Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Cio
14.9K posts
Cio
@LoveLigth7
Legends are forged not born!! 😎 BECOME THE CRITICAL THINKER THE WORLD DOES NOT WANT YOU TO BE ... 🚀🪩🚀
Katılım Kasım 2012
602 Takip Edilen436 Takipçiler
Thank you Sawyer!! @SawyerMerritt
Sawyer Merritt@SawyerMerritt
Here's a general summary of Elon Musk’s 3.5 hour long testimony today during day 2 of the OpenAI trial: • Elon on Sam Altman & Greg Brockman: “If they wanna get rich, they should go do so as a for-profit. They should not get rich off a nonprofit. I gave them $38 million of essentially free funding to create what would become an $800 billion company.” • Elon says he could’ve made OpenAI for-profit but chose nonprofit for AI safety • Wanted initial ~51% control due to funding, but expected dilution over time • Donated $10M+ and trusted assurances OpenAI would remain nonprofit • Elon says his view of OpenAI evolved in three stages: first, he was “enthusiastically supportive.” Then, he became “a little uncertain” about whether the founders would keep it nonprofit. Now, he says he’s convinced “they’re looting the nonprofit.” • Elon says he “I would have filed the lawsuit sooner if I thought they had stolen the charity sooner.” • Left board in 2018 (Tesla/SpaceX commitments), still believing mission wouldn’t change • Was not concerned by 2019 capped-profit shift at the time • Elon feels the Microsoft partnership was a “bait and switch” and risked corporate control of AGI. When Microsoft invested $10B in OpenAI at the end of 2022, Elon sent a text to Sam asking, “What the hell is going on?” Elon became very concerned about OpenAI’s direction. Sam Altman responded to Elon's text with: “I agree this feels bad. We offered you equity when we established the cap profit, which you didn't want at the time. We are still very happy to do any time you’d like.” Elon says "I didn’t understand how you could have stock in a nonprofit. It just didn't seem to make sense to me. Frankly, it felt like a bribe." • Rejected equity offer from OpenAI, saying it didn’t make sense for a nonprofit, later called it a “bribe” • Says he sued only after the “charity was actually violated,” not earlier concerns • Denies seeking permanent control; says goal was ensuring AI goes in the “right direction” • Early OpenAI relationships were positive, later deteriorated • Elon criticized OpenAI as “not open” and effectively controlled by Microsoft • OpenAI attorney asked Elon about the potential upcoming SpaceX IPO. Elon said that it would be illegal for him to comment on it before it actually goes public. When asked if he will control SpaceX after the IPO, Elon said: “Yes" and said he will still be CEO. • Elon’s last $5M quarterly donation to OpenAI was in May 2017; he stopped covering office rent in 2020. • OpenAI attorney on suggesting that xAI’s Grok lags far behind ChatGPT. Elon said, “Well, not anymore.” The OpenAI attorney asked, “It’s catching up, you think?” to which Elon replied, “Yeah.” Elon will continue his testimony tomorrow.
English
April 29th 2026 from inside the courtroom various reports are comming :
In a high-stakes courtroom showdown, Elon Musk stood his ground against aggressive questioning from OpenAI’s lead counsel, William Savitt, in what became the most intense day of the trial yet. Musk remained sharp, calling out the attorney’s tactics and providing pointed insights into the internal failures of OpenAI’s leadership.
**Standing Firm Under Pressure**
The tension peaked when Savitt attempted to "needle" Musk over the specifics of a 2018 document regarding OpenAI’s for-profit transition. Musk, prioritizing the "gist" and core intent of the document over legalistic minutiae, pushed back against Savitt’s pedantic approach. As the attorney repeatedly interrupted, Musk asserted himself, firmly telling Savitt, **“Let me talk,”** to ensure his testimony was heard.
The exchange became so heated that **Judge Gonzalez Rogers** felt the need to intervene, though Musk remained undeterred by Savitt's attempts to get under his skin.
**Exposing Transparency Issues **
Elon used the cross-examination as an opportunity to highlight the lack of transparency at OpenAI, specifically regarding CEO Sam Altman:
Defining the Tactics: Elon Musk dismissed Savitt’s line of questioning as “definitionally complex” and didn't hesitate to call out the lawyer for claiming his questions were "simple," labeling the characterization a "lie."
Holding Altman Accountable: When Savitt brought up an old email from court labeled as non trustworthy couduit S. Zillis regarding information sharing, Musk turned the tables. He pointed out that the real issue was Altman’s own lack of transparency, noting that Altman **“did not keep the board informed, which was why he was fired from the company.”**
Winning the Room-
Despite the combative atmosphere, Musk’s wit remained intact. After Savitt spent several minutes aggressively pressing a point only to abruptly say, “Okay, I’ll withdraw the question,”
On true form Elon Musk landed the final punch
**“Okay... after all that?”** Musk asked. The perfectly timed retort drew laughter from the entire courtroom, effectively deflating the attorney’s aggressive posturing and highlighting the absurdity of the prosecution's circular tactics.
English
Elon Musk on AI during the OpenAI trial:
"It (AI) could make us more prosperous, but it could also kill us all. We want to be in a Gene Roddenberry movie, like Star Trek, not so much a James Cameron movie, like Terminator.
He then elaborated by comparing AI training to almost like raising a child:
"It’s like if you had a very smart child — at the end of the day when the child grows up, you can’t really control that child, but you can try to instill the right values. Honesty, integrity, caring about humanity —being good, essentially."
English
April 29th 2026 from inside the courtroom various reports are comming :
In a high-stakes courtroom showdown, Elon Musk stood his ground against aggressive questioning from OpenAI’s lead counsel, William Savitt, in what became the most intense day of the trial yet. Musk remained sharp, calling out the attorney’s tactics and providing pointed insights into the internal failures of OpenAI’s leadership.
**Standing Firm Under Pressure**
The tension peaked when Savitt attempted to "needle" Musk over the specifics of a 2018 document regarding OpenAI’s for-profit transition. Musk, prioritizing the "gist" and core intent of the document over legalistic minutiae, pushed back against Savitt’s pedantic approach. As the attorney repeatedly interrupted, Musk asserted himself, firmly telling Savitt, **“Let me talk,”** to ensure his testimony was heard.
The exchange became so heated that **Judge Gonzalez Rogers** felt the need to intervene, though Musk remained undeterred by Savitt's attempts to get under his skin.
**Exposing Transparency Issues **
Elon used the cross-examination as an opportunity to highlight the lack of transparency at OpenAI, specifically regarding CEO Sam Altman:
Defining the Tactics: Elon Musk dismissed Savitt’s line of questioning as “definitionally complex” and didn't hesitate to call out the lawyer for claiming his questions were "simple," labeling the characterization a "lie."
Holding Altman Accountable: When Savitt brought up an old email from court labeled as non trustworthy couduit S. Zillis regarding information sharing, Musk turned the tables. He pointed out that the real issue was Altman’s own lack of transparency, noting that Altman **“did not keep the board informed, which was why he was fired from the company.”**
Winning the Room-
Despite the combative atmosphere, Musk’s wit remained intact. After Savitt spent several minutes aggressively pressing a point only to abruptly say, “Okay, I’ll withdraw the question,”
On true form Elon Musk landed the final punch
**“Okay... after all that?”** Musk asked. The perfectly timed retort drew laughter from the entire courtroom, effectively deflating the attorney’s aggressive posturing and highlighting the absurdity of the prosecution's circular tactics.
English
“If they wanna get rich, they should go do so as a for-profit, Elon Musk says, referring to Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. “They should not get rich off a nonprofit.” Elon Musk, April 2026
“I gave them 38 million dollars of essentially free funding," which Altman and Brockman used to create a $800 billion dollar company, he says.
English
“If they wanna get rich, they should go do so as a for-profit, Elon Musk says, referring to Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. “They should not get rich off a nonprofit.” Elon Musk, April 2026
“I gave them 38 million dollars of essentially free funding," which Altman and Brockman used to create a $800 billion dollar company, he says.
English
The tide is turning in Oakland. As Day 3 of the Musk v. OpenAI trial unfolds, the narrative of "the greatest bait-and-switch in Silicon Valley history" is being etched into the court record. The trial is evolving from a philosophical debate into a forensic dismantling of what Musk’s team calls a "calculated corporate heist."
🏛️ Day 3 Summary: Elon Holding the Line!
Elon Musk spent the morning back on the stand. While OpenAI’s lawyers tried to frame this as a "dispute over control," Musk kept the jury focused on the moral betrayal and a questionable breach of fiduciary duty at the heart of the case.
"It’s Not Okay to Steal a Charity": This has become the trial's defining quote. Musk hammered home that he didn't donate $38 million to build a "for-profit monster" for Microsoft. He argued that if OpenAI is allowed to pivot from a nonprofit to a $850+ billion commercial titan, it sets a precedent that would destroy the integrity of every charitable foundation in America.
Musk’s attorneys presented internal communications suggesting a "shadow plan" existed to transition to a for-profit model long before it was disclosed to Musk. The argument: Altman and Brockman owed a fiduciary duty to the nonprofit and its donors (like Musk) to protect its mission, yet they allegedly worked in secret to dismantle it for personal gain.
In a powerful moment, Musk reiterated that OpenAI was his gift to the world and all of us. He argued that by moving "substantially all" of the nonprofit’s intellectual property and talent into a for-profit shell, the defendants didn't just pivot they stole a public asset given by Musk to the world and sold it to Microsoft.
The "Humanity-First" Origin: Musk recounted the chilling 2015 conversation with Google’s Larry Page, where Page dismissed human survival as "specieist." Musk reminded the jury that OpenAI was founded as the only check against that reckless ambition until Sam Altman and Greg Brockman allegedly "looted" the mission while deceiving Musk.
Musk’s team argued that the defendants "captured" the board committee by withholding critical information about the Microsoft deal's terms, effectively tricking them into signing away the company’s soul while Musk was distracted with Tesla and SpaceX.
Musk’s team successfully highlighted that OpenAI is no longer the independent lab it promised to be. By showing how deeply Microsoft's infrastructure is woven into the current company, they argued OpenAI is now effectively a "closed-source subsidiary" of the world's largest corporation.
💼 Next Up: All eyes are on Jared Birchall, the head of Musk’s family office and his most trusted advisor. If Elon is the "heart" of this case, Birchall is the "brain" and the record-keeper.
While Elon provides the vision, Birchall holds the receipts. He is expected to present internal communications and financial records from 2015–2018 that prove Musk’s funding was strictly contingent on the nonprofit status. He will provide specific timestamps of when Musk was "left in the dark." Birchall was in the room (or on the emails) when the pivot to a for-profit structure began. His testimony will detail the "behind-the-scenes" maneuvers by Altman, Brockman and others that Musk claims were hidden from him. He is expected to detail how Musk was essentially "frozen out" of key financial decisions that led to the $13 billion Microsoft partnership.
This is about whether group of executives can take a charity funded by a donor for the "betterment of society" and turn it into a private profit engine. It is not about a personal win, but a fight for the Future of Humanity. Musk is standing up for the principle that a gift to humanity cannot be reclaimed as a gift to shareholders, with Elon's win, OpenAI could be forced back into its nonprofit roots, potentially releasing its "closed" models to the public as originally promised.
The world is watching to see if the "deception"of 2018 will finally be held to account in 2026.
English
The tide is turning in Oakland. As Day 3 of the Musk v. OpenAI trial unfolds, the narrative of "the greatest bait-and-switch in Silicon Valley history" is being etched into the court record. The trial is evolving from a philosophical debate into a forensic dismantling of what Musk’s team calls a "calculated corporate heist."
🏛️ Day 3 Summary: Elon Holding the Line!
Elon Musk spent the morning back on the stand. While OpenAI’s lawyers tried to frame this as a "dispute over control," Musk kept the jury focused on the moral betrayal and a questionable breach of fiduciary duty at the heart of the case.
"It’s Not Okay to Steal a Charity": This has become the trial's defining quote. Musk hammered home that he didn't donate $38 million to build a "for-profit monster" for Microsoft. He argued that if OpenAI is allowed to pivot from a nonprofit to a $850+ billion commercial titan, it sets a precedent that would destroy the integrity of every charitable foundation in America.
Musk’s attorneys presented internal communications suggesting a "shadow plan" existed to transition to a for-profit model long before it was disclosed to Musk. The argument: Altman and Brockman owed a fiduciary duty to the nonprofit and its donors (like Musk) to protect its mission, yet they allegedly worked in secret to dismantle it for personal gain.
In a powerful moment, Musk reiterated that OpenAI was his gift to the world and all of us. He argued that by moving "substantially all" of the nonprofit’s intellectual property and talent into a for-profit shell, the defendants didn't just pivot they stole a public asset given by Musk to the world and sold it to Microsoft.
The "Humanity-First" Origin: Musk recounted the chilling 2015 conversation with Google’s Larry Page, where Page dismissed human survival as "specieist." Musk reminded the jury that OpenAI was founded as the only check against that reckless ambition until Sam Altman and Greg Brockman allegedly "looted" the mission while deceiving Musk.
Musk’s team argued that the defendants "captured" the board committee by withholding critical information about the Microsoft deal's terms, effectively tricking them into signing away the company’s soul while Musk was distracted with Tesla and SpaceX.
Musk’s team successfully highlighted that OpenAI is no longer the independent lab it promised to be. By showing how deeply Microsoft's infrastructure is woven into the current company, they argued OpenAI is now effectively a "closed-source subsidiary" of the world's largest corporation.
💼 Next Up: All eyes are on Jared Birchall, the head of Musk’s family office and his most trusted advisor. If Elon is the "heart" of this case, Birchall is the "brain" and the record-keeper.
While Elon provides the vision, Birchall holds the receipts. He is expected to present internal communications and financial records from 2015–2018 that prove Musk’s funding was strictly contingent on the nonprofit status. He will provide specific timestamps of when Musk was "left in the dark."
Birchall was in the room (or on the emails) when the pivot to a for-profit structure began. His testimony will likely detail the "behind-the-scenes" maneuvers by Altman, Brockman and others that Musk claims were hidden from him. He is expected to detail how Musk was essentially "frozen out" of key financial decisions that led to the $13 billion Microsoft partnership.
This is about whether group of executives can take a charity funded by a donor for the "betterment of society" and turn it into a private profit engine. It is not about a personal win, but a fight for the Future of Humanity. Musk is standing up for the principle that a gift to humanity cannot be reclaimed as a gift to shareholders, with his win, OpenAI could be forced back into its nonprofit roots, potentially releasing its "closed" models to the public as originally promised.
The world is watching to see if the "deception"of 2018 will finally be held to account in 2026.
English
The tide is turning in Oakland. As Day 3 of the Musk v. OpenAI trial unfolds, the narrative of "the greatest bait-and-switch in Silicon Valley history" is being etched into the court record. The trial is evolving from a philosophical debate into a forensic dismantling of what Musk’s team calls a "calculated corporate heist."
🏛️ Day 3 Summary: Elon Holding the Line!
Elon Musk spent the morning back on the stand. While OpenAI’s lawyers tried to frame this as a "dispute over control," Musk kept the jury focused on the moral betrayal and a questionable breach of fiduciary duty at the heart of the case.
"It’s Not Okay to Steal a Charity": This has become the trial's defining quote. Musk hammered home that he didn't donate $38 million to build a "for-profit monster" for Microsoft. He argued that if OpenAI is allowed to pivot from a nonprofit to a $850+ billion commercial titan, it sets a precedent that would destroy the integrity of every charitable foundation in America.
Musk’s attorneys presented internal communications suggesting a "shadow plan" existed to transition to a for-profit model long before it was disclosed to Musk. The argument: Altman and Brockman owed a fiduciary duty to the nonprofit and its donors (like Musk) to protect its mission, yet they allegedly worked in secret to dismantle it for personal gain.
In a powerful moment, Musk reiterated that OpenAI was his gift to the world and all of us. He argued that by moving "substantially all" of the nonprofit’s intellectual property and talent into a for-profit shell, the defendants didn't just pivot they stole a public asset given by Musk to the world and sold it to Microsoft.
The "Humanity-First" Origin: Musk recounted the chilling 2015 conversation with Google’s Larry Page, where Page dismissed human survival as "specieist." Musk reminded the jury that OpenAI was founded as the only check against that reckless ambition until Sam Altman and Greg Brockman allegedly "looted" the mission while deceiving Musk.
Musk’s team argued that the defendants "captured" the board committee by withholding critical information about the Microsoft deal's terms, effectively tricking them into signing away the company’s soul while Musk was distracted with Tesla and SpaceX.
Musk’s team successfully highlighted that OpenAI is no longer the independent lab it promised to be. By showing how deeply Microsoft's infrastructure is woven into the current company, they argued OpenAI is now effectively a "closed-source subsidiary" of the world's largest corporation.
💼 Next Up: All eyes are on Jared Birchall, the head of Musk’s family office and his most trusted advisor. If Elon is the "heart" of this case, Birchall is the "brain" and the record-keeper.
While Elon provides the vision, Birchall holds the receipts. He is expected to present internal communications and financial records from 2015–2018 that prove Musk’s funding was strictly contingent on the nonprofit status. He will provide specific timestamps of when Musk was "left in the dark."
Birchall was in the room (or on the emails) when the pivot to a for-profit structure began. His testimony will likely detail the "behind-the-scenes" maneuvers by Altman, Brockman and others that Musk claims were hidden from him. He is expected to detail how Musk was essentially "frozen out" of key financial decisions that led to the $13 billion Microsoft partnership.
This is about whether group of executives can take a charity funded by a donor for the "betterment of society" and turn it into a private profit engine. It is not about a personal win, but a fight for the Future of Humanity. Musk is standing up for the principle that a gift to humanity cannot be reclaimed as a gift to shareholders. With his win, OpenAI could be forced back into its nonprofit roots, potentially releasing its "closed" models to the public as originally promised.
The world is watching to see if the "deception"of 2018 will finally be held to account in 2026.
English
@elonmusk @MobofJoggers Oh, for heaven’s sake! 🤣 That’s one mystery down, the hair is finally settled ... now the plot thickens.
Was it a game? Was it music? Or an audiobook on the road to Oakland? We’ve traded one puzzle for an even deeper mystery to unravel! 🎧🕵️♂️ 🤣😂😅🤣
English
@MobofJoggers This is what happens if you wear headphones all the way to Oakland after taking a shower 🤣🤣
English
The parents of these teens should be arrested @GovRonDeSantis
Matt Van Swol@mattvanswol
🚨OH MY GOSH!!! Two police officers were HOSPITALIZED and 9 people were arrested when over 1,000 "teens" rushed ICON Park in Orlando FL for a "teen-takeover" event. Parents of the teens are now demanding POLICE OFFICERS BE SUSPENDED for "unnecessary force..." WHAT??!!!!!!
English
Cio retweetledi
🚨WHAT ON EARTH?!
I have obtained footage of a "teen takeover" fight that recently broke out in Kernersville NC.
The video is disturbing.
It appears a teen pulls a SEMI-AUTO RIFLE out of a BACKPACK and fires into a crowd of CHILDREN!
NOT A SINGLE PERSON WAS ARRESTED!!!!!!!!!
English
Nonprofit to for-profit? This is the definition of an immoral bait-and-switch. ⚖️
Sam Altman’s and gang For-Profit OpenAI its unequivocal unethical! Return it back!
“It does seem weird that something can be a non-profit open source and transform itself into a for profit closed source, this is like you funded an organization to save Amazon rainforest instead they became a lumber company and chopped down the forest and sold it” - Elon Musk ✨️
English
OPENAI non-Profit belong to Humanity, a gift from Elon Musk! Thank you ELON!
SMX 🇺🇸@iam_smx
Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, hand-delivered DGX-1, the first AI supercomputer the world had ever made, to Elon Musk back when Elon was a board member of OpenAI, a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION But now it is a for-profit, closed-source OpenAI under CEO Scam Altman, milking the non-profit for his own personal gain. It is ridiculous how things change
English
Cio retweetledi
When NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang presented the DGX Spark, he recalled how, back in 2016, he unveiled the world’s first AI supercomputer, the DGX-1 and no one was interested except for Elon Musk
Elon, who was then at OpenAI, a non-profit organization, called and became its first customer
"A young company, a startup, a nonprofit startup in San Francisco was so delighted to see the computer, they said, "Can we have one?" And I thought, "Oh my gosh, we sold one!" But then I discovered it was a non-profit"
English
The murdered thousands of innocent people and made millions sick for life, this is disgusting... Crimes against humanity. Where the lethal injections 💉 or death squat for all these evil maniac perpetrators???
Paul D. Thacker@thackerpd
EXCLUSIVE: NIH has removed virologist Ralph Baric from all his grants; UNC placed Baric on leave. Senior HHS officials says UNC was complicit in starting the COVID pandemic. “Baric designed the gun,” he said. “But the Chinese built it, and then they pulled the trigger.” realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2026/…
English
@elonmusk @thackerpd @hkakeya @P_McCulloughMD @RWMaloneMD @Tyler_A_Harper @VBruttel @nicksortor @SharylAttkisson @jsolomonReports The murdered thousands of innocent people and made millions sick for life, this is disgusting... Crimes against humanity. Where the lethal injections 💉 or death squat for all these evil maniac perpetrators???
English
EXCLUSIVE: NIH has removed virologist Ralph Baric from all his grants; UNC placed Baric on leave.
Senior HHS officials says UNC was complicit in starting the COVID pandemic.
“Baric designed the gun,” he said. “But the Chinese built it, and then they pulled the trigger.” realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2026/…
English
niggas used to come out as gay 20 years ago now they just come out as republican
Exec Sum@exec_sum
Google co-founder Sergey Brin is coming out as Republican, per NYT The reporting follows Brin's ambitious efforts to kill the California wealth tax, elect a Republican to California governor, and move his residency out of California. He finally expressed his sentiment in a comment to NYT: "I fled socialism with my family in 1979 and know the devastating, oppressive society it created in the Soviet Union. I don't want California to end up in the same place."
English