Elon Musk Boosts New Yorker Exposé on Sam Altman as OpenAI Trial Begins

Key Points
- Elon Musk paid to boost a New Yorker article by Ronan Farrow that critiques Sam Altman.
- The boost appeared on X the same day a federal jury began hearing Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI.
- The promoted post lacked a clear "ad" label, though X's policies require disclosure for boosted content.
- Musk's lawsuit claims OpenAI abandoned its nonprofit mission after his early investment.
- OpenAI argues the shift to a for‑profit model was necessary for achieving its AI goals.
- Both X and OpenAI declined comment; WIRED verified the boost notification.
- Jurors reported mixed attitudes toward Musk and AI during selection.
Elon Musk used X’s paid‑boost feature on Monday to amplify a New Yorker investigation by Ronan Farrow that accuses OpenAI chief Sam Altman of deceptive practices. The promotion appeared just as Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, Altman, president Greg Brockman and Microsoft entered jury selection in a federal courtroom in Oakland. While the post lacked a clear ad label, X’s own policies require boosted content to self‑identify as advertising. The move has drawn scrutiny amid a trial that pits Musk’s early investments against OpenAI’s commercial trajectory.
Elon Musk turned X’s advertising tool into a headline this week, paying to push a New Yorker story that alleges Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, misled investors and the public. The boost appeared on the platform on Monday, the same day a federal jury began hearing the case Musk filed against OpenAI, Altman, president Greg Brockman and Microsoft.
Users scrolling through X’s mobile app reported seeing a post from journalist Ronan Farrow, a co‑author of the investigation, with a pop‑up noting it had been boosted by @elonmusk. The feature, which lets subscribers pay to amplify a post’s reach, is similar to a promoted tweet on other platforms. Farrow’s article, titled “Scam Altman,” claims the OpenAI founder earned the nickname “Scam” from a former colleague and details alleged deceptions surrounding the company’s shift from nonprofit to profit‑driven model.
Unlike typical advertisements, the boosted post did not display a prominent “ad” label in users’ feeds. Those who opened the post’s options menu could select “report ad,” suggesting the content fell into a gray area of X’s disclosure requirements. X’s own FAQ for the Boost feature states that boosted posts must self‑identify as advertisements and follow the platform’s ad policies, but the Farrow piece appeared without such a label.
The timing of Musk’s promotion sparked conversation among observers. The lawsuit, which began with jury selection on Monday, accuses OpenAI of straying from its original nonprofit mission—a mission Musk helped fund with tens of millions of dollars in the company’s early days. He argues that his investment was diverted toward commercial ends that he never approved.
OpenAI counters that Musk was aware the organization would eventually need to scale into a large business to achieve its artificial‑general‑intelligence goals. The company maintains that the shift was a necessary evolution, not a breach of the original agreement. Microsoft, also named in the suit, has defended its partnership with OpenAI, emphasizing the collaborative nature of the work.
Both X and OpenAI declined to comment for this report. The New Yorker also declined to respond to inquiries about the story’s promotion. WIRED independently verified the boost notification, confirming that the pop‑up appeared on users’ devices and that Musk’s account had reposted the article, adding a brief endorsement: “Calling him ‘Scam’ Altman is accurate…This is very much worth reading.”
Potential jurors during selection expressed mixed feelings about the high‑profile tech figures involved. Some indicated they were not fans of Musk or AI in general, underscoring the challenge of assembling an impartial jury for a case that intertwines cutting‑edge technology with personal rivalries.
As the trial proceeds, Musk’s use of X’s boost feature adds another layer to the public narrative surrounding the dispute. Whether the promotion will influence public opinion—or even the jury’s perception—remains uncertain, but the episode highlights how social‑media tools can amplify legal battles in real time.