OpenAI, the non-profit research company focused on artificial intelligence, has responded to a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk, claiming that Musk sought excessive control over the organization and even proposed a merger with his electric vehicle company, Tesla.
The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that OpenAI breached its charter by transitioning from a non-profit with a capped donation structure to a capped-profit limited liability company (LLC). Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI, argued that this change violated the organization's original mission of ensuring safe and beneficial development of artificial intelligence.
OpenAI's response, filed on Tuesday, directly addresses these claims. The organization maintains that the shift to a capped-profit LLC was necessary to secure funding for its research endeavors while still adhering to its core principles. OpenAI further asserts that Musk's true concern was not the organization's structure, but rather his own influence within it.
According to the filing, during discussions about the proposed for-profit structure, Musk allegedly advocated for either a complete merger with Tesla or acquiring full control of OpenAI itself, including potentially becoming the CEO. OpenAI claims these proposals were "inconsistent with the principles of the organization" and ultimately led to Musk's departure from the board in 2018.
The response goes on to detail Musk's financial contributions to OpenAI, stating that they amounted to a total of $45 million, significantly less than the portrait of singular financial backing Musk has previously presented. OpenAI argues that this figure hardly justifies the level of control Musk allegedly sought.
While the lawsuit and subsequent response delve into the specifics of OpenAI's governance and funding, the underlying tension appears to center on the differing visions for the organization's future. OpenAI maintains its commitment to responsible AI development and emphasizes the importance of maintaining its independence to pursue this mission. The extent to which these contrasting viewpoints can be reconciled through the legal process remains to be seen.