The legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI reached its conclusion this week, with both sides delivering closing arguments. Now, the decision rests with the jury, who must determine whether OpenAI acted improperly during its transition into a more profit-driven organization.

During a recent discussion, Kirsten highlighted that Musk himself has made plenty of misleading statements, suggesting that trust isn't solely an issue for Sam Altman. She emphasized that this is a fundamental concern for tech journalists, policymakers, and a growing number of consumers when it comes to all AI labs. "It's really come down to trust, because we don’t have the insight, necessarily – these are all privately held companies, there’s a lot behind the veil still," she explained.

The conversation, edited for clarity, delved into the question of whether anyone truly trusts Sam Altman. Anthony noted that while it might seem unusual to discuss such a personal matter in a journalistic context, it lies at the heart of the trial and much of what has happened at OpenAI, including the major executive power struggle often referred to as "The Blip." He observed that many people who have worked with Altman don't trust him, and Altman has acknowledged this, admitting he has been conflict-averse and prone to telling people what they want to hear. Anthony, who described himself as similarly conflict-averse, questioned whether he would face such scrutiny in a trial.

Sean pointed out that Anthony still hadn't given a direct answer, while Kirsten broadened the perspective. She argued that the question of trust extends beyond Altman to the entire AI industry. "It's really come down to trust, because we don’t have the insight, necessarily – these are all privately held companies, there's a lot behind the veil still. Maybe when they all IPO, we can get a peek, but it is fundamentally about trust and misuse, and do we believe the intent," she said. She added that even noble intentions can lead to problematic outcomes.

Sean admitted he doesn't trust Altman, but noted that he doesn't trust most people as a baseline. He expressed curiosity about the jury's decision, suggesting that Musk's motivation seemed to be mudslinging against a perceived rival. "I think all these people came out of this looking a little bit worse," he concluded.

Anthony provided specific context for why the trust issue arose this week: Altman was grilled on the stand about past statements to Congress, where he claimed he had no equity in OpenAI. In reality, he held a stake through Y Combinator, which he once ran. Altman tried to brush this off by saying he assumed everyone understood what it means to be a passive investor in a VC fund. Musk's lawyer questioned whether that assumption was reasonable for the congressman interviewing him.

Kirsten contrasted the styles of Altman and Musk on the stand. While Musk has a history of untruthfulness, often correcting the record later, he was combative during testimony. Altman, on the other hand, adopted a more affable tone, claiming he was working on his flaws. "Both being untruthful, but how they dealt with it was very different," she observed, noting that the jury's focus should remain on the core facts.