Musk returns to witness stand again: says he "only read the headline" and did not read the details of the profit transformation guidelines.

The lawsuit between Musk and OpenAI entered its third day, and this lawsuit may not only reshape the governance structure of this globally most valuable AI company, but also directly impact its potential trillion-dollar IPO process. According to Reuters, Musk admitted on Thursday in a California court under cross-examination that he was aware of early discussions within OpenAI about transitioning to a for-profit company, but he did not read the details. He claimed to have been assured by Altman that the company would remain non-profit. This statement became the focus of the trial and is also the core point of contention for OpenAI in refuting the lawsuit. Musk is seeking $150 billion in damages and requesting OpenAI to revert to a non-profit nature and replace the current management. This case is of significant interest to all parties involved: if Musk wins, OpenAI's governance structure and path to public listing will face fundamental changes; if he loses, it will further solidify the profit-driven transformation under Altman's leadership. At the same time, Microsoft, as one of the largest investors in OpenAI, has also been accused of assisting in violating charitable trust and has become a co-defendant. Musk: "I only read the headline, didn't read the details" The most dramatic moment in the trial came during OpenAI lawyer William Savitt's cross-examination of Musk. Savitt presented Musk with a document forwarded by Altman on August 31, 2017, which outlined the transition of OpenAI from a non-profit organization to a for-profit entity regulated by a non-profit organization. Dressed in a dark suit, Musk confessed, "My testimony is that I didn't read the details, only the title." He further stated that at the time, he was assured by Altman and others that OpenAI would continue to maintain a non-profit structure. During the trial, Savitt also cited multiple emails from other OpenAI founders sent to Musk, showing that they had discussed the possibility of making the technology proprietary or profit from it. When asked why he did not realize earlier that the company was moving towards profit-making, and why he did not file the lawsuit earlier, Musk showed obvious signs of frustration. "When you keep interrupting me, there are few answers that can be fully expressed," Musk bluntly told Savitt. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers subsequently warned Savitt to allow Musk to complete his answers fully, but also dismissed Musk's complaint about the other party's use of leading questions. The core of the lawsuit: dispute over "stolen" charitable assets In the lawsuit, Musk accuses OpenAI, Altman, and president Greg Brockman of promising to "build a non-profit organization that prioritizes AI safety" in exchange for his $38 million donation and personal support, and then turning to profit-making for personal gain. Based on this, he has brought two charges of violating charitable trust and unjust enrichment, and has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft for assisting in violating charitable trust. Musk stated in court: "I don't think you should turn a non-profit organization into a for-profit company. There is nothing wrong with a for-profit organization, but you cannot steal from a charity." Musk also pointed out to the court that the for-profit entity now effectively controls OpenAI's core assets. "The value lies in the for-profit company, which has taken away the vast majority of the value of the non-profit organization," he said. In addition to damages, Musk is also seeking to return OpenAI to its non-profit nature, requesting Altman and Brockman to be removed from their executive positions, and removing Altman from the board of directors. The compensation funds will be placed in OpenAI's charitable fund. OpenAI counterattack: Musk aims to control and promote xAI OpenAI presented a completely different narrative in court. The company believes that after Musk left the board in 2018, he harbored strong jealousy towards OpenAI's commercial success, with the real motive being to control the company and use it to benefit his own AI company, xAI. OpenAI pointed out that during his tenure, Musk did not prioritize safety issues and xAI's user base still significantly lags behind OpenAI. Musk also admitted in court that xAI had used OpenAI to train its own models, describing this as a "standard practice of using other AI to validate one's own AI." Facing a motion from Musk's lawyer Steven Molo to list the "risk of human extinction by AI" as admissible evidence, Judge Gonzalez Rogers responded in a sarcastic manner: "I find it somewhat ironic that, despite these risks, your client is creating a company in exactly the same field." The judge ultimately ruled not to admit the expert testimony, stating, "The trial is not about the safety risks of artificial intelligence." Case development: multiple witnesses waiting, ruling may impact OpenAI's listing Founded in 2015, OpenAI initially operated as a non-profit research lab in Brockman's apartment and is now valued at over $85 billion and is preparing for a potential IPO. If Musk's lawsuit is supported by the court, it will have a substantial impact on the company's path to listing and valuation prospects. The trial began on Monday and is expected to last several weeks. After Musk completed over two hours of testimony on Thursday, his chief assistant Jared Birchall immediately took the stand. It is reported that the list of subsequent witnesses includes Brockman and AI security expert Stuart Russell. Altman and Brockman were present throughout Musk's testimony. The final outcome of the trial will largely determine the future fate of this globally most watched AI company. This article is from "Wall Street News", author: Yang Chen, GMTEight Editor: Li Cheng