The journals of Greg Brockman, President of OpenAI, which consist of a collection of text files from his computer, are significantly influencing the ongoing trial concerning Elon Musk’s civil lawsuit against Sam Altman. Musk has accused OpenAI and its leadership of violating a charitable trust and enriching themselves unfairly by altering OpenAI’s status from a non-profit to a for-profit organization. In response, OpenAI’s executives have consistently argued throughout the trial that the shift to a for-profit model was not primarily aimed at personal gain. However, Brockman’s journals reveal a much more candid perspective on the motivations behind OpenAI’s transition to a for-profit status in 2017.
For instance, one journal entry stated: “It’d be wrong to take the non-profit from him and turn it into a B-corp without him—that’d be morally bankrupt, and he’s not an idiot.” Another noted: “Maybe we should just switch to a for-profit—making money for ourselves sounds great.” A further entry acknowledged: “We can’t say we’re committed to the non-profit—if we become a B-corp in a few months, that would be a lie.”
Essentially, these journals imply that in 2017, Brockman appeared more focused on financial gain and personal advantage. Simultaneously, the individuals at OpenAI seemed to display a degree of inconsistency—they publicly expressed intentions to remain a non-profit while privately contemplating a conversion to a for-profit model for financial benefits. They also recognized that making one statement and swiftly acting in opposition would be deceptive.
Brockman even went so far as to concede in his journal, “It would be wrong to take the non-profit from him,” which closely echoes Musk’s assertion about “stealing a charity.”
Courtroom exchanges and ongoing cross-examination
In the course of cross-examination, when Musk’s attorney, Steven Molo, read passages from the journal, Brockman frequently replied with comments such as “I wouldn’t phrase it that way” and “I’d need to see the complete context.” He even scrutinized minor omitted words like “a” or “the.”
As questioning continues, more information that could clarify or justify these matters may still emerge. Courts typically prefer to examine the complete context rather than isolated excerpts, and interpretations of Brockman’s journals may vary. Meanwhile, Elon Musk and his associates continue to emphasize “AGI safety,” although this argument may weaken when financial factors and motivations come into play.
Elon Musk attempted a settlement
Just prior to the commencement of court proceedings, OpenAI’s attorneys stated in a filing that Elon Musk reached out to Brockman two days before the trial to inquire if he would consider a settlement. Brockman proposed that both parties withdraw their claims, but Musk was not content with this suggestion. According to the filing, he cautioned, “By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America.”
The legal team for OpenAI attempted to utilize these communications as evidence, contending they illustrated Musk’s motives and biases—specifically implying he was targeting a competitor and its executives. However, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed this request, indicating that the messages should have been introduced earlier during Musk’s testimony.