Why trust is a big question in the Elon Musk-OpenAI case

Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI presented their closing arguments this week, and now it’s up to the jury to decide whether OpenAI did anything wrong when it was turned into. little-added-benefits organization.

But as Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I watched in a recent episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcastThe main issue in the last days of the trial was if OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is to be believed – for example, Musk’s lawyer, Steve Molo, told Altman if what he said in congressional testimony was true.

Kirsten said that Musk is He spoke many of his delusionsand that trust is not just Altman’s story.

“This is an important question (for) many technical journalists, policy makers, and more and more consumers, concerning all AI labs,” he said. “It’s really down to trust, because we don’t have the intelligence, really – these are all private companies, there’s a lot behind the veil.”

Read on to see our discussion, edited for length and clarity.

Anthony Ha: (End of case) led to a very critical article from one of our writers, Tim Fernholz, (who) says, “Who believes in Sam Altman?” Anyone want a hard answer?

Kirsten Korosec: Well, Anthony, I’ll give it back to you. Do you believe Sam Altman?

Anthony: It’s an interesting question because it sounds like a difficult question to discuss in a journalistic context, but it’s the crux of the case, in many ways.

Sean O’Kane: That’s not a yes.

Anthony: And it seems to be (on) the basis for understanding a lot of what happened at OpenAI, especially this big battle that they call The Blip.

It seems like a lot of people who have worked with Altman don’t trust him. And he has accepted this a little, because he has said about the fact that they know they have conflictstelling people what they want to hear, and he is trying to fix that.

I mean, it seems to make sense, and I can understand how that would cause some conflict. (But) I’m also a person who hates controversy and I’d like to think that if any of these things go to trial, people won’t be asking, “Is Anthony Ha credible?”

Sean: But no, yes!

Kirsten: I think people would say that you are very reliable. I submit that this question, while tempting, does not simply explain what the case was. I’ll take a closer look and say that this is an important question (for) many technical journalists, policy makers, and consumers in general, about all AI labs. It’s really down to trust, because we have no knowledge, really – these are all private companies, there’s a lot behind the veil.

Maybe all IPO, we can see, but in fact I believe it is a misuse, and we believe its purpose? And what I can lose is that, sometimes a goal can be right, honorable, and misused. It can remain as a negative representation. I think it’s more than Sam Altman believes – although it was very interesting in this measure – but the biggest question we can ask of the whole industry.

Sean: I will say: I don’t believe him. But you know, I don’t trust a lot of people, so I think that’s just the foundation.

We’ll see where this goes. The case ends today. I’m interested to hear how the judges decide on all of this. I think that at the beginning of this, the main motivation for this was Elon Musk trying to throw mud, at a perceived enemy and someone that he feels insulted. And I don’t know if we know enough to say that this was achieved, and if they have a chance to succeed. But I think all these people came out of this looking a little bad.

Anthony: And just to be specific, the reason this is coming up this week is that (Altman) was on the show and he’s happy with what he said in the past, in his (Congress) testimony, basically saying that he was unfair in OpenAI. And this is not true because he had a share through Y Combinator, who runs it. And he tried to refute this by saying, “I think everyone understands what it means to be a reckless entrepreneur in a VC fund.” And I think (Elon Musk’s) lawyer, in fairness, said, “Really?

Kirsten: Yeah, I mean, he was playing the whole game of semantics. What I thought was most interesting (this) was the style in which Sam Altman answered questions (compared to) Elon Musk on the stand.

So Elon Musk, in many, many, and many cases, we can say that he posted something on Twitter that was more or less a lie, and he corrected that post. So there is a history of, I would say, not seeing-lying-lying, clearly or not, in the world of Elon Musk, but the way he did it was very contradictory and very different from Altman who really took this (idea of), “I’m working,” and trying to look romantic and I don’t know if it will help him.

Because it comes down to the basics, and hopefully that’s what the judges listen to. But I thought this was very interesting – both being honest, but the way they behave is very different.