This week, attorneys for Elon Musk and OpenAI delivered their final statements, leaving it to the jurors to determine if OpenAI misstepped while evolving into a more-for-profit entity. 

As highlighted by Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and me during the latest TechCrunch Equity podcast episode, a central theme in the concluding days of the trial was the trustworthiness of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. For instance, Musk’s legal representative, Steve Molo, intensely questioned Altman regarding the veracity of his remarks made during his congressional testimony.

Kirsten pointed out that Musk himself has been known to issue several misleading statements, indicating that trust is not solely an issue for Altman.

“This raises a fundamental question [for] a multitude of tech journalists, policymakers, and increasingly, consumers regarding all AI labs,” she remarked. “It really boils down to trust, as we lack insightful perspectives — these companies are privately held, and much remains obscured.”

Continue reading for insights from our dialogue, modified for brevity and clarity.

Anthony Ha: [The conclusion of the trial] prompted a striking headline from our writer, Tim Fernholz, which simply asks, “Who trusts Sam Altman?” Does anyone have thoughts on this? 

Kirsten Korosec: Yeah, Anthony, I’ll return that question to you. Do you have trust in Sam Altman? 

Anthony: It’s quite a compelling question because it seems like a bold one to explore in a journalistic setting, but in many ways, it really lies at the heart of the trial. 

Sean O’Kane: That’s not a definitive yes.

Anthony: Moreover, it appears to be [at the] center of comprehending much of OpenAI’s situation, especially regarding the significant power tussle now dubbed The Blip.

Numerous individuals who’ve collaborated with Altman seem to lack trust in him. He has acknowledged this somewhat, as he mentions being conflict-averse and tends to tell people what they want to hear, and he’s working on that.

I find this credible, and I can see how it might lead to misunderstandings in various scenarios. [However] I, too, am quite conflict-averse, and I hope that if any of this were to go to trial, folks wouldn’t be questioning, “Is Anthony Ha trustworthy?”

Sean: Still not a yes! 

Kirsten: I believe people would consider you trustworthy. While that question is captivating, it doesn’t just encapsulate the essence of this trial. I would broaden the view and assert it’s a fundamental question [for] many tech journalists, policymakers, and growing numbers of consumers regarding AI labs. It fundamentally centers on trust, given that we lack insight — these are private entities, and there’s still much hidden beneath the surface.

Perhaps after they all go public, we might gain some clarity, but it ultimately revolves around trust and misuse, and whether we believe in their intent. What I’d counter with is that sometimes the intent can appear worthy and noble, yet still be misapplied. The situation can devolve into quite a mess. This transcends the question of who trusts Sam Altman — although that was a significant aspect of the trial — pointing to a broader inquiry relevant to the entire sector. 

Sean: I’ll be frank: I don’t trust him. But then again, I don’t have trust in most individuals, so that’s my default stance. 

We’ll observe the developments. The trial wraps up today. I’m quite eager to see the jury’s verdict. I believe initially, a driving force behind this was Musk attempting to tarnish the image of a perceived competitor whom he feels has wronged him. Whether he has succeeded in that or has a chance of winning remains uncertain. However, it seems everyone involved comes out of this slightly worse off. 

Anthony: To clarify, this week’s discussion stems from [Altman] being on the stand, where he faced scrutiny over previous statements made during his testimony to [Congress], claiming he held no equity in OpenAI. That statement is false since he maintained a stake via Y Combinator, which he previously managed. He attempted to downplay this by asserting, “I assume everyone grasps what being a passive investor in a VC fund entails.” Musk’s lawyer, quite reasonably, asked, “Really? Do you believe the congressman who questioned you was aware of that?”

Kirsten: Indeed, he was playing a semantics game. I found it compelling to observe [this] regarding the contrasting ways Sam Altman and Elon Musk responded on the stand. 

In many situations, Elon Musk has been noted for disseminating misinformation or exaggerations on Twitter, yet he corrected the record while under oath. There’s a pattern of, I would argue, dishonesty or lying, flagrant or subtle, in Musk’s sphere, but his approach was notably confrontational, contrasting with Altman’s demeanor of “I’m addressing it,” which seemed more affable, though it’s uncertain if it will benefit him.

Ultimately, it hinges on the fundamental facts, and hopefully, that’s what the jury will focus on. But I found it quite remarkable — both were misleading, yet their responses were entirely different.