xAI Model Distillation Comes to Light in OpenAI Lawsuit With Musk
TBPN
Elon Musk's legal battle against OpenAI risks exposing xAI's own terms-of-service violations while leaving the jury to decide a high-stakes corporate feud based on narrative and personality rather than technical facts.
## Background
Published by TBPN on YouTube on May 1, 2026, this video features a live interview with New York Times tech reporter Mike Isaac. The segment details what it is actually like inside the OpenAI vs. Elon Musk courtroom, covering the chaotic early-morning lines, jury dynamics, and legal strategies.
## TL;DR
The discussion offers a detailed look at the high-stakes legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI in an Oakland federal courtroom. It contrasts Musk's high-minded 'save humanity' narrative with OpenAI's tactical contract arguments, while highlighting evidentiary surprises like xAI's model distillation practices. Beyond the legal maneuvers, the conversation examines jury selection challenges, strict judicial oversight from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, and the lack of live camera access. Ultimately, the trial is framed as a high-concept theater where jury perception and tech-industry rivalries collide.
## Atmosphere & style
The conversation carries a lighthearted, witty, and candid tone that balances sharp journalistic reporting with self-deprecating tech-industry humor. The rapport between Mike Isaac and the hosts feels like an energetic debrief among fast-talking peers, drifting easily from dense courtroom strategy to absurd pop-culture riffs about Terminator and Nathan Fielder. The result is an engaging, banter-filled breakdown that captures both the grueling fatigue of early-morning court reporting and the surreal circus of Silicon Valley litigation.
## Key takeaways
- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=0s) Reporters like Mike Isaac face grueling conditions covering the OpenAI vs. Elon Musk trial in Oakland, waking up at 5:00 a.m. to secure one of 30 public seats or 20 reserved press spots in an unusually permissive federal court.
- [06:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=398s) Jury selection revealed a stark contrast between Silicon Valley and the local public, as prospective advisory jurors had no prior knowledge of AI, AGI, Sam Altman, or Greg Brockman.
- [06:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=398s) Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers maintains strict control over the courtroom with a sharp, zero-tolerance demeanor while holding ultimate authority over the final verdict, remedies, and damages.
- [11:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=681s) Elon Musk's legal strategy frames the conflict around high-level mission and narrative, asserting that OpenAI betrayed its founding non-profit purpose under the slogan 'You can't steal a charity.'
- [13:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=822s) OpenAI's defense counters that Musk is acting as a disgruntled competitor whose own company, xAI, actively violated OpenAI's Terms of Service through model distillation.
- [13:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=822s) Because the jurors are not sequestered, the court relies on simple verbal instructions to restrict them from accessing phone technology or media coverage throughout the trial.
- [13:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=822s) Musk displayed an antagonistic, frustrated demeanor on the stand during cross-examination by counsel who previously represented Twitter during his attempted buyout cancellation.
- [13:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=822s) Testimony from Musk's family office manager Jared Birchall aimed to establish non-profit intent, but cross-examination introduced evidence of past equity and takeover proposals.
- [13:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=822s) Musk's team called AI safety researcher Stuart Russell to highlight advanced AI risks, pushing the boundaries of the judge's restrictions against extinction-level 'doomerism.'
- [13:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=822s) The trial's strict ban on courtroom audio and video recordings limits its public reach to live text-blogging rather than viral video coverage.
- [33:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=2027s) Commentators speculate that even a favorable ruling for Musk could yield a trivial financial penalty, though high-profile tech litigation can trigger broader class-action or discovery risks.
- [36:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=2200s) New York Times journalists Mike Isaac and Cade Metz are tag-teaming coverage across the four-day court schedule to maintain continuous reporting.
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=0s) Standing in the Oakland Cold: The Federal Courtroom Circus
The energy in the Oakland federal courthouse is a sharp mix of early morning exhaustion and media circus. New York Times tech reporter Mike Isaac describes waking up at 5:00 a.m. every day to stand outside in the freezing Oakland morning for two hours just to secure a spot inside. While federal court offers none of the glamor of an "artist pass" or VIP treatment, the judge in this case has proven unusually permissive compared to other federal jurisdictions, allowing far greater press access and electronic device usage than standard federal trials.
While 20 front-row seats are strictly reserved for media outlets—limited to one representative per outlet—the remaining 30 unreserved back-row seats are open to the general public on a strict first-come, first-served basis. Isaac and his colleague Cade have been trading off between the press section for live-blogging major moments and sitting in the back with the general public. The spectator gallery has quickly turned into an eclectic mix of tech workers (including product managers from Meta and Box), die-hard Elon Musk superfans, people genuinely terrified of an AI apocalypse, and curious locals. The grueling hours and mundane moments have even led at least one spectator to fall asleep mid-session.
* **Seating Allocation:** 20 reserved press seats in the front row; 30 unreserved seats in the back row open to the general public.
* **Prior High-Profile Cases:** Isaac previously covered *Apple v. Samsung* (patent infringement), *ZeniMax v. Meta* in Dallas (Oculus acquisition testimony), and the FTC's antitrust case against Meta in D.C.
* **Courtroom Incidents:** Isaac was previously kicked out of federal court in D.C. for wearing prescription Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses after court staff deemed them too high-risk for unauthorized recording.
> "I may be like bleeding and hungry like limping across the finish line, but we're getting... I'm tweeting for you." — Mike Isaac
---
[06:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=398s) Advisory Juries and "Teacher" Energy: The Courtroom Vibe
Jury selection highlighted a striking contrast between Silicon Valley's insular tech world and the everyday reality of the local community. Despite taking place in the Bay Area, multiple prospective jurors admitted during *voir dire* that they had zero idea what AI or AGI meant, nor did they know who figures like Sam Altman or Greg Brockman were. In a high-stakes corporate feud where technical facts can quickly become dense or dry, both sides recognize that pure "vibe," storytelling, and jury perception may Ultimately weigh heavily.
The case features a unique procedural setup: while an advisory jury sits to evaluate the civil claims, the presiding judge—U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers—retains the ultimate authority over the final verdict, remedies, and damages. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has dominated the room with a sharp, no-nonsense demeanor and stinging one-liners, shutting down lawyers attempting to "tap dance" around rules. In one dramatic moment, the judge called an attendee from the overflow room directly into the main courtroom and publicly dressed her down in front of a hundred spectators for illegally recording audio on her phone.
* **Jury Dynamics:** An advisory jury hears the case to provide a community perspective, but the judge has the legal right to overturn their verdict or dictate specific damages.
* **Judicial Demeanor:** Judge Gonzalez Rogers is described as having strict "teacher" energy, enforcing federal rules with sharp humor and zero tolerance for grandstanding.
---
[11:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=681s) Framing the Narrative: Humanity vs. Business Reality
Elon Musk's legal strategy operates on two distinct levels: a high-minded, existential narrative juxtaposed with tactical business claims. On the stand, Musk leans heavily into his grand persona as a savior of humanity, pointing to his track record of forcing the auto industry toward electric vehicles via Tesla and pushing humanity toward multi-planetary life via SpaceX. He pairs this high-level narrative with a simple, grounded legal metaphor meant to resonate with the jury: *"You can't steal a charity."*
Conversely, OpenAI’s lead counsel, Bill Savitt, has systematically dismantled this idealistic narrative by presenting a starkly different picture:
```
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| DUELING COURTROOM STRATEGIES |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| ELON MUSK / PLAINTIFF | OPENAI / DEFENDANT |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| • High-concept "save humanity" | • Focus on explicit contractual facts. |
| narrative. | • Argue Musk quit in a huff when he failed |
| • Framed as protecting open-source | to gain full control. |
| AI against commercial greed. | • Paint Musk as a disgruntled competitor |
| • Core slogan: "You can't steal | using xAI to catch up. |
| a charity." | • Expose hypocritical TOS violations. |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
```
---
[13:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=822s) The Distillation Bombshell: Open Secrets and TOS Violations
A major evidentiary bombshell dropped when OpenAI brought up the topic of model distillation on cross-examination. Lead counsel Bill Savitt revealed that while Musk publicly warns that AI represents an existential threat to world safety, his competing company, xAI, has been actively scraping and distilling OpenAI's model outputs. By using OpenAI's proprietary data to train xAI's models, Musk is explicitly breaking OpenAI's Terms of Service (TOS) to benefit his own for-profit enterprise.
When confronted, Musk did not deny the practice, arguing instead that distillation is essentially an "open secret" across the entire AI industry and that "everyone kind of does this." While taking a competitor's product apart to analyze it is standard practice in industries like auto manufacturing, violating digital Terms of Service to feed data directly into a commercial rival sits on a far more precarious legal line.
* **Model Distillation:** The process of using a larger, highly capable AI model's outputs to train a smaller, cheaper, or competing model.
* **OpenAI's Argument:** Musk cannot simultaneously claim OpenAI is endangering humanity while secretly using its tech to build his own for-profit competitor.
* **Musk's Defense:** Distillation is standard industry practice and represents the accepted "rules of engagement" in aggressive tech capitalism.
> "Holy [ __ ], this is news." — Mike Isaac on breaking the distillation testimony on X/Twitter.
Jury Dynamics, Sequestration, and the Smartphone Challenge
The conversation kicks off with a lighthearted chat in the live stream comments about how to "monetize jury duty," before pivoting to a very serious concern about how modern trials handle technology. Mike Isaac points out that the court deliberately tried to select a jury composed of people who "just don't care about the AI race." However, because the trial's outcome is legally advisory rather than strictly binding, a self-interested juror might realize they can act without hard legal consequences. The hosts note that the legal system is largely unprepared for a trial of this unprecedented magnitude and public volume.
A major logistical vulnerability is that the jurors are not sequestered. Instead, they mingle and walk in right before everyone else under the watchful eyes of numerous US marshals, who shout out to separate jurors from the regular public line. At the end of every single day, the judge issues a standard verbal command: do not discuss the case with anyone, watch it on TV, or look at it on your phone. The hosts share a darkly comedic moment marveling at the absurdity of telling people not to use the most addictive technology in human history—a device they rely on for six hours a day, house lighting, and thermostats.
* Jurors are not sequestered and arrive among the general public under the guidance of US marshals.
* The judge's restriction against looking at phones or media coverage is purely a verbal command, not a physical confiscation of devices.
---
Legal Counsel, Tenor Shifts, and Cross-Examination Friction
The discussion shifts to the legal teams, noting that OpenAI is represented by Bill, who previously represented Twitter when Elon Musk was attempting to back out of the Twitter acquisition. Looking back, the hosts remark that the X/Twitter acquisition ultimately worked out pretty well for Elon despite his initial efforts to escape the deal.
Mike Isaac highlights the stark, fascinating contrast in Elon Musk's demeanor on the stand compared to his usual public persona. Instead of a rosy, visionary entrepreneur passionately explaining the future of humanity, Elon came across as openly antagonistic toward Sam Altman's questioning. Elon expressed frustration that the questions were overly complicated or not simple yes-or-no propositions, struggling or refusing to accept that cross-examination is deliberately designed to be reductive.
* Musk's opposing counsel previously represented Twitter during the attempted buyout cancellation.
* Elon expressed frustration on the stand with lawyers asking reductive, non-yes-or-no questions.
* Musk fans sitting behind the reporters could be heard laughing and cheering whenever Elon got sassy with counsel.
---
Witness Lineups, Financial Scrutiny, and the Ari Emanuel Bid
The outlook for the upcoming week in court remains slightly chaotic because witness lists provided in evidence do not specify exact appearance dates beforehand, causing major scheduling headaches for reporters. Jared Birchall, Musk's family office manager, recently finished testifying. His testimony aimed to establish that Musk always intended OpenAI to be structured as a non-profit. However, OpenAI's lawyers cross-examined Birchall by introducing an email revealing a proposed equity structure for Musk, using his financial background against him.
The testimony also brushed against a past complication: a bid made last year by Musk alongside Ari Emanuel and other companies to take over OpenAI's for-profit arm. While Birchall framed this on the stand as an attempt to establish a pricing mechanism to value the entity, OpenAI publicly characterized it at the time as a stalling tactic. This line of questioning opened the door for potential discovery of compromising emails, creating a high-stakes strategic risk for Musk's legal team led by attorney Tom Tobaroff.
* Jared Birchall testified as a witness for Musk to emphasize the original non-profit intent.
* OpenAI used cross-examination to introduce an email detailing a proposed equity structure for Musk.
* A past buyout bid involving Ari Emanuel surfaced in court, potentially opening up messy discovery documents.
---
AI Safety Doomerism and the Terminator Analogy
The conversation moves to the upcoming testimony of AI safety researcher Stuart Russell, called as a witness by Musk's side. The hosts debate the apparent contradiction in Musk's strategy: while the judge has explicitly prohibited wandering too far into "doomerism" and extinction-level distractions, Musk's team is bringing in a safety researcher who views advanced AI as deeply dangerous. The hosts joke about how hard it is to square this circle—essentially amounting to an argument that "AI is going to create a Terminator situation, so you want me in charge of the Terminators instead of a non-profit."
This leads to an extended, humorous tangent about the *Terminator* movies. The hosts joke that Musk is practically pivoting Tesla production toward building Terminators, while noting that popular narratives always forget that humanity fights back and overcomes the machines. They suggest that if a Terminator scenario ever happens, people just want to know their leaders are on the side of the human resistance—joking that Elon or whoever takes charge has to act like John Connor.
* Stuart Russell was called by Musk's side to emphasize the severe risks associated with advanced AI.
* The presiding judge previously barred the parties from steering the trial too far into extinction-level "doomerism" sideshows.
---
Public Perception, Trial Secrecy, and Voice Cloning Humor
Reflecting on the broader cultural impact of the trial, the hosts note that because the courtroom lacks audio and video recording and relies solely on live-blogging, it misses out on going viral in the way a televised spectacle would. If certain moments were captured on video, they could easily rack up tens of millions of views on X within hours. Ultimately, they find it depressing to watch major tech figures tear into each other publicly when the industry is already grappling with an abysmal public perception problem.
The segment wraps up with a flurry of jokes about the lack of media access, wondering if they could hire five private stenographers to produce a perfect transcript for a comedic table read. This ties into a topical piece of news: Grok launching a voice cloning feature that same day. While the hosts acknowledge the serious security risks of voice cloning—such as deepfake phone scams targeting family members—they joke about its ideal use case: doing dramatic table reads of court transcripts using the cloned voices of tech leaders like Sam Altman.
* The trial lacks audio and video feeds, limiting its viral reach to live text-blogging.
* Grok launched a voice cloning feature on the same day, prompting jokes about deepfake security risks versus comedic table reads.
By the way, to unlock the full functionality of all Apps, enable [Gemini Apps Activity](https://myactivity.google.com/product/gemini).
[33:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=2027s) Reenactments, Fielder-esque Lawyers, and Inconsequential Fines
The hosts joking about putting on a full theatrical play to recap the trial, complete with actors in full costume and makeup doing impressionist voices of tech executives like Greg Brockman in the style of Elon Musk. Mike Isaac leans into the joke, with the hosts teasing that Mike could even make a cameo as himself in a full "Nathan Fielder" style—crashing out, complaining about forgetting his lunch and water, before cheerfully declaring, "I had a banana, I'm good now." This leads Mike to share a funny detail from the courtroom: there is an actual attorney involved in the trial who looks so strikingly like Nathan Fielder that Mike constantly wonders if it's an elaborate comedy bit and he's secretly being filmed for TV.
```
"Every time I see him, I'm like, is this like a bit? Like, am I going to be on TV in some way? It's very intense."
```
The conversation then pivots to speculating on the potential outcomes of the OpenAI vs. Elon Musk lawsuit. They joke that the funniest and most likely outcome—referencing Musk's famous adage that "the funniest outcome is the most likely"—would be Elon winning the case, only for the judge to hand down a completely trivial penalty like $50 or $150. They reflect on how major tech litigation frequently ends in anti-climactic "fines for ants," where companies make hundreds of millions of dollars only to pay a fraction in legal settlements. However, they note that even small rulings can carry existential financial risks for tech companies if they open the floodgates to massive class-action lawsuits or turn into decade-long legal quagmires.
* **Fielder Doppelgänger:** Mike Isaac notes he intends to ask the attorney next year if he is actually Nathan Fielder.
* **Meta/YouTube Precedent:** The group references recent major tech litigation (such as a $10 million settlement in a Meta lawsuit) to illustrate how upfront payouts often pale in comparison to daily tech revenues, though they can impact stock earnings due to long-term risk.
---
[36:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=2200s) Trial Survival Strategy and Reporting Roster
Looking ahead to the next week of court proceedings, the hosts lightheartedly interrogate Mike about his physical preparation and fuel strategy. They suggest he load up on trail mix, protein bars, or even wear a sponsored CamelBak hydration pack to keep his energy up during the grueling days. Mike responds by comparing the intense court reporting to his early days of blogging for *All Things Digital*, referencing the comedy show *Jury Duty* and joking about showing up equipped with "chair pants" and a bag-mounted water rig.
```
"I apologize. I will not be my like disastrous falling apart self every day of the week, just maybe 2 days of the week."
```
When asked if he will be covering all four days of court next week, Mike explains that he will be tag-teaming coverage with his *New York Times* colleague Cade Metz. Mike notes that Cade has a much more "put-together" demeanor and doesn't "tweet like a person off their meds," promising that readers will get a completely different vibe depending on who is reporting that day.
* **Preparation Routine:** Joking about sitting in a chair for 8 hours straight over the weekend to train for long courtroom sessions.
* **Reporting Team:** Mike Isaac and Cade Metz splitting duties for the upcoming trial days.
---
[37:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=2268s) The Content Ouroboros and Wrap-Up
As the interview comes to a close, the hosts ask Mike if the courtroom drama rises to the level of being book material. Mike agrees there is immense narrative potential in the trial, prompting the hosts to joke about writing a book about Mike’s coverage, followed by a podcast about the book, and another book about the podcast. They laugh about creating a perpetual "content ouroboros" around the high-profile legal battle. Expressing their gratitude for his time and real-time updates from inside the courtroom, the hosts bid Mike farewell.
## Notable quotes
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=0s) I may be like bleeding and hungry like limping across the finish line, but we're getting... I'm tweeting for you. — Mike Isaac
> [11:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=681s) You can't steal a charity. — Elon Musk
> [13:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=822s) Holy [ __ ], this is news. — Mike Isaac
> [33:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=2027s) Every time I see him, I'm like, is this like a bit? Like, am I going to be on TV in some way? It's very intense. — Mike Isaac
> [36:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9ET3AHp-Y&t=2200s) I apologize. I will not be my like disastrous falling apart self every day of the week, just maybe 2 days of the week. — Mike Isaac
## Mentioned
Elon Musk, Mike Isaac, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Bill Savitt, Cade Metz, Jared Birchall, Stuart Russell, Ari Emanuel, Tom Tobaroff, Nathan Fielder, John Connor, OpenAI, xAI, Meta, Box, Tesla, SpaceX, New York Times, Apple, Samsung, ZeniMax, FTC, YouTube, Grok, Ray-Ban, Terminator, All Things Digital, Jury Duty, X/Twitter
Reporting by The New York Times's Mike Isaac reveals that the federal lawsuit between Elon Musk and OpenAI hinges on a clash between Musk's high-minded narrative of preserving a public charity and OpenAI's defense framing him as a disgruntled commercial rival. While an advisory jury hears the case, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers holds ultimate legal authority over any remedies or damages.
Procedural Authority and Jury Separation (6:38)
The trial in Oakland federal court operates under an unusual procedural structure where a non-binding advisory jury evaluates civil claims, while Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers retains final decision-making power over the verdict and remedies. Jury selection revealed that prospective Bay Area jurors were largely detached from the tech industry, with several admitting they did not know what AI or AGI meant, nor could they identify figures like Sam Altman or Greg Brockman. Because the jury's role is advisory, the legal framework depends heavily on the judge's strict management of the courtroom.
A key operational concern highlighted during the trial is juror isolation. The jurors are not sequestered; they arrive among the public under the supervision of U.S. marshals and are subjected only to daily verbal admonitions from the judge not to consult smartphones or media coverage. Isaac noted the vulnerability of relying purely on honor-system verbal instructions regarding devices that jurors interact with continuously in everyday life.
Clashing Trial Narratives and Corporate Intent (11:21)
Musk’s trial strategy relies on portraying himself as a protector of open-source technology and non-profit intentions, crystallized in his courtroom metaphor, "You can't steal a charity." On the witness stand, Musk referenced his track record at Tesla and SpaceX to cast his actions as service to humanity. However, on cross-examination by OpenAI lead counsel Bill Savitt—who previously represented Twitter against Musk—Musk showed visible antagonism toward reductive cross-examination questioning, shifting away from his typical visionary public persona.
OpenAI countered Musk's humanitarian narrative by framing him as a disappointed founder who left the venture after failing to secure total control. To undermine claims that OpenAI was always intended strictly as a non-profit, OpenAI cross-examined Musk’s family office manager, Jared Birchall, introducing emails regarding a proposed equity structure for Musk. The defense also pointed to an earlier takeover bid for OpenAI's for-profit arm mounted by Musk alongside Ari Emanuel, which OpenAI framed as a stalling tactic and a sign of commercial ambitions.
Model Distillation and Safety Contradictions (13:42)
A pivotal disclosure during cross-examination centered on model distillation, where larger model outputs are utilized to train competing systems. Savitt presented evidence that Musk's commercial entity, xAI, scraped and distilled OpenAI's proprietary data in direct violation of OpenAI's Terms of Service. Musk did not refute the distillation activity on the stand, instead defending it as an established "open secret" and common practice across the artificial intelligence sector.
OpenAI used this admission to challenge the integrity of Musk's safety-first posture, arguing that Musk cannot credibly claim OpenAI poses an existential danger while simultaneously appropriating its technology to power a competing commercial product. This tension extended into witness strategy: Musk's counsel called AI safety researcher Stuart Russell to testify regarding catastrophic risks, despite explicit instructions from Judge Gonzalez Rogers barring the parties from derailing proceedings with extinction-level "doomerism."
Information Bottlenecks and Potential Legal Remedies (33:47)
Because federal rules strictly prohibit courtroom audio and video recording, public insight into the high-stakes corporate trial remains confined to text live-blogging from the press gallery. Media access is tightly managed, with 20 front-row seats reserved for press organizations—shared by reporters like Isaac and Cade Metz—and 30 seats open to the public on a first-come basis. This dynamic has blunted the immediate viral reach the trial might otherwise command online, despite the presence of tech executives, Musk supporters, and AI safety observers in the gallery.
Regarding the ultimate resolution, observers noted that major tech trials often culminate in nominal monetary penalties that represent negligible fractions of corporate earnings. Even if the court finds against OpenAI, the presiding judge could limit relief to minor financial damages rather than sweeping structural injunctions. However, such a finding could still expose tech firms to significant long-term legal exposure if it establishes adverse precedent or triggers subsequent class-action litigation.
The proceedings leave unresolved whether Musk's claims of broken non-profit commitments can survive evidence of his own commercial overtures and xAI's data scraping, with the final outcome resting on Judge Gonzalez Rogers's formal rulings rather than the advisory jury's impressions.
[0:00] Mike Isaac: I may be like bleeding and hungry like limping across the finish line, but we're getting... I'm tweeting for you.
[11:21] Elon Musk: You can't steal a charity.
[13:42] Mike Isaac: Holy [ __ ], this is news.
[33:47] Mike Isaac: Every time I see him, I'm like, is this like a bit? Like, am I going to be on TV in some way? It's very intense.
[36:40] Mike Isaac: I apologize. I will not be my like disastrous falling apart self every day of the week, just maybe 2 days of the week.
Original transcript
[0:00] Let's bring him into the TV PN ultra
[0:01] dome. He's at the New York Times. Mike,
[0:04] how you doing?
[0:05] Yo, what's up? Good to see you.
[0:07] >> Great to see you. So Wait, so what's up
[0:09] with Yeah, so so four-day work week?
[0:12] Are they [laughter] living in the
[0:13] future? Yeah. Is this universal basic
[0:16] vacation days?
[0:17] It's court is incredible in that I got
[0:20] to sleep in till like 9:00 a.m. today,
[0:23] which is which is great. But I made up
[0:25] for it because like literally every day
[0:27] this week I've gotten up at 5:00 in the
[0:29] morning to get my cold ass down to the
[0:32] Oakland courthouse and stand outside for
[0:34] 2 hours. So I don't know, but it's fun.
[0:37] It's How does it How does it work? Who
[0:39] gets priority? Is it first come, first
[0:41] serve? Like if some random person If
[0:44] some random person shows up before you?
[0:47] They can just get it and then you're
[0:48] you're just out.
[0:49] >> or do you get to like show some sort of
[0:51] like press like How does it work?
[0:54] Yeah, I wish I was cool enough to like
[0:56] cut Well, here's the thing. You should
[0:58] get an artist pass.
[0:59] >> [laughter]
[1:00] >> VIP pass.
[1:01] No, not VIP artist pass. It's a level
[1:03] above.
[1:04] >> Okay, artist pass. [clears throat]
[1:05] >> [laughter]
[1:06] >> I So there are 20
[1:08] uh reserved seats in the front row for
[1:11] press, but the issue is
[1:14] uh only one person per outlet gets it
[1:17] and we are doing like live blogging for
[1:20] like the big moments like opening
[1:21] statements and for Elon. And so myself
[1:25] and my colleague Cade came on the first
[1:28] the whole first week and so So we've
[1:30] gotten to trade off. He's gotten the
[1:31] like press skip the line thing and I've
[1:33] been with Um
[1:35] the other folks in the 30 unreserved
[1:37] seats in the back and They're going to
[1:38] watch a YouTube videos.
[1:40] Yeah, yeah. So Oh my god, we're
[1:41] literally
[1:42] >> Or start sessions.
[1:44] Literally a one dude fell asleep. I was
[1:46] actually impressed. Fell asleep?
[1:49] Yeah. It seemed pretty entertaining. I
[1:53] didn't seem like you were falling
[1:54] asleep. I was keeping up on the through
[1:56] the live blog.
[1:57] You reading my nightmares Twitter, too?
[1:59] I It's been fun, honestly. Have you guys
[2:02] ever done like court case things or Have
[2:04] you ever been sued or been in court?
[2:07] I've never been in court. I I went to
[2:09] mock court in high school where everyone
[2:14] picks a role. I think I was
[2:15] >> Yeah, we larped in court.
[2:17] >> Literally larping
[2:18] >> school. But other than that, never. I
[2:20] the whole this whole time it seems it
[2:23] seems insane.
[2:24] Like with with a with a with the recent
[2:26] NASA the moon mission, I was like this
[2:29] should be a live stream plus a
[2:30] pay-per-view for the key moments. Yeah.
[2:32] For this trial, it's like we have huge
[2:34] budget deficits and we have these
[2:35] incredible media products. Why are we
[2:37] not doing pay-per-views, right?
[2:39] >> [laughter]
[2:41] >> But uh But that's the the funny thing I
[2:43] was just going to say that's the funny
[2:45] thing about like federal courthouse
[2:47] stuff. Like there's a lot of different
[2:49] rules around filming and electronics. I
[2:51] covered some cases in DC and I can't
[2:54] even bring a laptop or phone in those
[2:56] courthouses. So like this is actually a
[2:59] very permissive judge just because she
[3:02] believes in like press access and stuff
[3:04] and we've had There's way more access
[3:06] than you would normally get in federal
[3:08] court cases. Okay, so you you've been to
[3:10] these court cases before, but if I
[3:12] follow your Twitter, it feels like
[3:14] you're making a bunch of rookie
[3:15] mistakes. You you you you only had egg
[3:17] bites at 5:30 a.m. Your bite energy's
[3:21] wearing off. You forgot your butt
[3:22] pillow. You forgot to fill your water
[3:25] bottle. Like Is this amateur hour or you
[3:27] professional? What's going on? I think I
[3:30] think that you you guys might know me
[3:31] well enough that that is kind of how I
[3:33] operate most of my life, like kind of
[3:36] chaotic, but it is it is
[3:38] >> Focus on the important stuff.
[3:40] That's right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean,
[3:41] look, I can file. I may be like bleeding
[3:44] and hungry like limping across the
[3:46] finish line, but we're getting I'm
[3:48] tweeting for you.
[3:49] Uh what what is your what what is your
[3:52] What are some like high-profile cases
[3:54] that that stand out that you've covered
[3:56] in the past?
[3:58] So I got to do Let's see. My first one
[4:02] was insanely boring but important, the
[4:04] Apple versus Samsung thing back in the
[4:06] day and like them suing for Samsung
[4:09] copying like literally everything they
[4:11] do. Yeah.
[4:12] Um
[4:13] I did uh
[4:15] Dallas actually Zuckerberg's like I
[4:17] think maybe one of his first testimonies
[4:19] on the stand when ZeniMax was suing Meta
[4:22] for the Oculus acquisition. Remember
[4:24] that? Yeah. Mhm. Palmer Luckey That was
[4:26] in Dallas. That was super fun. Uh That I
[4:29] almost got kicked out of the courtroom
[4:30] for tweeting. Woah. Um and then I did uh
[4:34] the DC FTC Meta one and I almost got
[4:38] kicked out of the courtroom again.
[4:39] Actually, I did get kicked out of the
[4:40] courtroom for wearing the Meta Ray-Bans.
[4:43] These are not it. Interesting.
[4:44] >> But I wore the Meta Ray-Bans and then
[4:46] they started put I was I was [ __ ]
[4:48] super stupid for doing it. But
[4:49] [laughter] then they started putting
[4:51] signs up saying do not wear these
[4:52] glasses in court. But you weren't you
[4:55] you were just using them as glasses or
[4:56] you were being sneaky and you were
[4:57] recording?
[4:58] No, I was like, "Look, I can't record. I
[5:00] won't record." I was trying to play by
[5:02] the rules and like they were they are my
[5:04] prescription glasses. Yeah, but the
[5:06] bailiff the bailiff was like
[5:08] >> too much it's too high risk for them.
[5:10] Cuz you could have just like Cuz you
[5:11] could have like turned off the the light
[5:12] or whatever, something like that. Uh
[5:14] talk about the the the fans.
[5:17] Are there really Elon Musk fans in the
[5:20] courtroom? Like what what motivates
[5:22] someone to go and watch that live? Is
[5:24] this their UFC front row ticket? Like
[5:27] what Why are they there?
[5:29] I So you guys would have fun. Like it
[5:31] actually is A lot of court cases are
[5:33] boring to people who don't care about
[5:36] this stuff, right? Like you and I may be
[5:38] super into Like the FTC trial was super
[5:41] fun for me because it's like, "Oh my
[5:42] god, Mark Zuckerberg emailing Sheryl
[5:45] Sandberg and talking about path." Like
[5:47] this is incredible. And like the average
[5:49] person has no idea what we're talking
[5:50] about. But this is like a circus. There
[5:53] are people who genuinely love Elon or
[5:57] are genuinely worried about the end of
[5:59] the world happening. Um and I think it's
[6:02] a really good thing that there's public
[6:04] access to these courts. Like I think
[6:06] like the average person can come in and
[6:09] show up and that's what I think after
[6:10] the the buzz of Twitter and like people
[6:13] seeing that this is a event, we got a
[6:16] much longer lines and like folks who are
[6:18] local like just like I know a PM in tech
[6:21] from Meta that came. I know like a guy
[6:23] from Box made it in.
[6:25] Uh just if you get a seat if you get
[6:28] there early enough and get you can get a
[6:29] seat, you can just hang out. It's like
[6:31] and I think it's really great. I think
[6:32] it's great that people are Yeah, are
[6:34] there for you, you know? It shouldn't
[6:35] just be me. Yeah. What about the What
[6:38] about the jury? Does the jury seem
[6:39] excited and and honored to have the
[6:42] opportunity to be to be part of of a
[6:45] case like this or are they are they
[6:47] nodding off? It'd It'd be so funny to be
[6:50] like so out of just like off the
[6:53] internet not online. They're like,
[6:56] "Sam who? Not a PM Who like
[6:59] Sam
[7:00] This guy Sam and Greg and this guy who
[7:02] makes cars and I don't even know what
[7:04] they're talking [laughter] a bunch of
[7:05] whole bunch of mumbo jumbo." Like
[7:07] there's got to be one person on the jury
[7:08] that was just so not
[7:11] tapped in that that they're just
[7:12] confused. Yeah.
[7:14] I think jury selection was super
[7:16] interesting for that. I can't say it's
[7:18] actually interesting. I can't say too
[7:19] much about the jury right now because
[7:21] like there's all these rules about
[7:23] >> Oh, sure. Like some random person could
[7:26] go up to them if you identify them or
[7:27] try to alter it.
[7:29] >> Something like that. Totally. But I will
[7:31] say like during jury selection on
[7:32] Monday,
[7:33] it is an incredible slice of life and
[7:36] you get like how familiar or unfamiliar
[7:39] people are with the tech industry
[7:41] despite being here, you know? Like some
[7:44] folks are like, "I have no idea what
[7:45] you're talking I have no idea what
[7:46] you're talking about. I don't know what
[7:47] AI is. I don't know what AGI stands
[7:50] for." So it really
[7:53] it really played and voir dire and jury
[7:56] selection is so important for cases like
[7:58] this. Just it makes the dynamic of the
[8:01] facts don't necessarily always matter,
[8:03] but the vibe can really matter, which I
[8:06] think is a benefit for Elon, honestly.
[8:08] >> Yeah, were they were they trying to weed
[8:09] out They were trying to weed out people
[8:11] that are a little bit too excited about
[8:13] the case, right? You want the people
[8:15] that are like in order to have a
[8:17] But but then talk
[8:19] I I didn't understand why Why is the
[8:21] jury just like giving like an advisory
[8:24] decision? What is the history of like
[8:27] Why do you Why do you have a jury when
[8:31] the judge is ultimately going to make
[8:32] the final call? It it feels like just
[8:34] kind of putting on like a show cuz like
[8:37] theoretically the judge could just
[8:39] sit through a bunch of depositions and
[8:41] make a call. Yeah.
[8:43] Sure. No, I I think um
[8:46] So I do think they want
[8:48] more often than not want a jury of these
[8:52] CEOs and companies peers to be the
[8:54] deciding factor in what they feel like
[8:56] is good for a civil claim like that. I
[8:59] think it's fairly standard, but to your
[9:00] point, um the judge can throw out their
[9:03] verdict, which is like is And judges I
[9:06] don't think tend to want to do that
[9:08] because like they want to have reliance
[9:10] on this is the public. The public should
[9:13] have a say in what goes or whatever. But
[9:16] the judge can do that. I will say also
[9:19] she is responsible for
[9:21] uh
[9:22] if they are found if Elon or sorry, if
[9:25] OpenAI is found liable, judge decides on
[9:28] remedies, damages, and things like that.
[9:30] So she still has an active role in that
[9:32] regard and in steering the case. But I
[9:34] really do think that uh
[9:37] so courts often prefer or often
[9:40] appreciate a peer a jury of your peers
[9:43] making some of these decisions. So I
[9:45] don't think it's going to be like
[9:47] completely disregarded is what I would
[9:48] say.
[9:49] Yeah. Uh how has Judge Rogers done so
[9:53] far in your view? Just reading reading
[9:56] the live blog, she seemingly has like
[9:59] zingers and pretty pretty like good like
[10:01] one-liners the type I'm just like kind
[10:03] of imagining what it's like in there cuz
[10:06] obviously I'm just reading text, but
[10:07] she's had like seemingly like some
[10:09] pretty good comedic timing.
[10:11] >> Yeah. Oh my god, she's so funny. She's
[10:13] like real like
[10:16] as you might imagine there's like a
[10:18] number of different types of judges and
[10:19] how they handle their court or whatever
[10:21] and she just takes no BS from anyone
[10:25] including the lawyers and like when they
[10:28] try to like tap dance or break the rules
[10:30] or whatever she's like, "No, shut up."
[10:33] Or like get back on track or Oh, no, no,
[10:35] no. Actually, the best part or the most
[10:37] insane part So, one woman in the
[10:39] overflow room who was just as not just
[10:42] it was a civilian going to attend and
[10:44] watch it started recording which is
[10:48] again against the rules if not the law
[10:50] in a federal courthouse. So, the judge
[10:54] brings her in and in front of a room of
[10:56] like a hundred people just like dresses
[10:58] her down yells at her saying, "Did Did
[11:00] you not see any of these signs? What are
[11:02] you doing? I will kick you out. I will"
[11:04] It was like
[11:06] I I would have like peed my pants and
[11:08] started crying if she had done that to
[11:09] me. It was deeply deeply intense.
[11:12] >> it's it's teacher, you know,
[11:15] berating a student. Yeah, glasses in
[11:17] session.
[11:17] >> Glasses in session here. It's brutal. Uh
[11:21] how how how do you have you have you
[11:22] been processing Elon's positioning? It
[11:25] feels like the two
[11:27] the two stories that I've heard him sort
[11:30] of telling or one about his commitment
[11:33] to technology, humanity,
[11:36] saving the world through, you know,
[11:39] Tesla and the electrification of the
[11:41] internal combustion engine and SpaceX
[11:44] making, you know, humanity
[11:45] multi-planetary and then and that's like
[11:48] a very high-level
[11:50] uh you know, high-concept
[11:53] pitch and then he also sort of brings
[11:56] and starts beating this drum on like you
[11:57] can't steal a charity. You can't steal a
[11:59] charity.
[12:01] Is that the correct framing that he's
[12:02] trying to go like high and low there?
[12:04] How much of he's been beating each of
[12:05] these drums and how useful is that?
[12:08] Totally. So, I I totally agree that's
[12:11] the framing and I think this really goes
[12:13] to the point of a lot of these trials
[12:16] are
[12:17] pageantry is the wrong word, but let's
[12:19] say theater in that you are this is a
[12:21] jury trial and it's a different thing
[12:23] than just convincing a judge who I would
[12:25] say is much more attuned to the facts
[12:27] and merit of the case and like hammering
[12:30] in on the evidence and like
[12:32] something that may be boring to you or
[12:34] me or whatever or the jury is going to
[12:37] be more important to a judge. Elon, I
[12:39] think from day one has leaned into the
[12:42] persona of Elon and just from him being
[12:45] on the stand and saying, "I care about
[12:47] humanity." I mean, he he says he does
[12:50] whatever he does or doesn't, but like
[12:52] just leaning into this like I'm a
[12:54] world-changing entrepreneur and this
[12:56] stuff is existential and I'm the one who
[12:58] has cared about it and like that may
[13:00] work on a jury, you know, like there are
[13:03] people who still love him and, you know,
[13:06] OpenAI is really hammering the facts of
[13:09] what they feel are the are their side of
[13:11] the case and saying, "Elon has known
[13:13] about
[13:14] Elon has never been in the dark. He quit
[13:16] in a huff. He He's made it very clear he
[13:19] hasn't been there. He's trying to sue
[13:21] now or he's trying to file this claim
[13:22] now because he's catching up because
[13:24] he's behind as an XAI competitor. But
[13:27] like again, this is all stuff that maybe
[13:30] it doesn't play. Like this is why jury
[13:32] trials are so risky for companies a lot
[13:34] of the time, you know, it's really it's
[13:36] fun for me. It's probably not fun for
[13:38] for everyone in there, but it's fun to
[13:40] see it play out if that makes sense. How
[13:42] did the distillation
[13:44] uh comments come up?
[13:47] That was like that was the news of the
[13:49] day yesterday. You guys obviously were
[13:51] returning to it. You You You You broke
[13:53] it, right? I did, yeah. I think it was
[13:55] one of those things where I was like,
[13:56] "Holy [ __ ] this is news." And I think
[13:58] like folks like started figuring it out,
[14:01] but I was like got to put it on Twitter.
[14:03] And
[14:05] so
[14:06] the point So, Bill Savitt is lead
[14:09] counsel for OpenAI. He was sort of
[14:12] talking about the point was made in the
[14:15] context of they want to hammer home
[14:18] Elon is creating a competitive product
[14:21] and also he keeps stressing that this is
[14:24] doom world-ending technology, but at the
[14:28] same time he's
[14:30] he's he's ripping off the TOS and using
[14:33] the technology to improve his own
[14:35] technology in an explicitly for-profit
[14:37] company. And so, the the point is like
[14:41] hammering him as a hypocrite. And I
[14:42] think look like I think Elon has history
[14:45] in his businesses it would not be
[14:47] controversial to say to to like say one
[14:49] thing and do the other and I think he
[14:51] sees it as like rules of engagement
[14:53] that's the game in the, you know, no
[14:55] holds capitalism land. But like that is
[14:58] how it came up and that they didn't go
[14:59] super deep into it, but they wanted to
[15:01] make the point he's using OpenAI's tech,
[15:04] he's breaking the TOS and he's partly
[15:06] distilling it. And I want to say also
[15:08] that Elon went out of his way to say
[15:10] everyone kind of does this. It's like an
[15:13] open secret in the industry which I
[15:15] think is like also kind of true, but
[15:17] that doesn't make it there's like it's
[15:19] it's fraud, I guess is what I would say.
[15:22] Yeah, yeah, it's a there's obviously a
[15:24] continuum there which is why he tried to
[15:26] hammer that it was like partly I imagine
[15:28] most car companies have taken a rival
[15:31] car for a spin. Have they taken the car
[15:34] apart? You know, there's a line there
[15:36] and there are laws, but that's a
[15:37] separate issue, of course. Has
[15:41] has anything come up with the jury
[15:43] around prediction markets? Because I was
[15:45] thinking we've now seen insider trading
[15:47] across every possible prediction market,
[15:50] right? From
[15:52] you know, I'm not sure from like
[15:54] you know, even even the Maduro thing was
[15:56] was was interesting because a lot of
[15:58] people were like, "Oh, he's just betting
[16:00] on himself." But then
[16:02] I saw that I was like
[16:04] hey, that's sending a signal to the
[16:05] entire world that an attack could be
[16:08] happening which puts your entire team at
[16:10] risk, right? So, like very very clearly
[16:12] like US military personnel should not be
[16:15] able to trade against
[16:17] our own military's actions ever, right?
[16:19] And that that they need to come down
[16:20] really hard on that. But a jury a jury
[16:23] like
[16:24] are you just trading [clears throat] on
[16:24] this crazy
[16:25] >> [laughter]
[16:25] >> are you going to retire Uh but but
[16:28] the reason the reason that the jury
[16:29] thing is is is bad is it creates a
[16:33] potentially an incentive for the jury to
[16:36] basically work together and say like,
[16:37] "Hey, like we all have to be here for
[16:39] like a month.
[16:40] Like we could at least make some money
[16:42] on it." And then you only need to get
[16:44] like four you only need to get like four
[16:46] or five of these people that
[16:47] >> the chat is saying monetize jury duty.
[16:50] >> [laughter]
[16:51] >> Oh my god. No, but but but like it seems
[16:54] like very important that this does not
[16:56] happen, right? Because because there's
[16:59] very like they they tried to select a
[17:00] jury that just doesn't care about the AI
[17:03] race. They don't care about this or
[17:04] that. And and but if they are
[17:08] self-interested in some capacity, they
[17:10] could be like, "Well, my my decision is
[17:12] not is not even really legally binding.
[17:14] It's just advisory.
[17:16] Like I may as well, you know, I don't
[17:18] know, right?" Um I I think that's a
[17:21] great point and like something that I
[17:23] imagine like
[17:25] court systems aren't even prepared for
[17:27] fully yet because like
[17:29] >> Well, there hasn't been a big there
[17:30] hasn't been a big trial. Like there's
[17:32] been I'm sure some like Epic Apple stuff
[17:35] that was slightly big, but but nothing
[17:37] where nothing nothing anything at this
[17:40] scale with this much even just this much
[17:42] volume already from people that are
[17:45] generally interested in
[17:48] in in the story. Yeah. The outcome and
[17:50] like I think the other thing you should
[17:52] know is like they're not sequestered.
[17:53] Like they show up kind of like before
[17:57] With anyone else? Right before they
[17:58] Yeah, like they literally like we see
[18:00] them walking in and that the marshals
[18:03] there's like a ton of like US marshals
[18:04] there. They're like, "Is anyone a juror
[18:06] in this line?" The juror gets to go in.
[18:08] So, like and at the end of every day the
[18:10] judge is like goes back over the rules
[18:13] saying, "Do not discuss this case with
[18:15] anyone. Do not watch it on TV. Do not
[18:17] look at it on your phone." Which is like
[18:19] a verbal
[18:20] command, right? It's not taking your
[18:22] phone.
[18:23] Just don't
[18:24] Hey, don't use the most addictive thing
[18:27] that has ever [laughter] been created in
[18:28] human history. Don't use the thing that
[18:30] you use for six hours a day. That you
[18:32] probably like turn your lights on and
[18:34] adjust your thermostat.
[18:36] Totally. I mean, it's that's a that's
[18:38] something I had not thought of, Jordy,
[18:40] but it's a really good
[18:42] like when does that come up at at some
[18:44] point, you know, like that's very Yeah,
[18:47] it just seems like
[18:48] Yeah, it seem it seems like something
[18:50] that
[18:51] um
[18:52] that that uh the court should be paying
[18:55] attention to heading into a a a a a
[18:58] decision from from the jury.
[19:00] How much is the history between OpenAI's
[19:03] counsel, Bill
[19:06] uh who represented he represented
[19:08] Twitter when Elon was trying to get out
[19:10] of the the the the Twitter buyout uh and
[19:14] ultimately it feels like the X / Twitter
[19:17] acquisition has worked out pretty well
[19:20] for Elon. He's made a number a number of
[19:22] plays, so hard to hard to imagine him
[19:25] like, you know, deeply regretting buying
[19:27] it even though at the time he was happy
[19:30] to get out until Bill said, "No, we're
[19:32] we're doing this."
[19:33] >> [laughter]
[19:35] >> I You know what's funny?
[19:37] Um
[19:37] He is
[19:40] I I can't underscore enough how
[19:42] different the tenor change I mean, look,
[19:44] it's like it's opposing counsel, so it's
[19:46] always going to be different, but Elon
[19:48] went from like I'm a entrepreneur sort
[19:51] of like rosily explaining to you what I
[19:53] think the future should look like and
[19:54] like very concerned for the future of
[19:56] the human race to like openly
[19:58] antagonistic to Sam's questioning and
[20:01] like and the thing that I'm very curious
[20:05] how this plays with the jury is like
[20:07] Elon was very
[20:09] he's like I'm a literal guy like the
[20:10] questions you're asking me are like too
[20:13] complicated or like they're not yes or
[20:14] no questions which is like
[20:17] fair like as a grievance but also the
[20:19] thing he either doesn't understand or
[20:22] doesn't care about understanding is that
[20:24] that's just lawyers like that's the
[20:26] whole point of a cross-examination is to
[20:28] ask these questions as
[20:31] as reductively as possible to to get us
[20:33] type of answer they're looking for and
[20:35] his job or his
[20:37] uh you know pre-trial sort of
[20:40] discussions with his own lawyers is to
[20:42] know how to navigate those essentially
[20:43] while also telling the the truth so I
[20:46] don't know they they just don't like
[20:48] each other or at least Elon doesn't like
[20:50] Sam and you can very it's very clear
[20:52] that he's just like mad at that and
[20:54] whenever Elon gets sassy I would hear
[20:56] like
[20:57] clearly people who are fans of Musk like
[20:59] laughing behind me or being like yeah
[21:01] you got him like
[21:03] it's just it's very it's very funny it's
[21:06] like kind of it's different than the
[21:08] usual vibe is what I'd say That's very
[21:10] interesting
[21:11] out look what's going on Monday what's
[21:15] the outlook for next week
[21:16] >> week was the Elon side for the most part
[21:19] are we going to flip to
[21:21] Sam and Greg and and some other open AI
[21:23] folks or is there a an intermediate step
[21:27] like do you do you have a clear view of
[21:28] what the next couple of weeks look like
[21:31] Yeah so it's a little rough because we
[21:34] we have witness lists in full that they
[21:37] presented and are in evidence but they
[21:39] you don't really learn who's coming
[21:40] until like very soon that week it's
[21:43] actually a giant pain in the ass for me
[21:45] and for reporters who are trying to
[21:46] schedule but like so we Jared Birchall
[21:50] who's like Musk's family office guy just
[21:52] finished testifying
[21:54] we're going to get this guy Stuart
[21:56] Russell
[21:57] >> no no
[21:58] that was yesterday that was yesterday
[21:59] right And anyway you said Birchall was
[22:01] very dry like was that intentional that
[22:04] feels like that does not work in favor
[22:06] of like swinging a jury was that more
[22:08] for the judge like what was the goal of
[22:10] that of that testimony
[22:13] I think it was to really just sort of
[22:15] show how Musk was trying to set up this
[22:19] like
[22:20] like structure things as a non
[22:22] non-profit and like hammer home like
[22:24] he's always wanted it to be a non-profit
[22:26] and he's not sort of like so it was it
[22:29] was
[22:30] uh I believe it was Musk's witness who
[22:33] open AI then cross-examined and open AI
[22:36] used the the occasion to
[22:38] show an email that had like a proposed
[22:41] equity structure for Musk and so like
[22:45] they both kind of used him differently
[22:47] but I think like Birchall's like a
[22:50] essentially an accountant books guy like
[22:52] behind the scenes so I think it was like
[22:54] here's a peek behind the curtain here's
[22:56] how they were dealing with the finances
[22:57] here's how
[22:59] Musk was like this is only a charity and
[23:01] then
[23:02] uh open AI's lawyers are like actually
[23:04] check this [ __ ] out so I but I think
[23:07] like
[23:08] I don't I honestly don't know they also
[23:11] struck some of his testimony because
[23:14] this is a little complicated but if you
[23:16] remember last year open AI or
[23:18] Musk made a bid with Ari Emanuel and
[23:20] some other companies
[23:23] and that opened the door or that sort of
[23:27] um
[23:28] complicates
[23:29] uh things for Musk's side because there
[23:32] might be
[23:34] some of those discussions around that
[23:36] bid admitted into evidence and that may
[23:38] not be good for Musk because if there's
[23:41] like weird compromising emails in there
[23:43] so like it's gotten complicated but next
[23:45] week we're getting
[23:47] Stuart Russell safety researcher we got
[23:49] Greg Brockman maybe Sam Altman maybe not
[23:53] it's four days a week in court only so
[23:56] we may not have time but I got to be
[23:58] ready I'll be there most of the time but
[24:01] I'll be there for Sam for sure and then
[24:04] I don't know Sorry rewinding a second
[24:06] did did they bid did they bid on the PVC
[24:10] like the the for-profit arm Yeah that
[24:13] was the It was the yeah and they they
[24:15] wanted to just sort of
[24:18] I I don't actually know what their plans
[24:20] were afterwards but like it was like
[24:22] trying to take over the asset those
[24:24] assets basically and then
[24:26] uh you know morph it into what they I
[24:30] mean and they knew that it wasn't going
[24:31] to get accepted as a bid basically but
[24:34] it was like uh and then Birchall sorry
[24:37] Birchall in court was saying this was us
[24:39] trying to sort of establish a pricing
[24:43] mechanism to like value the actual
[24:45] entity itself and that was going to
[24:48] help them somehow I actually am not
[24:50] quite sure how that would help them
[24:51] somehow but someone in the chat is
[24:53] probably smarter than me I'm not but
[24:54] like it was them trying to sort of take
[24:57] that over and I think open AI said
[25:00] publicly at the time this is like a
[25:01] stalling tactic they're trying to like
[25:04] slow us down while also using this in
[25:06] court in this concurrent lawsuit later
[25:09] basically
[25:10] so it's all like really
[25:13] messy and I think even Musk's side took
[25:16] a risk there if those emails get into
[25:19] discovery but it's unclear to me if
[25:21] that's going to happen if we if they are
[25:23] then we may see him next week
[25:25] Do you think
[25:25] >> Why would why would that that kind of
[25:27] discovery process around that
[25:30] bid be coming up now when everyone
[25:33] involved was well aware that it had
[25:35] happened quite a long time ago
[25:38] So I think because of a line of
[25:41] questioning with Birchall yesterday
[25:45] about the bid that like if that happens
[25:48] on the stand and again like a lawyer got
[25:50] to check me here because I'm a stupid
[25:52] tech reporter but if that happens on the
[25:54] stand then it gives an entry point for
[25:57] open AI's lawyers to be like okay well
[25:59] we need to you know now admit basically
[26:01] the judge said to Musk's side you open
[26:04] this line of questioning now it's fair
[26:06] game to go into this and then you can
[26:08] start calling new evidence in around
[26:11] that like to open up discovery it's like
[26:13] really like strategy and like you have
[26:15] to be careful in your strategy when
[26:17] you're asking certain questions in court
[26:19] I've been learning a lot about it so
[26:21] maybe it's a strategic misstep by
[26:22] Tobaroff Elon's lawyer but it's not
[26:25] quite clear yet
[26:26] Do you have a idea of the purpose of the
[26:30] AI safety researchers testifying what
[26:33] the goal is there like does that align
[26:36] with one particular side like if there's
[26:39] more non-profits like you still probably
[26:41] wind up with Anthropic DeepMind xAI
[26:46] having one like you know more focused
[26:49] non-profit going on for a long time
[26:51] doesn't necessarily lead me to like oh
[26:53] well then we wouldn't be in an AI race
[26:55] like it's not a clear solve for me but I
[26:57] imagine that
[26:59] one side is trying to position this as
[27:01] important but do you have any
[27:02] predictions for what that goal is
[27:05] Totally so this is Musk's witness and
[27:07] your point is well made which is like
[27:09] okay if even if you kneecap one like
[27:12] good luck on literally everyone else and
[27:14] like there's been a lot of time spent
[27:16] Elon talking smack about Larry Page and
[27:19] how he like doesn't trust him anymore
[27:21] that's actually been really fun to hear
[27:25] but
[27:25] the point I believe is this is actually
[27:27] a point of contention so the judge does
[27:29] not the judge prohibited like going too
[27:32] far into like doomerism into the world
[27:34] stuff and she's like look that's kind of
[27:37] a sideshow distraction like extinction
[27:40] humanity stuff is not the point of this
[27:42] case but Musk's side called this guy
[27:45] because they want someone and this my my
[27:47] understanding is that Stuart is like
[27:50] very aligned with the idea that AI is
[27:52] super dangerous and going to harm us all
[27:54] and so if you get this guy in there
[27:56] >> that
[27:57] how does that not
[27:59] like
[28:02] if this guy's going to come on and say
[28:04] that AI like most insane like doomer
[28:07] point of view which I think is
[28:10] everyone's going to have their own
[28:11] opinion around this debate we're
[28:13] completely worthy of of having and and
[28:16] talking about uh but but how does Elon
[28:19] square that with like I'm trying to
[28:21] build the biggest cluster possible and
[28:25] you know distill on the rest of the
[28:27] industry's model and you know create
[28:30] tens of of gigawatts of space compute
[28:33] and like how how does that how do
[28:37] does that like can't this kind of
[28:39] witness potentially
[28:42] backfire in some capacity
[28:44] No I mean you're you're
[28:45] you're exactly right in that squaring
[28:47] that circle is pretty hard and like
[28:50] exactly what um It's like I should be I
[28:53] should be I I I should be trusted with
[28:56] the you know all powerful We're going to
[28:59] be in the Terminator situation no matter
[29:01] what [clears throat] so you want me in
[29:03] charge of the Terminators [laughter] not
[29:05] some other guy not some non-profit not
[29:07] some
[29:08] >> Well well positioned
[29:09] he he is making he is he is basically
[29:11] making he's he's he's pivoting Tesla
[29:14] production to
[29:15] Terminators to Terminators basically
[29:18] Yeah
[29:19] Great no I I and like can I just make
[29:21] one last point is that I think he he
[29:23] misunderstood the Terminator because
[29:26] like
[29:27] we still survive and we fight back in
[29:29] that world do you do you remember the
[29:32] I've been saying this people haven't
[29:33] seen the movie Jordi actually hasn't
[29:35] seen the Terminator but in all of these
[29:37] [clears throat] movies
[29:39] in in in all of these movies like it
[29:41] completely leaves out that there is a
[29:43] problem and then humanity overcomes it
[29:45] and so it's like if there is a
[29:47] Terminator scenario, like, I just want
[29:49] to know that you're on my side as the
[29:51] resistance fighting back. And like, You
[29:54] are John Connor.
[29:56] You are John Connor. Hopefully. I mean,
[29:58] I I would say yeah, it's I don't know. I
[30:00] don't want to get into the the the full
[30:02] Yudkowsky [clears throat] thing, but
[30:03] like like it is reasonable to be to to
[30:06] to to sort of steelman that like if it
[30:08] is bad, right now it's not. It's sad.
[30:10] >> Shout out says I have to watch
[30:11] Terminator. I've got to watch Terminator
[30:13] tonight.
[30:14] >> to watch Terminator.
[30:15] >> Okay. So, literally I just saw this on
[30:17] Twitter. Terminator 2 is coming back
[30:19] into IMAX pretty soon. Like, you can go
[30:21] see it in the theater. So, you have to
[30:23] go see it, Jordynne. Like, it's it's
[30:25] required viewing.
[30:26] >> Let's go together. Yeah. Yeah. I'm down.
[30:28] I'm down. Do you Do you have any
[30:30] I would say that so far the trial is
[30:32] less I mean, it's hard for the trial to
[30:34] go very viral because there's no audio
[30:37] video and it's just like live blogging.
[30:40] And you can imagine You can imagine some
[30:42] of these scenes like just the stuff that
[30:43] you're typing. I'm like, if that was on
[30:45] video, that gets like 50 million views
[30:49] in like you know, in a few hours on on
[30:52] on X, you know, across a bunch of these
[30:54] different aggregator accounts. Um
[30:57] But part is is maybe part of the like
[31:01] My my feeling is like it's just so it's
[31:03] just so like I feel like the entire tech
[31:06] industry is like
[31:07] it's just kind of depressing to see to
[31:10] see these groups like fighting in this
[31:13] way when we have so much bigger problem
[31:15] like we have so many bigger problems as
[31:17] an industry, right? The big problem
[31:18] being like public perception of AI is
[31:21] like already so bad. Like, people, you
[31:24] know, don't don't like, you know,
[31:26] Yeah, I I saw this two people just like
[31:29] in a no matter who wins, we all lose or
[31:32] something like that. Like, there's some
[31:33] very negative stuff and I mean, that so
[31:38] I totally agree and I do think actually
[31:40] um
[31:41] everyone not everyone, but like many in
[31:43] the AI industry have started realizing,
[31:46] oh, we have like not everyone loves us.
[31:48] Like, this is a perception problem in a
[31:50] lot of ways. Which like to me is funny
[31:52] because like I I not that I'm smart, but
[31:54] I feel like I've known that for a little
[31:56] while and but it's the the the issue is
[32:00] the the industry's coming around to that
[32:02] or at least certain folks are and know
[32:03] that they want to change that
[32:05] perception. But, this case has been
[32:08] in the system for like years now and
[32:11] sort of like actually happening at a
[32:13] time where they wouldn't want it to
[32:15] necessarily happen if they're trying to
[32:17] change it. So, the timing just sucks
[32:19] honestly for for folks who don't like
[32:21] that, if that makes sense. Yeah, there's
[32:23] so many different like little tidbits
[32:25] and I don't know if they're going to be
[32:26] exact quotes, but you can just imagine
[32:28] plenty of things that are going to
[32:29] happen on the stand winding up on a
[32:30] Bernie Sanders post and being like, stop
[32:32] it, pause [laughter] AI, right? Like,
[32:34] because like you know, it's always like
[32:36] give the tech people enough rope to hang
[32:38] themselves and like
[32:40] there's a lot of rope going out the next
[32:41] couple weeks.
[32:41] >> Oh my god, it's totally You got to one
[32:44] of y'all both of y'all should just show
[32:46] up to the courtroom at some point and
[32:48] like experience it because I mean, you
[32:50] have an actual day job, but it's like
[32:52] literally it's really interesting and
[32:55] like an experience.
[32:56] >> So, you you can't record video, you
[32:58] can't record audio, but is there a world
[33:00] where you have like five of your own
[33:03] stenographers there taking a perfect
[33:06] transcript? Would that be possible with
[33:09] enough resources?
[33:10] >> And then we could do a table reading on
[33:12] the show.
[33:12] >> That's what I'm thinking is that is that
[33:13] [laughter] you could use voice cloning.
[33:15] I don't know if you noticed this
[33:17] Tyler, what was it? Grok launched voice
[33:19] cloning today or something? Which is Why
[33:22] is that controversial again? Well, for
[33:24] like I mean, we've had this technology
[33:25] for like 5 years and then no one
[33:26] released it because like you don't want
[33:27] people to make deep fakes of other
[33:29] people's voices.
[33:29] >> Okay, yeah, because it's like textbook
[33:31] like I could It's like I I own your mom
[33:33] and I call you John. I need I need I
[33:35] need like 500 bucks. Can you give me
[33:38] your credit card for a second?
[33:39] >> Yeah. So, obviously there's a bunch of
[33:41] risky uses of that. The good use is the
[33:43] comedic table read in [laughter] the
[33:45] voice of Sam Altman, in the voice of
[33:47] Greg Brockman, in the voice of Elon Musk
[33:49] that we can all enjoy. I was thinking
[33:51] more of like doing like a like basically
[33:54] end of the day there's like we do a play
[33:57] here where we have all of a bunch of
[33:59] different actors. Full makeup, full
[34:01] costume. So, you know, there are
[34:03] transcription services and even like
[34:06] >> do you could be Mike Isaac by like
[34:09] [laughter] played by Mike Isaac.
[34:11] >> No, no. I
[34:12] No, it's like it's a cameo. He's playing
[34:15] Oh, he's playing himself. Okay, nah. And
[34:17] you got to go full Nathan Fielder.
[34:18] >> And the whole the whole time just
[34:19] crashing out like I forgot my lunch. I
[34:21] forgot to fill up my water.
[34:23] >> [laughter]
[34:25] >> I had a banana. I'm good now.
[34:27] I had a banana.
[34:28] Okay, so Can I just say there is an
[34:30] attorney there that looks exactly like
[34:32] Nathan Fielder that I'm like almost like
[34:34] Are you sure it's him? Oh, he just looks
[34:36] like Nathan Fielder. Okay. I Every time
[34:39] see him, I'm like, is this like a bit?
[34:41] Like, am am I going to be on TV in some
[34:43] way? It's very intense. I'm going to ask
[34:45] him next year if he's Nathan Fielder.
[34:46] >> says the funniest outcome is the most
[34:48] likely and that might be it.
[34:50] Seriously.
[34:51] >> [laughter]
[34:51] >> I What What is the What is the funniest
[34:53] outcome? Is like Elon wins and the
[34:55] penalty is like is like 50 bucks or
[34:57] something. Like [laughter] that
[34:59] it's like it's like Elon like, you win.
[35:02] Here's Here's $150.
[35:04] Enjoy.
[35:07] Just the most like inconsequential fine
[35:09] for the AI industry which is flush with
[35:11] cash at all times. Well, I find that
[35:13] like
[35:14] fine like there's so many Any time a
[35:16] company in tech gets that is gets fined
[35:19] or not every time, but often it's like
[35:22] >> Sometimes it's a fine for ants. Yeah,
[35:23] like they they they did something that
[35:25] was bad. They generated a hundred
[35:27] million of revenue and the fine is like
[35:29] 1.5 million dollars. It's like, did that
[35:33] I think the current Meta YouTube lawsuit
[35:35] was like maybe a 10 million dollar
[35:37] settlement. Of course, there was like
[35:39] knock-on of the potential for class
[35:41] Yeah, that that was for one That was for
[35:43] one individual.
[35:43] >> one individual, but still it was like
[35:46] you have this like landmark case, this
[35:47] big build and then you're like, oh, how
[35:50] how how much how damaging is it going to
[35:51] be? It's going to be like 5 minutes of
[35:53] revenue.
[35:54] >> [laughter]
[35:54] >> But
[35:55] >> The stock actually in Meta earnings as
[35:57] as far I mean, there was a lot of [ __ ]
[35:58] that took the stock down, but like I
[36:00] think one of them was them saying like,
[36:02] this might have a material impact on it.
[36:04] Like, these cases like may have a
[36:06] material impact in future if it opens
[36:08] the door,
[36:09] so like yeah, I agree. Like, it's always
[36:11] remedies are always like
[36:13] it can be existential from a financial
[36:14] point of view, but also just from a
[36:16] guess what? This is about to become your
[36:18] whole [ __ ] life for the next 10 years
[36:20] or whatever, if that makes sense. Yeah.
[36:22] Yeah, we talked to a
[36:23] law professor who
[36:25] said like the question is does social
[36:27] media exist in the future? Like, this is
[36:30] an existential moment. I'm not sure that
[36:31] we're quite there, but
[36:34] there is definitely a risk and you need
[36:35] to consider that if you're an investor.
[36:37] >> Totally. Anyway.
[36:39] Uh
[36:40] what's the game plan for next week?
[36:41] What's going in Are you doing trail mix?
[36:43] Are you doing protein bars? I want
[36:45] [laughter] you fueled up, ready to go.
[36:48] CamelBak?
[36:49] You got your CamelBak? You you should be
[36:51] able to do like a sponsored CamelBak,
[36:53] you know.
[36:54] >> [laughter]
[36:56] >> Did you ever watch Jury Duty, the show
[36:57] Jury Duty?
[36:58] >> yeah, yeah. Of course. I I want to be
[37:00] the guy with like the chair pants and
[37:03] the like the water thing attached to my
[37:05] bag and like I need I'm got to This is
[37:08] blogging. This is back in my blogging
[37:10] All Things Digital blog days, man. This
[37:13] is This is it. So, I will Train this
[37:15] weekend. This weekend. You should go sit
[37:17] in the chair for 8 hours straight. Are
[37:19] you excited?
[37:21] Are you going to do all four days?
[37:24] I think we're going to switch off a
[37:25] little more. I I apologize. I will not
[37:27] be my like disastrous falling apart self
[37:30] every day of the week, just maybe 2 days
[37:32] of the week. So, uh Cade, you should
[37:34] follow Cade Metz, my other colleague
[37:35] who's there.
[37:36] Um although he he is much more put
[37:38] together and does not tweet like a
[37:40] person off their meds like I do, so uh
[37:44] it'll be a different vibe each day, but
[37:46] I I will be there next week.
[37:48] Last question, is this book material? Is
[37:50] it good Does it rise to that quality,
[37:53] this drama? I feel like Someone's got to
[37:55] write a book. I I would write a book
[37:56] >> on your coverage of this trial.
[37:58] >> Yes, that's what I want to read.
[38:01] This
[38:01] >> [laughter]
[38:01] >> the Mike Isaac
[38:02] saga.
[38:03] >> about it. I would do a podcast about it
[38:05] and then someone would make a book about
[38:07] the podcast about the book
[38:09] >> [laughter]
[38:09] >> covering Mike Isaac's coverage. We'll
[38:12] create a content ouroboros here.
[38:14] >> [laughter]
[38:15] >> Keep it going. Someday, I don't know.
[38:16] We'll see.
[38:17] >> Anyway, thank you so much for your time.
[38:18] Great to catch up.
[38:20] Good to see you, Mike. Thanks for the
[38:21] thanks for the update.
[38:22] >> to you soon. Thanks, guys. I'll see you
[38:24] soon.
[38:25] >> Goodbye.
