Just now, OpenAI President Greg Brockman "confessed"? He admitted in court that he had never invested a penny, but he had withdrawn equity worth US$30 billion. This news not only shocked everyone in the court, but also shocked all netizens.
TAGP H22
Hearing this breaking news, New York University scholar Marcus judged: I think Musk really has a chance to win for the first time.
Silicon Valley Trial of the Century,
T AGPH33OpenAI President “pleads guilty”In the Oakland Federal Court in May 2026, there was a sense of anxiety in the air.
In this court, sit some of the smartest brains in the world today, as well as the most intense interest disputes in human history.
On one side is Musk, the world’s richest man, who is committed to sending humans to Mars; on the other side are the current crown jewels of global AI - the leaders of OpenAI: Ultraman and Greg Brockman.
Now, this trial has evolved into a commercial espionage blockbuster involving tens of billions of dollars, full of betrayal, intrigue, secret agreements and profit transfer.
At the court hearing, Musk's attorney looked calm. He held Brockman's own diary and emails and elegantly performed a "live butchering."
The most shocking scene happened.
When the attorney asked about Brockman’s holdings in OpenAI’s for-profit entity, the conversation went as follows.
asks: “You have an ownership interest in this for-profit company, correct?”
Brockman: "Yes, accurate."
asked: "And in order to obtain these rights, the cash you invested is $0. Correct?"
Brockman (after hesitation): "It is also accurate."
asked: "Your stake in this for-profit entity, at today's valuation, is over $20 billion, correct?"
Brockman: "Yes."
Q: "Actually, it's probably closer to $30 billion. Correct?" Brockman: "I think that's probably true. Yeah."
There was a slight commotion in the gallery as the number echoed through the courtroom.
You must know that Musk, as the earliest funder of OpenAI, has donated more than 38 million US dollars in cash, provided early office space, and even personally poached top talents.
But in today’s OpenAI, Musk’s personal shareholding is zero.
Not only that, Brockman also had to admit an embarrassing fact: He had used Musk’s name for endorsement in early fundraising, and even verbally promised to donate US$100,000, but in fact, he never fulfilled the money.
This is the core of Musk’s accusation: unjust enrichment.
Under California’s charitable trust law, nonprofit trustees should receive a salary rather than divide charitable assets.
Musk’s logic is very simple: I donated money to make a public instrument that benefits mankind, but you secretly dismantled the public instrument, put the parts inside into your own pockets, and labeled yourself $30 billion.
Cerebras: A 20 billion self-deal
If 30 billion shares is the first bomb in this trial, Cerebras is the second. The related-party transactions of Cerebras disclosed during the trial directly touched the legal red line.
Musk’s lawyer dug up an old account.
In 2017, while serving as OpenAI trustee, Brockman privately purchased shares in the AI chip startup Cerebras. At the same time, Altman also made a personal investment in the company.
However, in the following time, Brockman began to lobby frantically within OpenAI, prompting OpenAI to reach a deal with Cerebras.
The specific timeline is as follows.
December 2025: OpenAI signs an order to pay Cerebras $10 billion and provides an additional $1 billion in loans.
February 2026: With OpenAI’s huge order, Cerebras’ valuation soared from US$8 billion to US$23 billion, nearly tripling.
April 2026: OpenAI increases order book to $20 billion.
Now: Cerebras officially submitted an IPO application, with a valuation of US$26.6 billion.
The conversation in court is as follows.
Q: When you were discussing the financial deal between OpenAI and Cerebras, you were actually a shareholder of Cerebras, correct?
Brockman: "There is some overlap between the discussion period and being an investor in Cerebras. Yes."
Q: Can you point to an email informing Musk of your stake in Cerebras? While you were pushing for a deal between OpenAI and Cerebras?
Brockman: "I don't think such an email exists."
Q: Where are the chat records? Brockman: "No." Question: Where are the text messages?
Brockman: “No.”
Q: However, if there was a deal between OpenAI and Cerebras, you would personally benefit from it
Brockman: “I guess so, but it wasn’t something I was thinking about at the time.”
California charitable trust law has a name for this: self-dealing. This kind of self-dealing is extremely fatal in law.
TAGPH10
As leaders of non-profit organizations, they use charitable funds to support the companies they personally invest in, thereby achieving exponential growth in personal wealth.
This is not just a matter of "deviating from the original intention", but a suspected serious violation of professional ethics and conflict of interest.
“The most hated person in America”
OpenAI obviously does not intend to sit still and wait for death.
In order to counter Musk’s “greed theory”, their lawyer disclosed a set of text messages full of gunpowder in court!
According to OpenAI, two days before the trial, Musk took the initiative to contact Brockman to propose settlement. Brockman politely responded that it would be better for both parties to drop the lawsuit.
Then the conversation derailed.
Musk seemed to go berserk in an instant. He replied: "By the end of this week, you and Sam will become the most hated people in the United States. If you persist (not reconcile) ), so be it.”
This text message, called “Ominous”, was interpreted by OpenAI as Musk’s intimidation and threat.
Court documents: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43368 8/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.522.0.pdf
OpenAI’s lawyers tried to prove that Musk was not suing for “human security” or “non-profit dreams”, but because he was jealous of OpenAI’s success and wanted to ask for a breakup fee from his old partner.
However, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers was not swayed by the gossip and ruled in court that the text messages were not admissible as evidence.
The judge’s focus remains clear: Did OpenAI breach its contractual obligations when it was founded? Is its transition from non-profit to for-profit legal?
Experts’ concerns: “Doomsday” under the AGI arms race TAGPH9
In this trial, the only thing that reminds people of the grand issue of "human destiny" is the expert witness Musk invited - Stuart, a computer professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Russell.
As a leading figure in the AI field, Professor Russell’s testimony instantly made the atmosphere heavy. He warned that the current AGI race has evolved into an out-of-control "arms race."
“There is a natural tension between the pursuit of AGI and security,” Russell told the jury.
He pointed out that OpenAI is sacrificing security in order to win the competition. This “winner takes all” mentality will cause developers to ignore the strict requirements for AI alignment.
The most ironic detail is that although Musk sued OpenAI to pursue profits, his own xAI is also a for-profit company, and it is also frantically buying graphics cards and expanding computing power.
So, are these two idealists vying for the future of humanity, or two billionaires vying for a ticket to the power of God?
Professor Russell even expressed a concern: If this lawsuit causes OpenAI to be forced to disclose its core technical details, it may stimulate the risk of AI militarization on a global scale.
OpenAI: This is a "necessary evil"
Faced with the accusation of "treachery", OpenAI's logic is also its own.
Brockman repeatedly emphasized in his testimony that the reason why OpenAI transformed was because they discovered that the computing power required to implement AGI was astronomical. If it relied solely on charitable donations, OpenAI would have died in the shadow of Google DeepMind.
“In order to attract top talent and in order to purchase tens of thousands of H100 graphics cards, we must introduce a for-profit structure,” OpenAI’s defense attorney insisted, calling it a “necessary evil.”
But Musk retorted: If you need money, you can refinance, but you cannot directly package up the assets and reputation that everyone invested based on the "non-profit" premise and convert them into private shares.
You know, in an early email, Brockman personally said that if OpenAI turned to for-profit, it would be "morally bankrupt."
Now, he is sitting on a pile of 30 billion US dollars of equity. I don’t know if he still remembers what he said back then.
Silicon Valley A big tear in values
This trial is essentially the ultimate collision of two Silicon Valley values.
One is the "Old Testament idealism" represented by Musk: a promise is a promise, and the contract cannot be broken.
One is the "pragmatic expansionism" represented by Ultraman: Technology iterates too fast, and survival is the first priority. In order to realize AGI, any fine-tuning of the legal structure and changes in the distribution of benefits are reasonable.
California law may favor the former.
In California, charitable assets are strictly protected. If you establish a charity and then decide to turn it into a private company, you must go through an extremely complex appraisal and return the full value of the assets to the public.
What happens if Musk wins?
First of all, OpenAI may be forced to be open source - this is Musk's long-standing demand.
Second, Microsoft’s investment may be at risk. Musk requested the revocation of the exclusive licensing agreement with Microsoft. If the court supports this request, OpenAI's valuation will collapse instantly.
Third, the profits of OpenAI’s for-profit division may be forcibly transferred back to the non-profit parent, and Brockman’s $30 billion “zero-cost equity” may be wiped out.
Finally, this judgment will become a precedent and a warning to all AI startups: You cannot raise funds under the guise of charity and then harvest under the guise of business.
But if OpenAI wins, it means that Silicon Valley's "barbaric growth" logic has once again won a complete victory -
As long as you can make technology that changes the world, all the original promises can be covered up in the golden light of success.