Elon Musk vs OpenAI Just Took a Wild Turn

So Sam Alman just posted one word on Twitter that has Elon Musk absolutely cooked for his upcoming trial. Let's talk about it. So this is the tweet that is pretty funny because this shows us how the Sam Alman versus Elon Musk saga has been escalating and it is pretty crazy when you figure out just how much is going on behind the scenes. So what I want to do is I want to give you guys some context of exactly what things have transpired since the inception of this company. So most of you guys may know that yes, Elon Musk is seeking up to $134 billion. That's B for billion. Okay. And his claim is basically that Samman and his team lied to me. They promised that OpenAI would stay a nonprofit to help humanity, but they were secretly planning to go for profit the whole time and make themselves rich. And now Elon in this in the early days of Opening Eye, he essentially donated $38 million back in 2016 to 2018. And he's basically saying that look guys, if you guys were honest with me that you were going to make billions of dollars or go on that path, I would have asked for equity instead. Instead, you treated my money like a donation while you all became billionaires. And the trial is happening, of course, in April 2026, which is not far away from now. And here's where it starts to get pretty crazy. — I don't trust OpenAI. — I mean, I, you know, I started that company as a nonprofit open source. — Yes. — The Open in OpenAI. I named a company. I named the company. — Yeah. — Open AAI as an open source. um and it is uh now extremely closed source and m and maximizing profit. So — does risk — I don't understand how you actually go from being a an open source nonprofit to a closed source for maximum profit organization. I'm missing — so I don't know if most people even saw this thing that recently happened. And so in January, the court unsealed a bunch of private documents. And when I was reading this, I genuinely could not believe it. And you might be thinking, how are we talking about OpenAI being excited about this? Just trust me, guys. You're going to want to hear this. So the most damaging part of this is Greg Brockman's personal diary. So Greg Brockman, as most of you guys know, is OpenAI's co-founder and president. And apparently this guy keeps a journal. Now, in November 2017, he wrote this exact sentence. Okay. I cannot believe that we committed to a nonprofit. If 3 months later we are doing BC Corp, then it was a lie. This is word for word getting called out. He literally wrote it was a lie in his diary about promising to stay a nonprofit. He also wrote stuff like this is the only chance we have to get out from Elon financially. What will take me to $1 billion? So now we have the situation where Elon Musk's lawyers are like look this is a smoking gun. You can see that they were planning on screwing me over the entire time. It's literally in his diary, okay? And honestly, that diary is pretty damning. The judge even said that there's enough evidence of fraud to go to trial, which means that this is a big deal. And this is where we get Sam Alman's hilarious tweet. Okay, so Sam Alman tweeted, "I' really excited to get Elon under oath in a few months. We have Christmas in April. " And at this point, when I was looking at the stories, I was like, "Okay, this doesn't make sense because Elon Musk has a smoking gun. You guys are facing so much scrutiny because you probably did lie to him. But why are you now excited for the trial? Because surely you would be worried about what you're going to uncover. So this is where things get interesting. So a few days ago, Samman had a tweet which is concerning. Now the concerning thing is pretty hilarious because those of you who know Elon Musk, he always tweets concerning in quotation marks to absolutely everything. And so here him tweeting concerning this is pretty hilarious as he's essentially referencing some information. So the information that he's referencing is that there's a court filing that exposes what Elon Musk himself has been doing at XAI, his own AI company. And this is where the thing just gets wild and that's why I said this has just escalated. Okay, so according to court documents, Elon's former CFO testified that Elon preferred to communicate over Signal or Xhat, and those are messaging apps using retention settings of 1 week or less to ensure that the communications were not preserved. The translation here is that Elon Musk set his messages to autodelete after one week on purpose. But what is bad about this is that it gets worse. And so the CFO said, and this is why it gets worse, the more sensitive the information that was shared at XAI, the shorter the duration of the visibility of that message among executives. So if you want to say this in simple plain English, the more illegal or shady something was, the faster Elon made sure those messages were disappeared. And so if you want to

get into the really nitty-gritty of these details and why it's so bad for Elon Musk, you need to take a look at the further details that OpenAI had tweeted, well not tweeted, but made an article about on January the 16th, 2026. So essentially, it was pretty crazy what they showed us because the truth is that Elon Musk actually left out quite a bit. So, of course, as you know, when facts are presented, certain things aren't always presented with all of the context in there. So, if you take a look at this, okay, it talks about the fact that the truth is that yes, Elon Musk agreed in 2017 that a for-profit structure would actually be the next phase for AI. But the problem is that the negotiations ended when they refused to give him full control. They actually rejected his offer to merge OpenAI into Tesla and they tried to find another path to achieve that mission together and then he quit and he actually said to OpenAI that you guys should find your own path to raising billions of dollars which without him he basically said there is a 0% chance of success. So you have to understand that the truth is you know a lot bigger than you do realize. the information that Elon Musk has put out, it does certainly make OpenAI look bad. But when you view it in the wider context, it doesn't look as bad as it seems. And if you dive into this part right here, you can literally see the change in terms of how it looks versus how it is. So you can see from Elon Musk's court filings, it says that, you know, Mr. Musk insisted that any new entity support the nonprofit's mission and that OpenAI remain essentially a philanthropic endeavor. And then you can see that the September 2017 call notes is that it actually says here that we actually have to figure out how to do the transition from nonprofit to something which is essentially ethnappic endeavor. And you can actually see that the full statement is completely different. Elon Musk actually says that you know he's going to convert nonprofit to something which is essentially a philanthropic endeavor and is a B corp or C corp or something and we must tell the story and not lose the moral high ground. So you can literally see that by looking at what Elon Musk actually left out that it's clear that he's trying to paint this narrative that OpenAI went off and completely, you know, run the company into a public benefit company. Whilst yes, it does look like that in practice, I think that of course with the wider context and details, it definitely paints a different picture. And if you're leaving out certain details, I think, of course, it's going to be a little bit tricky to sort of convince the judge that what you're saying is actually true. I mean, you're deleting messages, you're, you know, leaving out certain details. I mean, we can dive even further into this. You can see here it says from Elon's court filing, he talks about the fact that, you know, and he says, and this is verbatim, okay, it says, "But Musk's co-founders secretly had other plans on November 16th, 2017. They admitted that the conclusion is we truly want the forprofit. " But once again, would this is a story with the added context? We can see here is that Ilia Sutska says that and this is of course someone that we all know worked at OpenAI said that my preference here are not set in stone. Some prefer the BC Corp. Some can be happy in the nonprofit world. And you can see that essentially what they were trying to do here is figure out the most optimum output. I'm actually going to highlight this right here. You can literally see that Sam Alman says that the one thing that he cares about is the most optimum output. Okay? So he says, "If you guys are not going to be happy with the nonprofit, then we should figure out the BC Corp. " So I think it's pretty clear that when you dive into all of the details, it is a lot more nuanced than it does seem. And I think that is going to play a part into how this lawsuit does eventually rule. And the last one I'm going to show you guys here, because of course, this one is pretty damning, you know, where Greg Brockman says that it would be wrong to actually steal that nonprofit from Elon Musk and then convert it to a BC Corp without him. that'd be pretty morally bankrupt. But I'm not going to show you guys all of the notes here. But essentially, the problem is that in that entry, they were still considering Elon Musk's demands. And the problem is that there was basically some kind of trap because Elon Musk had left. And Greg and I earlier basically said that they don't want to accept Elon Musk's terms and then create a for-profit without his approval. And they were basically nervous that by accepting this, they'd get stuck in a structure that was unable to raise sufficient capital while Elon Musk basically left to pursue his own AI project at Tesla. And that's why they never reached a deal. And you know, OpenAI clearly have said here that no one has ever lied to Elon. told him they accept his terms when they hadn't. So when you see all of this, okay, the fact that Elon Musk actually has said that in the past he actually said on his way out that he actually supported them in pursuing a path that they saw to raising billions of dollars, you know, and he just didn't think that they would succeed without them and went to of course Tesla because I mean at the time OpenAI was just simply a small research startup that was trying to seek around $10 billion from the likes of Bill Gates and other you know noteworthy investors. And so I think it's clear that when you have a situation of a small research

company trying to raise capital unable to do that. Elon Musk is like look you guys are never going to be able to raise the capital. I'm going to go work on a Tesla. And of course he thinks that they wouldn't succeed without them. And he said look if you guys can raise billions of dollars do it in any way you want. I mean that paints a very different picture than what most people do believe which is why this lawsuit is so confusing. So I think of course when you dive into the specific details it is a little bit more nuance than that and that just makes this entire situation even more tricky and that is why I say that there is some real irony here. Okay and you need to understand this because Elon Musk's case is basically okay look at this diary that accidentally survived it proves that they were lying to me. However, Sam Elman's case against Elon Musk is like, "Okay, show us your communications from that time period. " And Elon Musk is basically saying, "Um, I deleted all of those for security reasons. They autodee after a week. " And Sam Alman says that you did this even though you know you were going to sue us. And then Elon Musk basically is saying, "Yeah, of course I did. " And that's a big problem. Okay. Greg Brockman's diary is of course destroying Open Eyee's case because it survived. But Elon Musk doesn't have any of his own communications that could prove or disprove what he's claiming because he systematically deleted everything. And it's not random deletions. He had a policy to delete sensitive messages faster than regular messages. And if you don't realize why this is so bad is because this is called a spoilation of evidence in legal terms, which is a fancy way of saying that, you know, you're destroying evidence on purpose. So this is going to be completely massive at the trial. Okay? Because when Elon Musk takes the stand in April, Sam Alman's lawyers are going to grill him. They are going to ask him questions like, you know, what happened at this time? What were you talking about then? But the problem is that Elon Musk is going to have to say, "I don't remember. I don't have those messages. " But meanwhile, Sam Alman has emails. Microsoft has texts from their CEO, and they of course have Greg Mman's diary. But Elon Musk has nothing because he deleted it all. So, the problem here, and this is why I said this just escalated, is that the judges and juries, they hate when people destroy the evidence. They really, really hate it because the judge can actually tell the jury, hey, since Elon deleted all his messages, you're basically allowed to assume that those messages would have hurt his case. And that's called adverse interference. inference. And it's pretty devastating. Third, it does make Elon Musk look really guilty. Like when you think about this, you wouldn't delete messages if they weren't incriminating. And why would you need to delete messages faster when they're more sensitive? Innocent people never delete messages. That's the real thing. So now, when this actually goes to trial, Sam Alman's lawyers are going to be looking at the questions and they're going to be saying, "What were you discussing with your lawyers at XAI? What did you text your CFO about OpenAI? " And his only answer is going to be, "Sorry, I deleted those messages. " And then Sam Alman's lawyers are going to be like, "Look, your honor, we'd like to submit the evidence of Elon's policy of deleting sensitive messages despite knowing he was going to sue us. " And then the jury is just going to come to that conclusion of, "Okay, maybe something shady is going on here. " So, I mean, it doesn't look good for Elon Musk, which is the entire reason that Samman here has said, "Oh, I'm so excited to get Elon under oath in a few months. Christmas is under April. " So, I mean, that's why this is so, you know, concerning. It's because Sam is throwing shade back at Elon Musk and he wants Elon Musk under oath because he knows that Elon Musk cannot produce any evidence to support those claims. I mean, when you think about it, all Elon Musk has is his memory from 8 years ago, while Sam Alman will have the actual documents. Now, if we're wondering about this case, do you think that Elon Musk could win? And remember guys, this is pretty important because this will decide the future of OpenAI. So, that's why I'm covering this case. And could Elon Musk still win? Well, maybe. They both have, you know, probably going to have super impressive lawyers. Remember, Elon Musk is the richest person on Earth. And so, I mean, when we look at all the facts, I mean, Greg Rockman's diary is pretty bad for Open AI. But the evidence of evidence destruction is arguably worse because it makes him look like he has something to hide. I think that maybe they will settle before trial because none of these guys want to get in front of a jury. If the Greg's diary gets read out loud, Open Eye looks terrible. But if Elon's autodelete policy gets explained, he might look just as bad. And do you want to know the craziest part about all of this is that this is not the only time Elon Musk has recently sued OpenAI. Recently, there was another lawsuit, okay? And this is why I say like the fight for AI is a big one. This is a monumental battle that will literally determine how these companies are forged. I mean how their structures are going to be, how the AI gets distributed. It is going to be super interesting to see and this lawsuit is super interesting. Okay, so I see here it says two Elon Musk backed businesses

have officially sued Apple and OpenAI accusing them of joining forces to illegally block threats from potential competitors. So basically what they're saying is that Apple has had a decision to integrate OpenAI's chatbot into the operating system of smartphones. But that agreement, Elon Musk is basically saying that wo wo, that's violating competition law. And he's saying that Apple is essentially favoring OpenAI's chat GPT and app store rankings and they're basically colluding to give them a better rating. Now, I do want to say that I'm not sure that this lawsuit is going to hold up because I do know that recently Apple isn't even that friendly with OpenAI after recent, you know, discussions about the fact that OpenAI is actually competing with them. So, I do think that this lawsuit might actually be dropped because if anything, it's actually Google and Apple that are probably colluding at the moment. Of course, this is all allegedly not trying to get sued here. But the point I'm trying to make is that Elon Musk rightfully so has a vendetta against OpenAI because if you really do think about it, he is pretty correct that they did take the donation and then start a for-profit company. Of course, he would have rather equity because you at least get some say, you at least have a bigger financial upside. And of course, the diary is pretty bad. But this anti-competitive lawsuit, I don't think this one is going to hold up that much because I do believe that everyone knows that Chat GBT is probably what most people use anyways. And OpenAI are literally just saying, look, this is just consistent with Mr. Musk's ongoing pattern of harassment. So considering the fact that Elon Musk already has a different lawsuit open with them, Sam Alman's lawyers are probably going to argue that look, this guy is just really trying to harass us. I mean, he did have a previous lawsuit which he dropped and then restarted. So, I mean, at the moment, I think this is going to be one of the most interesting things because Elon Musk has all of the resources in the world to fight this. The information on both sides looks bad, but I do think that Elon Musk will probably win something that may change the nature of OpenAI, although I'm not sure what that is going to be. I just don't think that OpenAI may be the same. I'm not sure what's going to happen, but it will certainly be interesting to see exactly how things change. And I mean, if you're wondering how things are behind closed doors, you can potentially take a look at this picture from Elon Musk and Sam Alman going back and forth. And if you don't want to read all of this, the cliffotes version is that Sam Alman is like, "Look, would you just stop attacking us in public? I mean, it's kind of annoying and you're kind of like my hero and Elon Musk is saying that I hear you and it's not my fault to be hurtful. It's not my intention for which I apologize, but the fate of civilization is at stake. " And I mean, you've already seen the clip that I posted earlier in the video. Elon Musk clearly wants the future of AI to be I guess you could say not controlled by you know one unilateral company and so of course I guess he sees this what he is doing as a sort of heroic thing. He doesn't really see it as just you know messing up OpenAI but for one thing is certain okay is that the future of AI is completely uncertain and we don't know who is going to emerge. Previously when these emails were sent, OpenAI was the market leader and there was absolutely no competition. But now it does seem like Google and Anthropic are taking more market share. So it will be very interesting to see how things move on in the future.