In late August 2017, the nascent leadership of OpenAI, then operating as a modest nonprofit research laboratory, convened to strategize its evolution into a for-profit entity. The goal was to commercialize its advanced digital systems and secure the substantial funding required to achieve Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). During these pivotal discussions, entrepreneur Elon Musk, a co-founder, reportedly sought complete control over the burgeoning enterprise. At the time, Musk presented each of his co-founders with a Tesla Model 3, a gesture interpreted by CTO Greg Brockman as an attempt to garner favor amid a power struggle between Musk and Sam Altman for the company’s future direction.

However, the meeting took a contentious turn when Musk’s demand for unilateral control was rejected by the other founders. According to accounts from the time, Musk reacted with visible anger and quiet contemplation, before ultimately declaring, “I decline.” He then reportedly stood up, stormed around the table, and grabbed a painting intended as a friendly gift, before asking, “When will you be departing OpenAI?” Following this confrontation, Musk ceased his regular financial contributions to the company’s operating budget. Within six months, he formally resigned from OpenAI’s board in February 2018, though he continued to cover the shared office space with Neuralink until 2020. The decision to transition to a for-profit model was solidified after an OpenAI model’s victory against a top human player in the video game DOTA II, convincing leaders that significant computational resources were paramount for powerful AI tools, which a nonprofit funding structure could not adequately support.

The intricate details of this 2017 schism have resurfaced amidst Musk’s 2024 lawsuit against OpenAI and its co-founders. During recent testimony, Greg Brockman offered insights into the heated negotiations, emphasizing his belief that no single individual should wield absolute control over OpenAI. Musk’s legal team has reportedly characterized Altman and Brockman as having “stolen a charity,” while OpenAI’s defense contends that Musk himself harbored similar intentions for a for-profit venture. Court proceedings have also scrutinized Brockman’s private journal entries, where he pondered his personal wealth ambitions, including a goal of reaching $1 billion, and noted the moral complexities of converting the nonprofit without Musk. Brockman defended his current stake, valued at nearly $30 billion, by highlighting the nonprofit’s substantial equity value of over $150 billion, achieved through sustained effort since Musk’s departure.

Further testimony revealed Brockman’s assertion that Musk lacked a fundamental understanding of AI, dismissing an early demonstration of the technology that would later evolve into ChatGPT. This perceived lack of insight, Brockman suggested, was precisely what the organization needed to avoid in its leadership. In 2019, OpenAI indeed established its for-profit arm, securing an initial $1 billion investment from Microsoft, followed by an additional $13 billion over the subsequent four years. This substantial funding propelled OpenAI to become a leading AI frontier lab, significantly increasing the net worth of its executives and employees, and bolstering the assets held by the OpenAI nonprofit. These developments ultimately fueled Musk’s suspicions that he had been outmaneuvered, culminating in his current legal challenge.