Steadvar — News without the noise

Privacy · Terms · About

© 2026 Steadvar. All rights reserved.

OpenAI Leaders Testify on Early For-Profit Discussions Amid Musk Lawsuit

BusinessTechnology4d ago
Share

Similar Articles

Elon Musk Sues OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Over Alleged Mission Shift

BusinessTechnology4/27/2026

Elon Musk Testifies in Lawsuit Against OpenAI, Seeks Corporate Changes and Damages

BusinessTechnology4/28/2026

Elon Musk and OpenAI Exchange Settlement Messages as Trial Begins

BusinessTechnology5/4/2026

Musk Testifies in OpenAI Trial, Makes Concessions Under Cross-Examination

BusinessTechnology4/30/2026

Lawsuits Allege OpenAI Failed to Report Threat Before Canadian School Shooting

TechnologyCrime4/29/2026

OpenAI President Greg Brockman testified that Elon Musk sought unilateral control over Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) before leaving the board in 2018. The testimony, part of Musk's lawsuit alleging OpenAI abandoned its nonprofit mission, revealed early internal discussions about a for-profit structure. OpenAI, now valued at $852 billion, has grown significantly since restructuring.

Facts First

  • OpenAI President Greg Brockman testified that Elon Musk sought unilateral control over AGI before departing the board in 2018.
  • Elon Musk is suing OpenAI, claiming its leaders unjustly enriched themselves by converting the startup into a for-profit company.
  • Brockman's personal journal entries from 2017 show he considered flipping OpenAI to a for-profit, asking 'Financially, what will take me to $1B?'
  • OpenAI restructured with a for-profit arm in 2018 and has since grown to a valuation of $852 billion.
  • Brockman's current stake in OpenAI is valued at approximately $30 billion.

What Happened

OpenAI President Greg Brockman testified in a trial regarding allegations by Elon Musk that OpenAI abandoned its nonprofit mission. Brockman testified that Musk was seeking unilateral control over Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Musk voluntarily left the OpenAI board in early 2018. In February 2018, Musk gave a speech to approximately 40 OpenAI employees announcing his resignation, stating the only viable path forward was for OpenAI to merge with Tesla. OpenAI submitted Brockman's personal journal entries as evidence. The entries, written between 2015 and 2023, show that in 2017, Brockman wrote, 'we’ve been thinking that maybe we should just flip to a for-profit. Making the money for us sounds great and all.' In another 2017 entry, he wrote, 'Financially, what will take me to $1B?' while considering whether to support Musk or Sam Altman. OpenAI created a for-profit arm in 2018 and has since grown to a valuation of $852 billion.

Why this Matters to You

The legal dispute and testimony provide a rare, public look into the early strategic decisions of a leading AI company. The outcome of the lawsuit could influence OpenAI's governance and its highly anticipated public listing, which may happen as early as this year. For those following the AI industry, the testimony reveals foundational tensions between competing visions of control, safety, and commercial viability that continue to define the field.

What's Next

The trial in Oakland will continue to examine Musk's claims. The unsealed journal entries and Brockman's testimony are likely to be central pieces of evidence as both sides present their cases. The legal proceedings may clarify the early history of OpenAI's restructuring and could impact the company's timeline for a potential public offering.

Perspectives

“
OpenAI Executives contend that Musk sought 'unilateral control over AGI' and attempted to fold the organization into Tesla, ultimately lacking the necessary expertise in AI/AGI to be a reliable partner.
“
Musk's Legal Team argues that internal journal entries prove OpenAI leaders abandoned their nonprofit mission and exhibit 'apparent greed,' likening the leadership's actions to those of a 'bank robber.'
“
Greg Brockman maintains that his personal journal entries were merely explorations of various thoughts and that his comments regarding 'stealing' the nonprofit were strictly limited to a hypothetical scenario involving Musk's removal.