I’m deeply offended. Source
The OpenAI founding story is murky, with conflicting accounts from most parties. There is a Douyin video (on YouTube as well, I assume) where Elon Musk claims he “founded” OpenAI, gave it the name, and that “OpenAI would not exist without me”. [1] The facts do not bear out these assertions. This essay contains dramatic evidence of the clear patterns of Elon Musk’s character leading to an obsessive demand for control, his natural self-serving tendency for deceit, conniving, and manipulation, and his almost obsessive vindictiveness when thwarted.
Elon Musk was indeed present in 2015 when a large group of people more or less formally gathered to discuss the production of an AI model. There were many individuals at the table. The founding team comprised Greg Brockman, Trevor Blackwell, Vicki Cheung, Andrej Karpathy, Durk Kingma, Jessica Livingston, John Schulman, Pamela Vagata, and Wojciech Zaremba. Also among them were the primary funders of this initially vague enterprise: Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel, and Jessica Livingston. Elon Musk also contributed to the initial funding. SEC filings and OpenAI’s internal records show Musk contributed $44.4 million in various tranches between 2016–2020, with the others contributing $90 million. To this point, they relied on donated funds.
Sam Altman and Elon Musk being co-chairmen of Open AI.
At the beginning, OpenAI was just a research discussion group that included the names listed above, and others. They eventually began serious research, some development, and began hiring engineers and other experts in the field. On December 8, 2015, they incorporated a “non-profit” entity to organise and direct their efforts, with Sam Altman and Elon Musk being co-chairmen of this venture. However, immediately upon its formation, the company found itself embroiled in control disputes entirely related to Elon Musk.
As they researched and discussed, it became obvious that the capital requirements to create an AGI were much beyond their initial estimates. From the OpenAI website archive: By early 2017, “Our research progress led us to realize we would need billions of dollars for the compute to build AGI.” [2] [By the fall of 2017] “It also became obvious that a non-profit entity lacked the ability to attract capital in the amounts necessary”, and that they would need a for-profit enterprise to attract not donors but investors. “We and Elon agreed that a for-profit was the next step for OpenAI to advance the mission.” It is important to note that it was Elon Musk who first stated that necessary research funds would be in the billions and that a for-profit company was the only way to attract that volume of funding.
Almost immediately (September, 2017), Elon Musk independently created a Delaware-based public benefit corporation called “Open Artificial Intelligence Technologies, Inc.”, ** with himself as the head. OpenAI was to be folded into Musk’s new company, and [he] “demanded majority equity, absolute control, and to be CEO of the for-profit. We rejected Elon’s terms because giving him unilateral control of OpenAI and its technology would be contrary to the mission”. The details of all this, including full email records, are available on the OpenAI website. [3] When Musk’s demands for control were refused, he withheld all further funding in a fit of pique, leaving Reid Hoffman to provide the cash to support the continuing enterprise.
** Note that this is the official name under which Musk formed this company. He did not name it “OpenAI” as he later claimed, the final name being selected by the group after much debate.
“Musk doesn’t invest in companies—he invests in choke points.”
At about the same time, the group contemplated buying Cerebras, a startup company with a new and successful methodology for manufacturing chips – of which OpenAI would require a great many. The valid reasoning was that manufacturing their own chips would substantially reduce their computing costs, but Musk was planning to route the purchase through Tesla, meaning that he, and not OpenAI would own (and control) the chip manufacturer. The pitfalls of this approach were immediately apparent to the others, and they refused to pursue the purchase. As a former OpenAI engineer testified in court in 2024, “Musk doesn’t invest in companies—he invests in choke points.”
Musk’s proposal was cleverly designed as a form of permanent entrapment. By tying OpenAI’s core infrastructure to Tesla, Musk would have gained veto power over OpenAI’s operations. Switching chip suppliers later (like Nvidia) would have been prohibitively expensive, locking OpenAI into Musk’s ecosystem. This fits Musk’s established pattern of exploiting transitional moments: just as he tried later to absorb OpenAI into Tesla during its nonprofit-to-profit shift, here he attempted to insert Tesla as an indispensable hardware supplier during OpenAI’s GPU sourcing crisis.
Having failed with that ploy, Musk’s next move was a prolonged attempt to convince the founding group that their billions in financing needs were unattainable and that their only salvation lay in merging OpenAI into Tesla, suggesting they could use Tesla as “a cash cow” to finance all their needs. The proposition included a (more or less imaginary) threat from Google, whom Musk presented as a dangerous enemy whom OpenAI had to beat and outsmart at all costs. It was already clear that Musk was intent on obtaining absolute control of OpenAI, by whatever means.
As quoted from an email by some of the founders to Elon Musk: “The current [proposed] structure provides you with a path where you end up with unilateral absolute control over the AGI. You stated that you don’t want to control the final AGI, but during this negotiation, you’ve shown to us that absolute control is extremely important to you. The goal of OpenAI is to … avoid an AGI dictatorship. Thus, we are concerned that … you will choose to retain your absolute control of the company despite current intent to the contrary. So, it is a bad idea to create a structure where you could become a dictator if you chose to, especially given that we can create some other structure that avoids this possibility.” [4] Within hours, Musk wrote back that “this was the last straw”.
The story now becomes a bit bizarre. Musk, having pushed so hard for the creation of a for-profit subsidiary, was now firmly against the idea, demanding that OpenAI remain a non-profit entity. The reason was obvious to everyone: a non-profit company – by definition – has no value. You cannot “sell” a non-profit because it has no residual revenue and the purchaser could never recover his investment. What this means, is that Elon Musk would absorb OpenAI into Tesla at no cost, and would have absolute control. But upon that absorption, Tesla’s value would automatically increase by the value of OpenAI. Musk claimed OpenAI was meant to be “open-source” and non-profit – yet his own emails (cited in the lawsuit discussed below) show he planned to commercialize it via Tesla. As one ex-OpenAI Researcher said in an interview with Fortune magazine: “Elon’s play was obvious: Own the IP via Tesla, license it back to OpenAI. A win-win … for him.”
Elon Musk opposed commercialisation he didn’t control.
This speaks volumes about Musk’s opportunism, and also his hypocrisy. Elon Musk didn’t object to the commercialisation of AI; he opposed commercialisation he didn’t control. His subsequent efforts to kill the creation of the for-profit entity reflected only his obsession with control. The contradiction is apparent: Elon Musk wanted OpenAI’s research to be “open” and non-commercial unless he controlled it – which he would have done had his Tesla ploy succeeded. OpenAI would have become a closed-source de facto subsidiary of Tesla. Musk would have captured for pennies what later became a ~$90B valuation (2023). Even more, Musk owned ~13% of Tesla in 2018. Absorbing OpenAI into Tesla would have effectively gifted him personally ~$10–12B+ in value by 2023 — with potential for $200B+ long-term.
The management of OpenAI continued with the creation of a for-profit subsidiary which they expected (correctly, as future developments would prove) would attract the investors they needed. Elon Musk countered with the Tesla merger, and committed to a $1 billion investment in OpenAI if the others would agree to giving him full control of the for-profit arm. They refused, and Musk reneged on his $1 billion commitment. Thiel and Hoffman grasped this subterfuge, as would any rational person. Ceding control would have turned OpenAI into a Tesla subsidiary enriching Musk personally while betraying its mission. Musk’s offer of $1 billion in future funding was conditional on them giving him full control and agreeing to the merger into Tesla. However, it should be obvious that if events were to proceed in that sequence, the $1 billion funding would be moot because Musk would have effectively been giving the money to himself.
It was primarily Sam Altman and Greg Brockman who saw Musk’s agenda as it really was, and who led the opposition against his push for control. That breakdown in their relationship had consequences, as you will see. Musk’s response to the refusal to cede him absolute power: “I will no longer fund OpenAI … I’m just being a fool who is essentially providing free funding for you to create a startup. Discussions are over.” Musk based his grab for control on the fiction that OpenAI “had fallen fatally behind Google”. His claim: “My probability assessment of OpenAI being relevant to DeepMind/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%. Not 1%.” The others rejected his view and his “offer”, and Musk departed the board in February 2018, cutting off funding. [5] Musk’s last act on departure was to address a meeting of OpenAI staff and gravely inform them that their chance of success was zero without the guidance of (and under the control of) their philosopher-god-warrior.
There is a Douyin video (I assume also on YouTube) where Elon Musk claims he gave money to OpenAI and never asked for shares in the company in return for his “donations” – “one of the stupider things I’ve done”. But there were no shares existing. OpenAI has an unusual structure where its for-profit arm is owned and controlled by a non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity, and all the control vested in the Board of Directors of that charity. When Musk initially demanded full control, it was not of any voting shares, but of the votes of the Board of Directors of the non-profit that controlled everything. It was only later that OpenAI formed the for-profit company that had shareholdings.
A co-founder of OpenAI in 2015, Musk stepped down in 2018, four years after saying that AI is “potentially more dangerous than nukes.” Source
The next part is interesting. The Directors of OpenAI offered to give Musk a substantial shareholding in the newly-created for-profit arm, though still far short of full control. And this offer required no investment on Musk’s part. The shares were offered free, in recognition of Musk’s earlier donations to the venture. Musk dismissed their offer, and resigned in 2018. That was when OpenAI created its capped for-profit model and shares became available. The Board again offered free shares to Elon Musk some time after his departure, but Musk again dismissed their offer with contempt.
There’s beautiful irony here because Musk’s donations to the nonprofit became worth far more once the for-profit arm launched. Had he remained, his $44.4M would have been worth billions, but his exit in stubbornness and resentment forfeited this. Elon Musk’s early donations to the enterprise were about 1/3 of the total. This would have been substantially diluted by future investments made by Microsoft and others, but had he accepted the offered equity in the 2019 for-profit subsidiary, his stake could have been 5–10% as a conservative estimate. And that stake today would be worth between $15 billion and $30 billion.
Musk’s fixation on absolute control, and his pathological resentment at being thwarted, blinded him to a generational opportunity. Musk’s $44 million investment would have been worth billions had he accepted shared governance but, for Elon Musk, control is non-negotiable. This has been recorded as one of the stupidest business decisions of all time.
There was yet another matter of interest, a striking example of Elon Musk’s manipulative obsessions. On September 20, 2017, Elon Musk sent an email to Ilya Sutskever, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Shivon Zilis, in which he said: “Guys, I’ve had enough. This is the final straw. Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAI as a nonprofit.” [6]
I would draw your attention to the statement “go do something on your own”. Musk is essentially claiming ownership of OpenAI, and saying clearly that if the others don’t agree with his intentions, they should all leave and “form their own AI company”. That would mean abandoning OpenAI – which they owned – and leaving it all to Elon Musk. That’s astonishing. “Either do what I want, or you can all leave”. The email in question is quite stark: Musk’s ultimatum essentially positions him as the de facto owner of OpenAI, implying the others were disposable. The language – “go do something on your own” – isn’t just dismissive; it’s proprietorial, treating OpenAI as his personal fiefdom.
Musk echoed similar sentiments in other exchanges, where he effectively stated that he should be given full control and that the others had the “power to leave” if they weren’t happy. From one email exchange to Musk: “We disagree with your statement that our ability to leave is our greatest power, because once the company is actually on track to AGI, the company will be much more important than any individual.” [7] This is Musk’s broader modus operandi: a pattern of centralizing power by ejecting dissenters, something he has done in all companies where he has been involved.
Where Are We Now?
Elon Musk’s pathological urge for revenge against anyone who thwarts or crosses him.
At this point, Elon Musk has left OpenAI with plans to start his own version of artificial intelligence. In the meantime, OpenAI have formed their for-profit arm and are receiving huge investments from the tech community. The company continued to focus quietly on research for the next few years, until in November of 2022 they released ChatGPT. This proved to be one of Silicon Valley’s most disruptive creations ever, often referred to as “one of the most successful and transformative consumer tech products of the century”, alongside iPhone, Facebook, TikTok and DeepSeek.
Musk was just as shocked by the mainstreaming of AI as everyone else, and clearly resentful that he had failed to be part of it. Musk tweeted: *”I’m confused how a non-profit I donated $100M to (actually $44 million), became a $30B for-profit company”* [8]. That was only the beginning of the bad news for Elon Musk. The $30 billion valuation of OpenAI soon became $90 billion and eventually $300 billion – with Musk owning none of it.
That should be the end of the story, but actually this is where the story really begins. I referred earlier to Elon Musk’s pathological urge for revenge against anyone who thwarts or crosses him. Read on. Musk began publicly criticizing OpenAI for growing too fast and ignoring security concerns, and organised an open letter calling for a six-month moratorium on AI development to stifle OpenAI’s growth. He launched multiple lawsuits meant to cripple his enemy, forged nasty letters against the other founders, orchestrated a coup d’état to have Altman fired, tried to poach their best staff for his xAI, and much more.
OpenAI’s Game of Thrones
A member of OpenAI’s leadership team for five years, Mira has played a critical role in OpenAI’s evolution into a global AI leader.
Ilya Sutskever was (and still is) a wunderkind in the AI industry, brilliant and capable. Elon Musk personally recruited Sutskever from Google in 2015, calling it “OpenAI’s key to success” [9]. Musk also had him appointed to the Board of Directors of OpenAI. This established a power dynamic where Sutskever owed his career to Musk. The circumstances imply a fair amount of trust and also justify an assumption that Musk had some considerable influence over him.
For one thing, Sutskever initially supported Musk in his desire to arrange the purchase of Cerebras through Tesla, recognising that would give Musk a dangerous amount of control over OpenAI’s activities. He acknowledged the contradiction, but still pushed for Tesla’s involvement. He explicitly stated in a September 2017 email that Tesla should acquire Cerebras, despite acknowledging this would compromise OpenAI’s mission: “If we decide to acquire Cerebras, I strongly feel it should be done through Tesla … [but] Tesla has an obligation to maximize shareholder returns, which conflicts with OpenAI’s mission.” [10] [11].
Mira Murati was OpenAI’s Chief Technical Officer (CTO) who joined in 2018 and was the core lead of ChatGPT. She also had much prior experience and a good relationship with Elon Musk, since she previously worked for him at Tesla where she led development of the Model X. “A member of OpenAI’s leadership team for five years, Mira has played a critical role in OpenAI’s evolution into a global AI leader. She brings a unique skill set, understanding of the company’s values, operations, and business, and already leads the company’s research, product, and safety functions.” [12] Here is an interesting article on Murati. [13]
On November 17, 2023, in a surprise move, OpenAI fired CEO Sam Altman, with President Greg Brockman and three senior scientists simultaneously resigning. Major investor Microsoft (49% equity in the for-profit arm), was apparently blindsided and furious. Altman’s firing came as a complete surprise to him, with Brockman being equally surprised to learn he was being removed as a Director. [14] Initial reports were that the ousting was orchestrated by Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever over safety concerns and deployment speed Those reports were unlikely to be true. [15]
While initial “justification” centered on speed (too much) and safety (not enough), the “real” reasons were apparently contained in a couple of pdf files “proving” that Altman “was not consistently candid in his communications with the board”. But then an internal memo stated the board’s decision to fire Altman “was not made in response to malfeasance or anything related to our financial, business, safety, or security/privacy practices. This was a breakdown in communication between Sam and the board.” That doesn’t tell us much.
From here, things happened very quickly. First, Musk’s “protege”, Mira Murati, was quickly installed as the interim CEO. “The board of directors of OpenAI, Inc., … today announced that Sam Altman will depart as CEO and leave the board of directors. Mira Murati, the company’s chief technology officer, will serve as interim CEO, effective immediately.” [16] The next immediate thing was that the employees of OpenAI published a written (and public) statement to the Board, saying in part, “Your actions demonstrate that you do not have the competence to regulate OpenAl.” The letter demanded the resignation of all current board members, the appointment of new Directors, and the immediate reinstatement of Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. [17] They further stated that if their demands were not met, they would all quit. Of OpenAI’s 770 employees, 743 signed the letter. Of particular note is that Ilya Sutskever’s name was #12 in that list, and Mira Murati was also on the list.
From left to right, Mira Murati, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, Ilya Sutskever. Source
There was more. The Board of Directors resigned, new Directors were appointed, Sam Altman was re-hired as CEO, Greg Brockman was reappointed to the Board, Ilya Sutskever never returned to the office and resigned to form his own company, and Mira Murati resigned and left. That was an exciting four days. [18] [19]
Sutskever said he “deeply regretted” the part he played in the removal of Altman and Brockman, but his position was untenable after all the reversals. When you lead a failed coup against your CEO, your future is not bright and continued presence might be awkward. He probably had no choice but to leave. It was interesting that in the fallout of this, the evidence strongly suggested that Sutskever was not really the originator of the coup, but was being used by the Musk-friendly Board members to rid the company of Altman and Brockman. It was also interesting that a later professional investigation into the matter, concluded that there was nothing to have justified the removal of those men. It had all been a fraud. For her part, Mira Murati resigned, saying there were many things that didn’t make sense, and that “I had a feeling I was being used” as a pawn. It suggests she was a temporary placeholder in a Musk-aligned transition plan that failed [20]. That was the same feeling Sutskever had.
The only logical conclusion is that Sutskver was Elon Musk’s invisible hand, a pawn, not a mastermind. While Musk lacked formal authority at OpenAI in 2023, his pattern of hostile takeovers (e.g., Tesla’s founders, Twitter’s board purge), combined with board allies, timed destabilization, and strategic rivalry, strongly implies his involvement. The coup’s failure – due to employee solidarity and Sutskever’s remorse – exposed the limits of his influence. As one source noted: “Musk’s vendetta against Altman is less about AI ethics and more about unchecked control” [21] [22].
While there is no smoking gun, and no one wants to reveal the machinations behind the scenes, we can be almost 100% certain the episode was engineered by Elon Musk, who retained sympathisers on the Board and among the staff. There is no other explanation that fits all the known facts. This one event by itself might not create absolute certainty, but there is more to come.
Worthy of note is that Musk made prolonged attempts to hire Sutskever when he left, but to no avail. Musk even appealed to him publicly, praising him in Twitter posts for his integrity and humanity. But Sutskever ignored Musk’s overtures, apparently having had enough of Elon Musk, and formed his own company instead. It was the same with Mira Murati; she had an opportunity to return to the fold and join Musk’s xAI, but Mira had also apparently had her fill of Elon Musk and went her own way.
Taking Shots Wherever we Can
Sam Altman and Greg Brockman accused of serious deception and manipulation by Elon Musk. Source
But Elon Musk’s vendetta was far from over. In fact, he was only just getting started. At around the same time as the coup against Sam Altman, Musk posted an unsigned “anonymous” letter on X, allegedly from “a former OpenAI employee”, filled with unsubstantiated allegations, accusing Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of serious deception and manipulation, and calling on the Board of Directors to conduct a full investigation. [23] Musk also published the letter on Github and possibly other platforms. The full letter is at the link provided, and it is obvious from the text that no “concerned ex-employee” would express his concern in this language. “Elon Musk’s role in amplifying the unsubstantiated allegations against Sam Altman at a time when OpenAI grappled with internal conflict and external scrutiny raises critical questions about the motives.” [24] The letter was almost certainly a contrived forgery, and almost certainly written by Elon Musk.
At around the same time, a long (more than 5,000 words), libelous and slanderous article was published on multiple platforms and languages. I found this one on a Chinese website where it had been translated into Chinese. [25] Full and truncated versions of the letter appear everywhere. [26] There are several noteworthy aspects; one is that the letter is clearly directed to trashing the reputations of only Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, the two individuals most hated for frustrating Musk’s determination to take control of OpenAI.
Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect is that the letter is minutely detailed, listing hundreds of large and small events and complaints that no staff member could know. The letter presents as written by an outsider, but no outsider could possibly have had the information to have written it. It was obviously written by an insider, but no low-level employee would have had access to that detailed level. And even a senior executive could not have written it because, while they might have had knowledge of some parts of the company, none of them would have had knowledge across all domains, especially in such intricate detail. I can think of only three people who would have had the knowledge to write that article: Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Elon Musk. Since Altman and Brockman are non-starters, we have only one remaining candidate.
Poaching
For Musk, safety is a talking point for manipulation, not an operational principle.
Elon Musk has tried poaching staff from OpenAI, and I believe he has had some success. Also, it appears that OpenAI has been losing staff through excess attrition, although not necessarily going to work for Elon Musk. [27] [28] Nevertheless, Elon Musk’s role in OpenAI’s talent exodus involves both direct poaching and indirect encouragement of departures through ideological and operational warfare. When nearly the entire staff threatened to quit in solidarity with Sam Altman, that kind of schism creates recruitment opportunities. Musk took great advantage of this with his legal attacks (more later) on OpenAI, indirectly validating his own accusations and making his companies morally appealing alternatives.
Musk publicly courted Ilya Sutskever, flowering him with praise, [29] but also advertised job openings on X, explicitly targeting disillusioned OpenAI employees. This blatant intervention coincided with the 744 staff threatening mass resignations. Musk’s timing was probably perfect. His later lawsuits accusing OpenAI of fraud, calling Altman a “liar” and OpenAI a “scam”, would tend to demoralise staff and legitimise exits. [30] While staff poaching exists in every industry, this case was Elon Musk using talent as a weapon in ideological warfare against his bitter enemy.
It is clear from the facts and all the activity (in this and his other actions) that his prime intent was to eviscerate OpenAI, to make it crumble and fall. Even if the talent joined Anthropic or Google instead of xAI, it would fragment OpenAI’s research dominance. Musk wasn’t merely poaching; he was systematically discrediting OpenAI’s governance to fuel a talent drain. Aside from his direct recruitment, Musk flooded the public media with rhetoric that painted OpenAI as “untrustworthy.” He created what some have called “a viable exit ecosystem” by his own recruiting and by supporting exits to competitors. While not every departure can be linked to Musk, his multi-pronged offensive exploited OpenAI’s internal rifts, making him a catalyst in its brain drain.
In March of 2023, Elon Musk’s xAI and Grok were an order of magnitude behind their competitors. OpenAI had just released a more powerful technology that underpins ChatGPT. In early tests and a company demo, the technology was shown drafting lawsuits, passing standardised exams and building a working website from a hand-drawn sketch. Musk still hadn’t produced a working AI model and even the primitive Grok-1 wouldn’t be released for another 6 months. He was of course resentful and livid, and concocted a scheme to use the courts to force his competitors into canceling all research for at least 6 months, citing “profound risks to society and humanity.” [31] [32] Musk claimed that his competitors were in an “out-of-control race to develop and deploy machine learning systems that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control.” The letter said, “If a pause is not put in place soon, governments should step in and create a moratorium.” No leading AI labs joined his moratorium call. [33]
This is what one writer termed “competitive frustration masked as altruism”. OpenAI was clearly dominant. GPT-4, with its 1.76 trillion parameters, represented a massive leap over predecessors, while Musk’s xAI—founded early in the same year, had yet to launch any product. Grok-1, released later in 2023, had only 33 billion parameters and was criticized for hallucinations and limited capabilities compared to GPT-4. “Musk weaponizes “safety” rhetoric to handicap competitors and regulators, while operating his ventures with minimal safeguards.” [34] As AI ethicist Timnit Gebru noted: “Musk’s safety advocacy is performance. He’s not protecting humanity – he’s disrupting competitors.“ This pattern reveals a fundamental truth: For Musk, safety is a talking point for manipulation, not an operational principle.
Using the Courts to Kill the Competition – Overwhelming Resentment
Elon Musk repeatedly denigrated OpenAI, its executives, its abilities, and its products, all as publicly as possible.
A few months later, Musk launched his own for-profit artificial intelligence company, xAI, but its technology and market influence lagged far behind OpenAI. Musk had hoped that xAI would be a serious competitor to Altman, but he was an order of magnitude behind. Thus, in 2024, Musk launched an attack on Altman in court, dropping the suit when a loss became obvious, reopening it later, and amending it with the shifting climate. His main claim was that Altman violated their original agreement that OpenAI should be solely non-profit to prioritize the public good over profit. [35]
Musk filed the lawsuit against OpenAI and two specific founders – Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. The lawsuit was filled with half-truths and false statements. It claimed that the makers of ChatGPT breached their original contractual agreements by pursuing profits instead of developing an AI that benefited humanity. [36] Musk claimed Altman and Brockman convinced him to help bankroll the startup in 2015 with promises it would be a nonprofit, that they deluded him by forming a for-profit entity. Musk totally ignored his own recommendations that they must form a for-profit entity as the only hope for attracting the necessary capital. He also ignored his own push to merge OpenAI into Tesla, which would by definition have made it a for-profit entity. [37]
I had to laugh when I read the part about how Elon Musk refused shares in the for-profit company, taking a “principled stand” due to his high standard of ethics and the “moral hazard” of being part of a commercialized for-profit AI. And Musk’s xAI is what? A commercialised for-profit AI, with far more “moral hazard” than OpenAI could ever hope for. Of course, the “principle” on which Musk stood, could be summarised as “If I can’t have it all, nobody gets anything”.
Musk’s lawsuit was in reality asking the court to force OpenAI to terminate the for-profit entity, to exist only as a non-profit charity, and to refund all investments to the original investors. Musk had been gone from OpenAI for five years; he had no connection of any kind with the company, and had no legal standing to force them to adhere to prior discussions. He was effectively suing OpenAI for breaking a promise they made to themselves years earlier, although even this claim was false. Of course, the lawsuit had no hope of success and was thrown out. [38] His intentions were clear: if the profit arm were killed and the investments returned, OpenAI would have no funds to continue research and development, nor to pay staff, and would quickly die. The court was not blind to Musk’s agenda of wanting only revenge against people who succeeded without him.
In support of his legal and other claims, Musk at the same time attacked everyone in this latest revenge eruption. He particularly resented Microsoft’s investment in OpenAI and condemned them in multiple ways, to the extent that Microsoft’s cooperation with OpenAI became the focus of the case, Musk arguing that Microsoft may have “violated antitrust laws” by investing in OpenAI. Of course, a Microsoft investment in Musk’s xAI would be free of such contamination. He even publicly attacked Apple for working with OpenAI, threatening to ban Apple products if Apple integrated OpenAI technology. “If Apple integrates OpenAI at the OS level, then Apple devices will be banned at my companies. That is an unacceptable security violation.” [39] [40] He repeatedly denigrated OpenAI, its executives, its abilities, and its products, all as publicly as possible.
If You Can’t Beat Them, Then Buy Them
Bret Taylor, the chairman of OpenAI’s board, said the artificial intelligence company was “not for sale. Source
With the lawsuits foundering, Elon Musk still wouldn’t give up. In February of 2025, Musk claimed the backing of a consortium and offered $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controlled OpenAI. [41] [42] But this was merely a post made on Twitter (X), and OpenAI said they had received no offer. [43] In response to the X offer, Altman said “No thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.” Musk replied, “nice burn”, to which Altman retorted, “If I want a burn, I’ll buy a Tesla”. [44] In an inexplicably foolish press release, Musk stated that he would abandon his bid to purchase OpenAI if Altman and OpenAI committed suicide by eliminating the for-profit entity. Musk seemed deluded that his purchase offer was legally binding on OpenAI and used this in an apparent extortion attempt. [45]
It should be obvious from the above that Elon Musk desperately wanted absolute control of OpenAI, and engaged in multiple strategies and deceptions to fulfill his goal. It should also be obvious that he was deeply resentful of the success of OpenAI without his participation, and further that he tried every means at his disposal to not only ruin the careers of the principals but to destroy the company. All in the name of vengeance.
Next Essay: xAI and Grok
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
His full archive can be seen at
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com
*
NOTES
[1] I’m the reason OpenAI exists.
https://www.douyin.com/video/7467066458804194611
[1] Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit
https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/
[3] Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit
https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/
[4] Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit
https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/
[5] Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/18/24299787/elon-musk-openai-lawsuit-sam-altman-xai-google-deepmind
[6] Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit
https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/
[7] Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit
https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/
[8] OpenAI’s Game of Thrones
https://wapbaike.baidu.com/tashuo/browse/content?id=db3f0c1174b541d5057ca710&fromModule=tashuo-article_bottom-tashuo-feed
(9) Elon Musk: OpenAI’s chief scientist should consider switching to xAI or Tesla
https://www.vgover.com/news/73385
(10) OpenAI considered acquiring AI chip startup Cerebras, but it didn’t work out
https://unwire.pro/2024/11/18/cerebras/ai/
[11] OpenAI has long had a “core dream”: it has considered acquiring Cerebras, a wafer-level chip company
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s
[12] OpenAI announces leadership transition
https://openai.com/index/openai-announces-leadership-transition/
[13] 6 things to know about Mira Murati, the most interesting person in tech right now
https://www.fastcompany.com/90855799/6-things-to-know-about-openais-mira-murati-the-most-interesting-person-in-tech-right-now
[14] OpenAI announces leadership transition
https://openai.com/index/openai-announces-leadership-transition/
[15] Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/11/report-sutskever-led-board-coup-at-openai-that-ousted-altman-over-ai-safety-concerns/
[16] OpenAI announces leadership transition
https://openai.com/index/openai-announces-leadership-transition/
[17] More than 500 OpenAI employees threatened to leave en masse and demanded the resignation of board members
https://www.newmobilelife.com/2023/11/20/500-openai-staff-want-to-quit/
[18] Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board
https://openai.com/index/sam-altman-returns-as-ceo-openai-has-a-new-initial-board/
[19] 4 days from fired to re-hired: A timeline of Sam Altman’s ouster from OpenAI
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/sam-altman-reaches-deal-return-ceo-openai/story?id=105091534
[20] OpenAI Coup Act II: From Game of Thrones, to In the Name of the People
https://www.jazzyear.com/article_info.html?id=1126
[21] Secret White House: The inside story of Altman’s feud with Elon Musk
https://d.foresightnews.pro/article/detail/78286
[22] Sam Altman closes Elon Musk’s $97B bid: Openai “not for sale”
https://cn.dataconomy.com/2025/02/12/%e5%b1%b1%e5%a7%86%c2%b7%e5%a5%a5%e7%89%b9%e6%9b%bc%ef%bc%88sam-altman%ef%bc%89%e5%85%b3%e9%97%ad%e5%9f%83%e9%9a%86%c2%b7%e9%a9%ac%e6%96%af%e5%85%8b%ef%bc%88elon-musk%ef%bc%89%e7%9a%84-97b%e5%87%ba/
[23] Musk forwarded a whistleblower letter from a former OpenAI employee, Altman was accused of fraud, and chaos and infighting intensified
http://www.360doc.com/content/23/1122/14/39534287_1104895074.shtml
[24] Elon Musk’s anonymous accusations sparked chaos at OpenAI
https://www.cryptopolitan.com/zh-cn/elon-musk-ignites-openai-turmoil-accusations/
[25] Musk is suing OpenAI, Sam Altman, and Greg Brockman again
http://t.ceden.cn/g/?p/516407.html
[26] Elon Musk is suing OpenAI and Sam Altman again after dropping his previous lawsuit
https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-lawsuit-openai-again
[27] OpenAI’s Leadership Exodus: 9 Key Execs Who Left the A.I. Giant This Year
https://observer.com/2024/09/openai-executives-resign/
[28] OpenAI is suffering an exodus of senior talent
https://fortune.com/2024/08/06/openai-sam-altman-executive-departures-tech-exodus/
[29] Elon Musk: OpenAI’s chief scientist should consider switching to xAI or Tesla
https://www.vgover.com/news/73385
[30] Elon Musk has called OpenAI’s Sam Altman a liar and prides himself on his unmatched morality
https://www.cryptopolitan.com/zh-cn/elon-musk-calls-openais-sam-altman-a-liar/
[31] Elon Musk and other tech leaders call for pause in ‘out of control’ AI race
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/ai-letter-elon-musk-tech-leaders/index.html
[32] Elon Musk and top AI researchers call for pause on ‘giant AI experiments’
https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/29/23661374/elon-musk-ai-researchers-pause-research-open-letter
[33] Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
[34] What is Grock? Elon Musk’s controversial ChatGPT competitor explains
https://zhongguo.eskere.club/%e4%bb%80%e4%b9%88%e6%98%af%e6%a0%bc%e7%bd%97%e5%85%8b%ef%bc%9f%e5%9f%83%e9%9a%86%c2%b7%e9%a9%ac%e6%96%af%e5%85%8b-elon-musk-%e5%a4%87%e5%8f%97%e4%ba%89%e8%ae%ae%e7%9a%84-chatgpt-%e7%ab%9e%e4%ba%89-2/2024-08-16/
[35] Secret White House: The inside story of Altman’s feud with Elon Musk
https://s.foresightnews.pro/article/detail/78286
[36] OpenAI Fires Back at Elon Musk’s Lawsuit
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/13/technology/openai-elon-musk-lawsuit.html
[37] Elon Musk sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over ‘betrayal’ of nonprofit AI mission
https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/01/elon-musk-openai-sam-altman-court/
[38] Judge Denies Musk’s Request to Block OpenAI’s For-Profit Plan
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/technology/elon-musk-openai-profit-lawsuit.html
[39] Elon Musk Drops ‘Founding Agreement’ Lawsuit Against OpenAI, Once Brothers Become Rivals
https://www.coinlive.com/news/elon-musk-withdraws-the-founding-agreement-lawsuit-against-openai-and
[40] “Why did Musk take OpenAI to court?
https://www.fortunechina.com/ugo/292105.htm
[41] Elon Musk-led group makes $97 billion bid for OpenAI
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/elon-musk-led-group-makes-974-billion-bid-control-openai-wsj-reports-2025-02-10/
[42] OpenAI Questions Rationale of Elon Musk’s Bid
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/technology/elon-musk-openai-response.html
[43] Sam Altman Dismisses Elon Musk’s Bid to Buy OpenAI in Letter to Staff
https://www.wired.com/story/sam-altman-openai-reject-elon-musk-bid/
[44] OpenAI Rejects Elon Musk’s $97.4 Billion Bid for Control
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/technology/openai-elon-musk.html
[45] Elon Musk Says He Will Drop OpenAI Bid if Company Keeps
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/technology/elon-musk-openai-nonprofit.html
*
This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.
Other Works by this Author
Who Starts All The Wars? — New!
What we Are Not Told : German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?
The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory
Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion
NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich
NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State
NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America
Police State America Volume One
Police State America Volume Two
THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
False Flags and Conspiracy Theories
Kamila Valieva
LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES
Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2025
/https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2021/09/25/huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-receives-warm-welcome-upon-return-to-china/_1_meng_wanzhou_2.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.