马斯克 v. 奥特曼——硅谷最大 AI 恩怨案

A 12-person jury,

after several days of meetings

and hearing the biggest lawsuit in the AI industry,

took less than two hours

to reach a conclusion.

Musk lost.

Specifically:

they decided that

Musk's case against OpenAI and Sam Altman

exceeded the time the law allows.

That is to say:

it wasn't that Musk's reasoning was wrong,

he came too late.

This is one of the most-watched tech lawsuits of recent years in the US.

Let's go through it properly today.

The story begins back in 2015.

That year,

a group of people held a meeting in San Francisco.

Among them was Musk,

Sam Altman,

and several AI researchers.

They were all worried about the same thing:

in the future AI could become extremely powerful.

If only big companies like Google and Facebook,

made AI behind closed doors,

then AI might end up controlled by a handful of companies.

That would be dangerous,

for all of humanity.

So they decided:

we'll start our own AI company.

But this company,

must not be like Google,

chasing profit.

It must be a non-profit.

Research results

will be public.

Code

will be open.

That was OpenAI.

At the start,

Musk put in a lot of money.

He pledged a hundred million dollars.

For the first few years,

he was seen as the face of OpenAI.

But by 2018,

the two of them began to clash.

The first reason

was money.

Making AI was far more expensive than imagined.

The non-profit model couldn't raise enough.

Altman and others began to think:

could we add a for-profit arm?

Still available to everyone,

but with returns allowed for investors.

Musk disagreed.

Musk's logic was:

we said at the start it would be a non-profit.

You're changing it now,

which means breaking the deal.

The second reason

was sharper.

Musk wanted to be CEO of OpenAI himself.

He wanted to take it over.

But the others didn't agree.

In the end,

in February 2018,

Musk left OpenAI's board.

He also stopped his donations.

OpenAI at that point

was actually in danger.

Without Musk's money,

the company almost didn't survive.

But Altman and the team held on.

They built a for-profit subsidiary,

got Microsoft to invest ten billion dollars,

then made ChatGPT.

Then made GPT-4.

Then the valuation went from 20 billion,

to 500 billion dollars.

And Musk?

Musk, on the outside,

watched OpenAI grow step by step.

Watched Altman become the most powerful person in AI.

Watched OpenAI become more and more like an ordinary tech company.

The more he thought, the less he could let it go.

In 2024,

Musk sued OpenAI and Altman in California federal court.

His core claims were two:

First,

OpenAI violated the "charitable trust" —

meaning,

you originally built this in the name of charity,

the money, the talent, the attention,

were all based on that promise.

Now you've become a for-profit company,

which means you tricked all the donors and supporters from back then.

Second,

Altman and other leadership

unfairly enriched themselves.

They took what should have belonged to "all humanity."

These claims

sound powerful.

But the legal world

doesn't only look at "right or wrong,"

it also looks at "time."

The jury heard the case for several days.

Altman took the stand

and delivered crucial testimony.

He basically said:

"Musk left in 2018.

"When he left,

"we almost died.

"We saved it ourselves.

"Now he comes saying we're wrong?

"He's the one who ran away.

On May 18,

the 12 jurors,

in less than two hours, reached a conclusion:

the timing of Musk's lawsuit

exceeded the "statute of limitations."

What is the "statute of limitations"?

It means for anything,

if you want to sue someone,

there is a time limit.

Once the time is up,

you can't sue.

The jury decided:

Musk actually already knew about OpenAI's change of direction in 2018.

At that time he didn't sue.

Later he kept complaining publicly,

but didn't go to court.

He waited until 2024 to formally sue,

which was already past the legal time limit.

The court therefore ruled against him.

But did not discuss:

"whether OpenAI actually violated the agreement.

That's why Musk is angry.

He said:

"This is just a timing issue.

"This is a technicality.

"If a mere technicality can block a case this big,

"then all charitable promises in the future are meaningless.

He announced he will appeal.

All the way to the federal appellate court.

And Altman?

He was calm.

He said:

"OpenAI can finally focus on doing what we're meant to do.

This ruling

actually tells us three things.

First,

about the nature of AI.

OpenAI going from a small non-profit

to today's 500-billion-dollar giant,

that process

is one of an ideal being remade by reality.

Back then they said "for everyone,"

today's AI

requires a monthly fee,

is controlled by a few countries,

and is becoming infrastructure, like water or electricity.

The ideal isn't dead.

But it has been redefined by money.

Second,

about Silicon Valley friendship.

Musk and Altman,

in 2015, were co-founders.

In 2018, estranged colleagues.

In 2024, opponents.

In 2026, two people facing off in court.

"Friends" in Silicon Valley

have never been quite the same

as "friends" for ordinary people.

Between them sit billions and hundreds of billions of dollars,

and very different visions of the future.

Third,

about the law.

Even if you are the richest person in the world,

the law will not stop for you.

The "statute of limitations" sounds like a small thing,

but it's exactly why Musk lost this time.

Musk will appeal.

The story isn't over.

But this round,

Altman won.

We watch this AI industry

the way you watch a slowly unfolding television drama.

New characters will appear,

new lawsuits will appear.

But ChatGPT is still there.

xAI is still there.

The story of AI

still has a long way to go.

Okay.

That's all for today.

See you in the next story.