counterweight to Google\/Deepmind and decided to attempt that through Tesla instead. We have cash flow on the order of billions of dollars per year to build hardware that hopefully has at least a dark horse chance to keep Google honest. Probably worth talking about at some point.\u201d<\/p>\n Newell responds that he\u2019s happy to talk about Tesla and AI when Musk is ready.<\/p>\n A December 2018 email exchange between Musk and Altman, with others CC\u2019ed. Musk writes of his intensifying fears about Google Deepmind\u2019s Hassabis taking over in the AI race. \u201cMy probability assessment of OpenAl being relevant to DeepMind\/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%. Not 1%. I wish it were otherwise. Even raising several hundred million won\u2019t be enough. This needs billions per year immediately or forget it. Unfortunately, humanity\u2019s future is in the hands of Demis \u2026 And they are doing a lot more than this.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk continues, \u201cOpenAl reminds me of Bezos and Blue Origin. They are hopelessly behind SpaceX and getting worse, but the ego of Bezos has him insanely thinking that they are not! I really hope I\u2019m wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n Altman responds to ask if the two can meet to discuss increasing that percentage. He says he believes OpenAI has a good plan and a good path to gain the capital they need but that they aren\u2019t executing quickly enough. \u201cNone of us want to be Bezos here!\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Musk writes, \u201cOpenAl is not a serious counterweight to DeepMind\/Google and will only get further behind. It is surprising that this \u2026 isn\u2019t obvious to you. In general, always overestimate competitors. You are doing the opposite.\u201d<\/p>\n The two agree to meet in Puerto Rico later that week.<\/p>\n A March 2019 email exchange between Altman and Musk, with Zilis and Teller CC\u2019ed. Altman sends a blog post detailing OpenAI\u2019s new capped-profit structure to Musk for approval.<\/p>\n Zilis circles back on Altman\u2019s note above in March 2019, highlighting the part where it says Musk left the board of OpenAI\u2019s nonprofit in February 2018 and that he is not involved with OpenAI LP.<\/p>\n Altman texts Musk a couple of days later in March 2019, reminding him they\u2019re planning to announce OpenAI\u2019s new structure tomorrow and wanting to check the wording about Musk\u2019s past involvement.<\/p>\n \u201cAlso have some mild Demis updates to share,\u201d Altman writes. Musk agrees to talk over the phone soon.<\/p>\n In April 2019, Altman texts Musk to ask if he has time to talk about Microsoft\u2019s investment in OpenAI.<\/p>\n In September 2020, Musk publicly responds to a social media post linking to a VentureBeat article<\/a> about Microsoft getting the exclusive license to OpenAI\u2019s GPT-3, writing, \u201cThis does seem like the opposite of open. OpenAI is essentially captured by Microsoft.\u201d<\/p>\n An October 2020 test message exchange between Musk and Altman, with Altman reaching out to say he saw Musk\u2019s posts on social media the prior week about Microsoft\u2019s exclusive license to OpenAI\u2019s GPT-3. Altman writes, \u201cI think there\u2019s no way we can hold a candle to DeepMind without many billions of dollars, and MSFT still seems like the best way for us to get that with the least compromise. We gave MSFT a copy of GPT-3 to use in their own products, but we still get to retain autonomy to release our work ourselves (e.g., we can and will continue to provide API access to the most powerful language model in existence to everyone).\u201d<\/p>\n Musk responds, \u201cYeah, we should talk. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s a winning approach to be (or at least appear to be) hypocritical. At least change the name.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk later links to a social media post<\/a> saying that one of Musk\u2019s \u201cworst management blunders\u201d was exclusively licensing GPT-3 to Microsoft. Altman responds saying that OpenAI \u201cfinally just got a full time PR person,\u201d name-dropping Apple\u2019s former PR person Steve Dowling as the new hire, and writing, \u201cI am hopeful we can start getting pr right\u2026\u201d Dowling would later step down from his role, which reported directly to Altman, at the beginning of 2021.<\/p>\n In a text message exchange between Musk and Altman in late October 2020, Altman asks for advice on the next Microsoft investment that OpenAI is considering. Musk responds that he can talk in the next day or two.<\/p>\n An October 2022 article<\/a> from The Information about OpenAI\u2019s advanced talks with Microsoft for additional funding.<\/p>\n In October 2022, Musk writes in a text message to Altman that he was \u201cdisturbed to see OpenAI with a $20B valuation \u2026 I provided almost all the seed, A and most of B round funding.\u201d He sends a link to the above article<\/a>, adding, \u201cThis is a bait and switch.\u201d<\/p>\n Altman responds, \u201cI agree this feels bad\u2014we offered you equity when we established the cap profit, which you didn\u2019t want at the time but we are still very happy to do any time you\u2019d like. We saw no alternative, given the amount of capital we needed and needing still to preserve away to \u2018give the AGI to humanity\u2019, other than the capped profit structure. Fwiw I personally have no equity and never have. Am trying to navigate tricky tightrope the best I can.\u201d The two agree to talk sometime in the coming week.<\/p>\n In March 2023, Musk posts on social media, \u201cI\u2019m still confused as to how a non-profit to which I donated ~ $100M somehow became a $30B market cap for-profit. If this is legal, why doesn\u2019t everyone do it?\u201d<\/p>\n A May 2023 text message exchange between Musk, Altman, Birchall, and Musk lawyer Alex Spiro, in which it\u2019s detailed that Spiro, and potentially Birchall, will show up to OpenAI\u2019s headquarters to review documents about OpenAI\u2019s structure and its relationship with Microsoft.<\/p>\n Musk writes, \u201cThe point is to understand the relationship between all the companies and the original OpenAI 501c3 \u2026 Understanding what rights Microsoft has is important. One of the things I\u2019m concerned about is that they will have de facto control over AGI.\u201d<\/p>\n A March 2026 social media post by Musk. He writes, \u201cTesla will be one of the companies to make AGI and probably the first to make it in humanoid\/atom-shaping form.\u201d<\/p>\n Exhibit No. 1293<\/a> Documents released May 1, 2026<\/p>\n An agreement establishing a philanthropic account called Musk Charitable at Vanguard Charitable, signed by Elon Musk in July of 2014.<\/p>\n An email from Sam Altman to Elon Musk with a list of suggestions for OpenAI, including a governance structure of five people including Musk, Altman, Bill Gates, Pierre Omidyar, and Dustin Moskovitz. \u201cAgree on all,\u201d Musk responds.<\/p>\n A December 11th, 2015 blog post titled \u201cIntroducing OpenAI\u201d \u2014 also available publicly online<\/a>. The post describes OpenAI as a \u201cnon-profit artificial intelligence research company\u201d whose goal is to reach \u201cadvanced digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by the need to generate financial return.\u201d It lists the founding team including Sutskever, Brockman, and Andrej Karpathy (who would later go to Tesla), as well as the co-chairs, Altman and Musk.<\/p>\n A January 2016 email chain. Musk forwards Sutskever and Altman a message from Google\u2019s Hassabis, where Hassabis objects to Musk, Altman, and others \u201cextolling the virtues of open sourcing AI \u2026 I presume you realise that this is not some sort of panacea that will somehow magically solve the AI problem?\u201d Hassabis describes the approach as \u201cactually very dangerous\u201d and links to a Slate Star Codex blog post.<\/p>\n Sutskever responds by saying that \u201cas we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open\u201d and \u201ctotally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes).\u201d Musk replies: \u201cYup.\u201d<\/p>\n A series of emails involving Musk, Altman, former OpenAI COO Chris Clark, and Ronald Gong (an associate of Musk who\u2019s listed on financial documents). The chain starts in February of 2016, with Altman emailing Musk that \u201cI think we\u2019re going to need more than I was originally budgeting given a) the salaries in the field and b) the speed at which you want to grow.\u201d Musk agrees to contribute $20 million a year for the next three years, while Altman contributes $10 million a year and $5 million a year comes from other donors. Gong and Clark discuss using YC Org as a fiscal sponsor for OpenAI, and Clark attaches the organization\u2019s articles of incorporation and other documentation.<\/p>\n Documentation for a series of grants from the Musk Charitable Fund to OpenAI, including a mid-2016 grant of $5 million to YC Org, directed toward the \u201cOpenAI Artificial Intelligence Research Program\u201d; a $4.5 million grant in August of 2016; and a series of monthly $175,000 lease payments in 2017, among others.<\/p>\n A letter from Chris Clark (listed as the treasurer of YC Org) acknowledging a $500,000 donation from Musk in May of 2016.<\/p>\n A May 2016 exchange between Brockman and Musk. Brockman writes that \u201cGoogle\u2019s policy people want to speak with me,\u201d apparently because they\u2019re afraid they\u2019ll \u201cbuild a public narrative that it\u2019s wrong to have any closed-source AI.\u201d Brockman says he plans to say there\u2019s no reason to do that. \u201dWe don\u2019t have a problem with people keeping things proprietary \u2014 it\u2019s fine to make money off this stuff, and we may even generate revenue ourselves one day,\u201d he says. \u201cWhat, that\u2019s really interesting. Who called from Google?\u201d Musk asks.<\/p>\n A June 2016 exchange between Elon Musk and his fixer Jared Birchall, discussing a lease of the Pioneer Building in San Francisco (which housed OpenAI until 2024 and xAI after that<\/a>). Birchall mentions that a lease has been finalized and is awaiting Sam Altman\u2019s signature, and Musk objects: \u201cSince I\u2019m personally on the hook, this should be viewed as a Musk Foundation building, in which we will house OpenAI, Neuralink, and maybe some SpaceX or Tesla people. I don\u2019t want Sam on the lease.\u201d Birchall says he\u2019ll direct Altman\u2019s name to be removed from the lease.<\/p>\n A June 2016 email chain involving Jared Birchall and two associates of Bridgeton Holdings, Atit Jariwala, and Bourke Lee. The messages negotiate leasing the Pioneer Building and end with instructions for making the first monthly lease payment of around $142,000.<\/p>\n A June 2016 email exchange between Altman, Birchall, and Clark about financing the Pioneer Building lease. Clark sends Birchall a Tenancy at Will agreement signed by Altman, attached to the email.<\/p>\n A July 1st email from Birchall to Musk with the executed lease to the Pioneer Building, including the lease. Birchall notes that the building owner will \u201cfacilitate a site inspection as soon as we\u2019d like.\u201d<\/p>\n A July 2016 email chain between Musk and Birchall. Birchall sends Musk details about the quarterly donations and monthly rent payments for OpenAI, plus a request from Clark, who \u201casked me about using the extra space in the building for some of the Y Combinator companies.\u201d Musk\u2019s response mentions that \u201cI have had very little bandwidth to think about the company and am a little worried that it is being managed as an extension of Y Combinator\u201d and says he\u2019d also like to use part of the building for Neuralink, \u201cso no YC stuff.\u201d<\/p>\n Birchall then says there was a problem with the first quarterly contribution: \u201cbecause they didn\u2019t have an entity in place to even make a contribution we didn\u2019t pay,\u201d and in June they began using another nonprofit (presumably YC Org) as a conduit. \u201cI\u2019m not sure why they have taken so long to apply,\u201d Birchall complains. \u201cSo I haven\u2019t sent anything to OpenAI? That\u2019s a really big deal. My credibility is at stake here,\u201d Musk writes. Birchall confirms the funds were sent \u2014 just channeled through a temporary 501(c)(3). \u201cGood,\u201d Musk answers.<\/p>\n An August 2016 email exchange between Musk and Altman. Altman tells Musk he\u2019s negotiated a $50 million compute donation from OpenAI over the next 3 years and asks if there\u2019s any reason to care about switching from Amazon. \u201cI\u2019m ok with this only if they don\u2019t use it in marketing. I would also like to see the exact terms and conditions. Gifts are only as good as the T&C,\u201d Musk writes. \u201cI think Jeff [Bezos] is a bit of a tool and Satya [Nadella] is not, so I slightly prefer Microsoft, but I hate their marketing dept.\u201d<\/p>\n Altman writes that \u201cAmazon started really dicking us around on the T+C, especially on marketing commits. And their offering wasn\u2019t that good technically anyway.\u201d Musk says that \u201cI will call Satya if we get to decent terms\u201d and says that Microsoft can always point people to \u201ca simple text blog expressing appreciation of Microsoft\u2019s donation on our website.\u201d<\/p>\n A series of emails between October and November of 2016 involving Birchall; Gong; Morgan Stanley Private Wealth Management group director Matilda Simon-Ferrigno; and two people from Gong\u2019s company myCFO, Teresa Holland and Paula Lo. Birchall arranges moving shares from the Musk Foundation to finance OpenAI.<\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s 2016 tax returns as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. It lists 52 employees and around $13 million in total revenue, mostly from contributions and grants. It names accomplishments including establishing a research team, launching the OpenAI Gym Beta, publishing \u201cnearly half a dozen comprehensive research papers,\u201d holding a conference, and building a safety team.<\/p>\n The Musk Foundation\u2019s 2016 Return of Private Foundation tax documents, showing a total of around $47.8 million in contributions, gifts, and grants.<\/p>\n A March 2017 letter from Chris Clark to Elon Musk, acknowledging a gift of $5 million to OpenAI via YC Org.<\/p>\n A June 2017 letter from Chris Clark to Elon Musk, acknowledging a gift of $5 million to OpenAI via YC Org.<\/p>\n A June 2017 Fidelity charitable investment advisor program application for the Musk Foundation Charitable Fund.<\/p>\n Emails between Birchall, Clark, and UBS wealth management associate Leeder Hsu in July of 2017. Birchall directs a grant of $250,000 to YC Org for a Universal Basic Income study.<\/p>\n A July 2017 email chain involving Brockman, Musk, Sutskever, and Birchall. Musk sends a link to a New York Times story about Chinese AI with the comment \u201cThey will do whatever it takes to obtain what we develop. Maybe another reason to change course.\u201d Brokman suggests a path of an AI research nonprofit through 2017, \u201cAI research + hardware for-profit\u201d starting 2018, and \u201cGovernment project (when: ??).\u201d Musk then says that \u201cin appreciation for what you\u2019ve done to get OpenAI to where it is today,\u201d he\u2019d like to offer some OpenAI founding members Tesla Founder Series Model 3 cars. Birchall says he\u2019ll reach out with details about the cars.<\/p>\n An August 2017 email conversation between Zilis and Birchall about filing for a for-profit branch of OpenAI. \u201cElon wants to have control to prevent this from going squirrely,\u201d Zilis says. She lists \u201cunknowns\u201d including leadership of the new entity \u2014 \u201dGreg 100% doesn\u2019t want to run it.\u201d Birchall sends confirmation of how much Musk gave to OpenAI in 2016 and 2017: $15.4 million and $16 million respectively.<\/p>\n OpenAI, Inc.\u2019s certificate of incorporation on September 15th, 2017 as a public benefit corporation.<\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s 2017 tax returns, also as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. It lists around $33 million in revenue (mostly from contributions and grants, again) and 99 employees. It notes that in 2017, it demonstrated that \u201creinforcement learning algorithms could be scaled to beat the world\u2019s best humans at a restricted version of an advanced, multiplayer game called Dota 2.\u201d<\/p>\n A copy of the Vanguard Charitable Policies and Guidelines, 2014 to 2017.<\/p>\n Documentation for a series of 2017-2020 donations from Musk to OpenAI, composed of monthly \u201cgeneral support\u201d payments that likely include the Pioneer Building lease \u2014 which Musk said constituted his main form of support in the later years of OpenAI.<\/p>\n A January 2018 letter from Clark to Musk acknowledging a gift of four Tesla sedans with a total value of around $250,000.<\/p>\n The OpenAI Charter from April 9th, 2018. It outlines \u201cthe principles we use to execute on OpenAI\u2019s mission,\u201d including \u201cbroadly distributed benefits,\u201d \u201clong-term safety,\u201d and \u201ctechnical leadership.\u201d<\/p>\n An August 31st, 2018 email from Altman to Musk with a for-profit Limited Partnership term sheet attached. \u201cPlease see attached, look forward to feedback,\u201d Altman says. He says that \u201cmy current thought is that I won\u2019t take any equity,\u201d since he likes the idea of \u201cbeing completely unconflicted,\u201d but says that if OpenAI appeared unlikely to build AGI but \u201cwere going to build something valuable, then maybe I\u2019d want equity then.\u201d At the start of the term sheet is a box marked \u201cImportant warning,\u201d saying that the partnership is a \u201chigh-risk investment\u201d and any investment should be \u201cin the spirit of a donation.\u201d<\/p>\n An August 31st, 2018 email from Zilis to Birchall, forwarding Altman\u2019s email. Birchall responds: \u201cPretty plain vanilla for-profit structure. So kinda hard to push a narrative that doesn\u2019t involve investors being very focused on ROI. I\u2019m a super fan of capitalism and making tons of money doing great things, but not sure if this correlates with the whole \u2018noble cause for humanity, not doing it to make money\u2019 narrative.\u201d<\/p>\n A July 2020 email from Clark to Birchall confirming that OpenAI\u2019s for-profit entity will take over rent payments and suggesting a final one-time donation for security costs and \u201canticipated landlord project passthrough\u201d of $570,000. \u201cWe certainly understand if you\u2019d prefer to just stop everything now,\u201d Clark says, telling Birchall to \u201cdo whatever you feel is most fair.\u201d<\/p>\n A November 2018 text message chain between Birchall and Greg Smithies, then Neuralink and the Boring Company\u2019s finance head. It discusses a disagreement over rent payments between OpenAI and Neuralink \u2014 Smithies says \u201cI\u2019d expect [OpenAI] to get pretty nasty about it (ie probably willing to sue) if we didn\u2019t pay something that they could point their auditors to,\u201d saying \u201cthe main driver\u201d is OpenAI accountants demanding it \u201cso they can pass non-profit audits.\u201d Birchall says he\u2019ll \u201ctouch base with Chris to get his perspective.\u201d<\/p>\n A January 2019 message chain between Musk and Birchall, concerning a reimbursement request from OpenAI for shared expenses with Neuralink in the Pioneer Building. Musk offers $250,000 and $1 million in payments for 2017 and 2018 respectively.<\/p>\n A full list of Elon Musk\u2019s contributions to OpenAI, with entries dating from May of 2016 to September of 2020.<\/p>\n A copy of the Fidelity Charitable Policy Guidelines, 2017 to 2022.<\/p>\n An iMessage conversation from December 2024 between Musk and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg offers a \u201cquick heads up that Meta sent a letter to the California AG supporting your lawsuit against OpenAI. Someone (not us) leaked leaked the letter and it will be public in the next hour. Wanted to make sure you heard this from me.\u201d Musk replies: \u201cOk.\u201d<\/p>\n A February 2025 iMessage conversation between Musk and Zuckerberg. \u201cAre you open to the idea of bidding on the OpenAI IP with me and some others?\u201d Musk asks. Zuckerberg asks to discuss live, and Musk says \u201cWill call in the morning.\u201d<\/p>\n A letter from Musk\u2019s xAI and several other investors to OpenAI, proposing an acquisition of all OpenAI\u2019s assets.<\/p>\n Update, April 30th: Added newly available exhibits.<\/p>\n Update, May 1st: Added newly available exhibits.<\/p>\n Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Hayden FieldClose Hayden Field<\/p>\n Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n FollowFollow<\/p>\n See All by Hayden Field<\/a><\/p>\n Adi RobertsonClose Adi Robertson<\/p>\n Senior Editor, Tech & Policy<\/p>\n Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n FollowFollow<\/p>\n See All by Adi Robertson<\/a><\/p>\n AIClose<\/p>\n AI<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n FollowFollow<\/p>\n See All AI<\/a><\/p>\n AnalysisClose<\/p>\n Analysis<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n FollowFollow<\/p>\n See All Analysis<\/a><\/p>\n Elon MuskClose<\/p>\n Elon Musk<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n FollowFollow<\/p>\n See All Elon Musk<\/a><\/p>\n LawClose<\/p>\n Law<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n FollowFollow<\/p>\n See All Law<\/a><\/p>\n OpenAIClose<\/p>\n OpenAI<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n FollowFollow<\/p>\n See All OpenAI<\/a><\/p>\n PolicyClose<\/p>\n Policy<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n FollowFollow<\/p>\n See All Policy<\/a><\/p>\n ReportClose<\/p>\n Report<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n FollowFollow<\/p>\n
A list of \u201cundisputed facts\u201d in Musk v. Altman, et al., including details on timeline and amounts of money raised and\/or donated.<\/p>\n![\"Hayden](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/HAYDEN_BLURPLE.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Adi](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/ADI_ROBERTSON.0.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n