Why trust is a big question at the Elon Musk-OpenAI trial

Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI made their closing arguments this week, and now it’s up to jurors to decide whether OpenAI has done anything wrong as it has transformed into a slightly more for-profit organization.

But as Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane and I noted in the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcastA major theme in the final days of the trial was whether Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, is trustworthy. Musk’s attorney Steve Molo, for example, questioned Altman about whether statements he made during congressional testimony were true.

Kirsten noted that Musk himself has made many misleading statements, and that trust is not just an issue for Altman.

“This is a fundamental question [for] many technology journalists, policymakers and increasingly consumers across all AI labs, she said. “It really comes down to trust, because we don’t necessarily have the understanding: These are all private companies, there’s a lot that goes behind the veil.”

Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Anthony Ha: [The end of the trial] led to this truly provocative headline from one of our writers, Tim Fernholz: [that] just says, “Who trusts Sam Altman?” Would anyone please take the time to answer this?

Kirsten Korosec: Yes, Anthony, I’ll give it right back to you. Do you trust Sam Altman?

Anthony: It’s an interesting question because it feels like something that’s kind of a wild question to discuss in a journalistic context, but actually in many ways that’s the core of the process.

Sean O’Kane: That’s not a yes.

Anthony: And that actually seems to be the case [at the] core to understanding so much of what happened at OpenAI, especially this big executive power struggle that they now call The Blip.

It seems like a lot of people who worked with Altman don’t trust him. And he’s acknowledged this a little bit, because he’ll talk about the fact that he recognizes that he’s been conflict-averse, telling people what they want to hear, and he’s trying to work on that.

I mean, it sounds plausible, and I can see how that could lead to misunderstandings in some situations. [But] I’m also a very conflict-averse person and I’d like to think that if this kind of thing came to court, people wouldn’t ask, “Is Anthony Ha trustworthy?”

Sean: Still no yes!

Kirsten: I think people would say you’re trustworthy. I will say that this question, while provocative, does not simply summarize what this trial was about. I would zoom out even further and say this is a fundamental question [for] many technology journalists, policy makers and more and more consumers across all AI labs. It really comes down to trust, because we don’t necessarily have the insight – these are all private companies, there’s still a lot going on behind the veil.

Maybe we can take a look when they all go public, but at its core it’s about trust and abuse, and do we believe its intent? And what I would throw back is that sometimes the intention can be dignified, noble and yet misused. It can still be a bit of a shitshow. I think it’s more than who Sam Altman trusts – although that was very interesting in this trial – but more of that bigger question that we can apply to the entire industry.

Sean: I’ll say it: I don’t trust him. But you know, I don’t trust most people, so I guess that’s just the baseline.

We’ll see where this goes. The process will be completed today. I’m very curious how the jury will decide all this. I think a big motivator of this in the beginning was Elon Musk, trying to throw mud at a perceived rival and someone he thinks has slighted him. And I don’t know if we know enough yet to say that that’s fully accomplished, or whether or not he has a chance to win. But I think all these people came out of this looking a little worse for wear.

Anthony: And to get specific, why this is coming up this week is that [Altman] stood on the witness stand and was actually questioned about some statements he made in the past, in testimony to that [Congress]essentially saying he had no shares in OpenAI. And that’s not true, because he had a stock through Y Combinator, which he managed. And tried to brush that off by saying, “I assume everyone understands what it means to be a passive investor in a venture capital fund.” And I think [Elon Musk’s] The lawyer said with some honesty, “Really? You think the congressman you interviewed knew that?”

Kirsten: Yeah, I mean, he was playing the whole semantic game. Which I found so interesting [this] is the style of how Sam Altman answered questions [compared to] Elon Musk on the stand.

So Elon Musk, in a lot of scenarios and in a lot of cases, we can point to the fact that he posted something on Twitter that was a lie or a bit of a lie and corrected it on the spot. So there is a history of, I would say, non-truthfulness-slash-lying, blatant or otherwise, in Elon Musk’s world, but the way he handled it was incredibly combative and very different from Altman who really took this. [attitude of]“I’m working on it,” and tried to sound affable, but I don’t know if it will work for him.

Because it really comes down to the core of the facts, and hopefully the jury pays attention to that too. But I found that very interesting; both were untrue, but the way they handled it was very different.