Elon Musk's 'Hair-Raising' Conditions: Sam Altman Details Starlink CEO's 'Uncomfortable' Requests for OpenAI

Elon Musk's alleged 'hair-raising' demands for control of OpenAI came under sharp scrutiny in a California courtroom on Tuesday, as Sam Altman testified in Oakland that the billionaire repeatedly sought long term power over the AI lab, including the possibility that control could pass to his children if he died.

The testimony came during Musk's high stakes lawsuit against OpenAI, the company he co founded with Altman and others in 2015 as a non profit research lab. Musk alleges OpenAI and its chief executive abandoned that original mission when the group created a for profit arm. He is seeking to unwind the company's corporate structure and win more than $100bn in damages, in a case that could have major consequences for one of the world's most valuable AI businesses.

Inside Musk's Alleged Control Demands

On the stand, Altman described what he said was years of pressure from Musk to consolidate control of OpenAI almost from the moment it was created. Founded as a charity, the lab was meant to act as a counterweight to tech giants by ensuring powerful AI did not end up in the hands of a single company or individual.

Altman told the jury that Musk pushed in the opposite direction. At one stage, he said, Musk demanded 90 per cent of OpenAI's equity when the group explored shifting to a for profit structure. That figure later fell during negotiations, according to Altman, but he said Musk's demand for a controlling stake never changed. Another proposal under discussion was to fold OpenAI into Tesla.

Altman said the most unsettling moment came when co founders raised a basic succession question. Describing it as 'one particularly hair raising moment,' Altman told the court his colleagues asked Musk what should happen if he died. According to Altman, Musk replied that he had not thought about it 'tonnes' but that 'maybe control would pass to my children.'

Altman said he was 'extremely uncomfortable' with that idea. He told the court that one of the central reasons for founding OpenAI was the belief that artificial general intelligence, or AGI, should not be 'under the control of one person, no matter how good their intents are.'

He also said Musk made clear he only wanted to work on companies he 'totally controlled.' Although Musk suggested he might loosen that grip over time, Altman said he was 'unwilling to commit in writing that he would not have long term control.'

Power Struggles And Personal Tensions

Testimony in Oakland also explored the early power struggle between Musk and Altman inside OpenAI. Musk left the board in 2018, but Altman said he worried even then that the billionaire, whom he described as 'known to be mercurial,' might seek 'vengeance' against the lab and its leaders after their split over strategy.

Altman recalled being 'annoyed' when he learned Musk was building a rival AI effort inside Tesla and allegedly trying to recruit OpenAI staff. He suggested Musk's management style had already damaged morale at the lab before his departure.

According to Altman, Musk asked co founders Greg Brockman and Ilya Sutskever to draw up a ranked list of researchers and their accomplishments so they could 'take a chainsaw through' it. Altman said the move 'seriously damaged morale.' He added that Musk's decision to quit the board in 2018 'was a morale boost in some ways', with staff feeling they would no longer 'have to work this way any more'.

The court also heard Musk's own rationale, as recounted by Sutskever a day earlier. Sutskever said Musk believed he needed tight control because his other companies had suffered whenever he loosened his grip, and that this was why he pushed for control of OpenAI.

Altman Faces Questions Of His Own

Altman's version of events came under direct attack. Steven Molo, Musk's lawyer, suggested Altman had a 'fixation' with becoming chief executive. He pointed to a 2017 email from Greg Brockman and Ilya Sutskever questioning why the CEO title mattered so much to Altman and whether AGI was really his 'primary motivation,' while noting he had also weighed a run for California governor.

Molo also pressed Altman on potential conflicts of interest. Altman acknowledged personal stakes worth about $2bn in companies that do business with OpenAI, including Reddit, nuclear start up Helion and chipmaker Cerebras, which is reportedly targeting a roughly $5bn IPO this week.

The lawyer also cited testimony from former OpenAI executives and board members who alleged Altman had misled or lied to them in the past. Asked, 'Do you always tell the truth?', Altman replied: 'I believe I'm a truthful person ... I am sure there is some time in my life when I have not.'

The Stakes For OpenAI

Beneath the personal animosity, the legal fight is clear. OpenAI says Musk backed its shift to a for profit structure only if he remained in control, and argues the lawsuit is part of a 'long running campaign of retribution' after he failed to get his way. Musk is seeking to reverse that change and win more than $100bn in damages, a move that could disrupt OpenAI's ownership model and rattle the wider AI market.

So far, the judge has not ruled on Musk's alleged demands or Altman's claims about his motives and conduct. Much of the evidence remains contested testimony rather than established fact. Until the court decides, the struggle over who tried to control OpenAI, and why, remains a battle between two starkly different versions of power, ambition and risk in Silicon Valley.