The Diary Entry That Sparked Scrutiny
If the court evidence Elon Musk presents against OpenAI is damning enough, it could have ripple effects outside of the courtroom. Greg Brockman, OpenAI's president and co-founder, scribbled a pointed question in his diary just two years after launching the organization as a charity in 2015: what does it take to become a billionaire around here? Specifically, 'Financially, what will take me to $1B?' This recently unsealed trial evidence highlights the tension at the heart of OpenAI's evolution from a nonprofit research lab into a corporate powerhouse eyeing a massive public offering.
Brockman testified that he eventually earned a slice of OpenAI for his 'blood, sweat, and tears' poured into building it—notably, not for money initially. That portion is now valued at about $30 billion on paper. Musk, who left in 2018 after donating tens of millions, alleges he was misled about the company's profit motives. The lawsuit targets OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and executives like Brockman, framing the restructuring as a betrayal of its charitable roots.
Financially, what will take me to $1B?
Musk's Uphill Legal Battle and Broader Implications
Musk faces an uphill battle proving his case, legal experts note, especially if seeking to unwind OpenAI's for-profit shift. A federal judge overriding state attorneys general decisions from California and Delaware last October—approving the public benefit corporation structure—would be unprecedented. Yet the trial's revelations could pressure regulators to reconsider those deals. Even a courtroom loss for Musk might hobble OpenAI as it approaches an IPO, forcing it back toward nonprofit accountability.
A coalition of over 60 civil society groups, EyesOnOpenAI, urged California AG Rob Bonta to revisit the approval. The evidence, including Brockman's diary and equity dealings, raises questions about conflicts of interest and undervaluation of the nonprofit arm, which got a 26% stake worth over $200 billion—less than what insiders like Brockman and Microsoft received.
In an ideal world, the plaintiff in this case would be the people of California rather than one billionaire who decided to pick his petty beef with this other billionaire he doesn’t like.
Why Musk's Case Has Some Merit Despite Weaknesses
OpenAI started in 2015 with a tax-deductible mission for AI unconstrained by financial returns, but costs exploded, necessitating a for-profit arm to build tools like ChatGPT. OpenAI defends the suit as sour grapes from Musk, jealous of their superior models compared to his xAI. Musk positions himself as nonprofit integrity's champion, seeking $150 billion in restitution for donations, vowing to give it to the OpenAI Foundation.
Legal scholars see potential on personal harm claims but doubt broader remedies like ousting Altman or reversing restructuring, as those touch settled government pacts. Still, trial disclosures—Musk texting Brockman pre-trial about making them 'the most hated men in America'—air dirty laundry, amplifying criticism since the restructuring.
I’d be pretty comfortable betting on Musk losing, but I’d be more comfortable betting on the attorneys general revisiting their agreements with OpenAI... within the realm of possibility.
Regulators Could Force Real Change
Experts like Peter Molk note financial claims could give OpenAI a black eye, hobbling a race rival. Catherine Bracy doubts full reversal but wants fairer nonprofit compensation and independent governance—the foundation's board mirrors the for-profit's, influenced by Microsoft’s Satya Nadella. Brockman's 2017 notes reveal internal conflict: 'It’d be wrong to steal the non-profit,' then 'it would be nice to be making the billions,' foreseeing a 'nasty fight' for for-profit status.
No smoking gun proves OpenAI lied to regulators yet, but Brockman's hidden billions in equity and dealings with partners like Cerebras substantiate underpayment claims. If AGs find the nonprofit underpaid, they could demand more funds or oversight—more likely than Musk winning, per Brunson. Musk exited within a year; Brockman got rich. The trial tests if profit chased too hard, too soon.
It’d be wrong to steal the non-profit... it would be nice to be making the billions. Can’t see us turning this into a for-profit without a very nasty fight.
Key Revelations from the Trial
- Brockman's diary ambition for $1B just two years post-founding.
- Nonprofit arm's 26% stake undervalued amid insider windfalls.
- Conflicts embedded via shared boards and Microsoft influence.
- Musk's $150B restitution demand, pledged to the foundation.
- Pressure on AGs to revisit restructuring amid public outcry.
