Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost
The recent court case between Sam Altman and Elon Musk highlighted the contentious history of OpenAI's founding and transformation. Musk accused Altman of misusing charitable funds to create a profitable company, seeking significant damages and changes to OpenAI's structure. The trial revealed deep-seated animosities and public perceptions of both figures, ultimately raising questions about trust and integrity in the tech industry.
- ▪Elon Musk and Sam Altman co-founded OpenAI in 2015 with a mission to benefit humanity.
- ▪Musk's lawsuit claimed Altman and others exploited charitable intentions for profit, seeking $150 billion in damages.
- ▪The trial showcased public disdain for Musk, complicating the legal proceedings.
2 outlets in our directory ran this story, first to last over 13 hours. All of the coverage we found sits in one bucket: centre. That one-sidedness is itself worth noticing.
- ▪ Elon Musk and Sam Altman's rivalry moves from the courtroom to Wall Street — ABC News (Australia)
Hacker News (Front Page) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 602 of its stories. Top-voted stories on Hacker News.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Letter from Silicon ValleySam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, Really, We All LostThe cases of Elizabeth Holmes and Sam Bankman-Fried at least offered a pleasant sense of comeuppance. But in Musk v. Altman, to root against Tweedledum was effectively to root for Tweedledee.By Gideon Lewis-KrausMay 20, 2026Illustration by Joan Wong; Source photographs from GettySave this storySave this storySave this storySave this storyA famous logic puzzle takes place on a mythical island divided between the knights, who never lie, and the knaves, who always do. A foreign traveller encounters a fork in the road: one way guarantees safe passage, the other certain death. A member of each tribe is present, though it isn’t clear which is which, and the traveller is granted only one question.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The New Yorker.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The New Yorker
