Altman Testifies Musk Sought Total Control of OpenAI, Claims Damages Could Reach $150 Billion

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, took the stand this week to detail his interactions with Elon Musk during the early days of the artificial‑intelligence startup. Altman argued that Musk wanted unfettered control of the company and left the board when that demand was not met. The testimony, delivered in a high‑stakes trial, focused on a series of text exchanges and recollections that paint a picture of a contentious power struggle.

Altman said Musk repeatedly insisted on being the sole decision‑maker. When the board refused to grant him that authority, Musk “walked” – a phrase the former Y Combinator leader used to describe the tech mogul’s departure from the leadership circle. The CEO recalled Musk’s claim that, if he ever stepped aside, the reins might pass to his children, a comment Altman labeled “particularly hair‑raising.” The statement, according to Altman, underscored Musk’s reluctance to consider any succession plan that excluded his own family.

During cross‑examination, Altman described an episode in which Musk allegedly tried to “kill” OpenAI. He said the billionaire’s aggressive management style threatened morale and even drove a leading researcher to consider leaving after an early presentation on a prototype ChatGPT model. Altman maintained that Musk’s intermittent involvement – dropping in “every other week” and communicating mainly via text and email – could not be equated with the full‑time dedication of the other co‑founders, who “spent every waking hour” building the organization.

Despite the tension, Altman admitted he had expressed gratitude to Musk on several occasions, noting that he had told the entrepreneur he could not have launched OpenAI without his help. However, the CEO emphasized that the best outcome for the company was Musk’s eventual departure, arguing that his “aggressive management style harmed morale and risked driving out talent.”

One of the most striking moments in Altman’s testimony involved a text exchange highlighted by Musk’s lawyer. In the message, Altman reportedly told Musk he could not have succeeded without him. The exchange, Altman said, was meant to convey appreciation, not an admission of equal contribution. He insisted that Musk’s financial input, while significant, did not translate into operational leadership, and therefore Musk’s claim for up to $150 billion in damages was “mathematically nonsensical.” Musk, Altman added, intends to donate any awarded sum to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm, a move the CEO described as “largely symbolic.”

The trial continues to examine how much of OpenAI’s early success can be attributed to Musk’s involvement versus the work of its founding team. Altman’s testimony suggests a clear division: the co‑founders and researchers drove the day‑to‑day development, while Musk’s role was limited to occasional strategic input and financial backing.

Legal analysts note that the outcome could set a precedent for how contributions are valued in tech start‑ups, especially those with high‑profile investors. For now, Altman’s statements provide a detailed account of the internal dynamics that shaped OpenAI’s formative years and raise questions about the fairness of the massive damages claim lodged by Musk.