Written by: New Intelligence Source

Just now, did OpenAI President Greg Brockman "plead guilty"?

He admitted in court that he never invested a single penny but extracted a stake worth $30 billion.

This news not only stunned everyone in the courtroom but also shocked all netizens.

Hearing this explosive news, NYU scholar Marcus judged: I think Musk truly has a chance to win for the first time.

The century trial of Silicon Valley,

OpenAI President "pleads guilty"

In May 2026, the Oakland federal court was filled with a sense of urgency.

In this courtroom sat some of the smartest minds in the world, as well as humanity's most intense conflict of interests.

On one side is the world's richest man, Musk, who is dedicated to sending humanity to Mars; on the other side are the rulers of the world's AI crown—OpenAI's Altman and Greg Brockman.

Now, this trial has evolved into a blockbuster commercial espionage film about hundreds of billions of dollars, filled with betrayal, power struggles, secret agreements, and the transfer of benefits.

In the courtroom, Musk's attorney remained calm, using Brockman's own diaries and emails to elegantly conduct a "live dissection."

The most shocking moment for everyone occurred.

When the lawyer asked about Brockman's shareholding in OpenAI's for-profit entity, the conversation went as follows.

Question: "You own equity in this for-profit company, correct?"

Brockman: "Yes, that's correct."

Question: "And to obtain this equity, you invested $0 in cash. Right?"

Brockman (after hesitation): "That's also correct."

Question: "Your share in this for-profit entity, based on today's valuation, exceeds $20 billion, right?"

Brockman: "Yes."

Question: "In fact, it may be closer to $30 billion. Is that correct?" Brockman: "I think that might be true. Yes."

As this figure echoed in the courtroom, a subtle stir arose in the audience.

It is worth noting that Musk, as one of OpenAI’s earliest benefactors, had donated over $38 million in cash, provided early office spaces, and even personally recruited top talents.

But in today’s OpenAI, Musk's personal stake is zero.

Moreover, Brockman also had to admit an embarrassing fact: that he had used Musk’s name to endorse early fundraising, and even verbally promised to donate $100,000, but in reality, he never fulfilled that.

This is exactly the core of Musk's accusation: unjust enrichment.

According to California's charitable trust laws, trustees of non-profit organizations should receive salaries, rather than dividing charitable assets.

Musk’s logic is quite simple: I donate money to create a public utility that benefits humanity, and instead, you secretly dismantle this public utility, pocket the parts, and label it with a $30 billion tag.

Cerebras: a $20 billion self-deal

If the $30 billion stake is the first bombshell of this trial, Cerebras is the second. The disclosures regarding the associated transactions with Cerebras during the trial directly touched the legal red line.

Musk's lawyers unearthed an old account.

In 2017, while serving as a trustee of OpenAI, Brockman privately purchased shares in the AI chip startup Cerebras. Meanwhile, Altman also personally invested in the company.

However, in the ensuing time, Brockman began to fervently lobby within OpenAI, pushing for a deal between OpenAI and Cerebras.

The specific timeline is as follows.

December 2025: OpenAI signed a contract to pay Cerebras $10 billion and provided an additional $1 billion loan.

February 2026: With OpenAI's massive orders, Cerebras' valuation skyrocketed from $8 billion to $23 billion, nearly tripling.

April 2026: OpenAI increased the order to $20 billion.

Now: Cerebras has officially submitted an IPO application, with a valuation surging to $26.6 billion.

The conversation in court went as follows.

Question: "When you discuss the financial transactions between OpenAI and Cerebras, you are actually a shareholder of Cerebras, right?"

Brockman: "There is some overlap between the discussion and being an investor in Cerebras. Yes."

Question: "Can you point to an email informing Musk that you hold shares in Cerebras? While you are pushing for a deal between OpenAI and Cerebras?"

Brockman: "I don't think there is such an email."

Question: "What about chat records?" Brockman: "None." Question: "Text messages?"

Brockman: "None."

Question: "However, if there is a transaction between OpenAI and Cerebras, you would personally profit."

Brockman: "I suppose so, but that wasn't what I was considering at the time."

California’s charitable trust law has a specific term for this: self-dealing. This type of self-dealing is legally extremely fatal.

As leaders of non-profit organizations, they used charitable funds to support their personally invested companies, thus achieving exponential growth in personal wealth.

This is not merely a question of "deviating from intent," but rather involves serious professional ethical violations and conflicts of interest.

"The Most Hated Man in America"

OpenAI clearly does not intend to sit idly by.

To counter Musk's claims of "greed," their lawyers disclosed a set of explosive text messages in court!

According to OpenAI, two days before the court session, Musk proactively contacted Brockman to propose a settlement. Brockman politely responded that both sides should withdraw their complaints.

Then, the conversation surprisingly went off the rails.

Musk seemed to instantly "go berserk," replying, "By this weekend, you and Sam will become the most reviled people in America. If you insist (on not settling), then so be it."

This message, referred to as "Ominous," was interpreted by OpenAI as Musk's intimidation and threat.

Court documents: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.

4

3

3

6

8

8.

5

2

2.

0.pdf

OpenAI's lawyers attempted to prove that Musk's lawsuit was not for "human safety" or "non-profit dreams," but because he was jealous of OpenAI's success and wanted to demand a breakup fee from his old partner.

However, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers was not swayed by these gossip distractions; she ruled that the contents of these text messages could not be admitted as evidence.

The judge’s focus remained clear: Did OpenAI violate its contractual obligations at its founding? Was its transition from non-profit to for-profit legal?

Experts' concerns: "Doomsday" under the AGI arms race

In this trial, the only element that brought to mind the grand topic of "human destiny" was the expert witness called by Musk—Stuart Russell, a computer science professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

As a giant in the field of AI, Professor Russell’s testimony instantly weighed heavily on the atmosphere in the room. He warned that the current AGI race has turned into an out-of-control "arms race."

"There is a natural tension between the pursuit of AGI and safety," Russell told the jury.

He pointed out that OpenAI, in order to win the competition, is sacrificing safety. This "winner-takes-all" mentality will lead developers to neglect the stringent requirements for AI alignment.

The most ironic detail is that although Musk is suing OpenAI for pursuing profit, his own xAI is also a for-profit company, and is likewise frantically purchasing graphics cards and expanding computing power.

So, is this really two idealists competing for the future of humanity, or two billionaires vying for a ticket to god-like power?

Professor Russell even expressed a concern: If this lawsuit forces OpenAI to publicly disclose its core technology details, it might stimulate military risks associated with AI on a global scale.

OpenAI: This is a "necessary evil"

In the face of accusations of "betrayal," OpenAI's logic stands firm.

Brockman repeatedly emphasized in his testimony that OpenAI's transformation occurred because they discovered that achieving AGI requires astronomical computing power. If they relied solely on charitable donations, OpenAI would have long been overshadowed by Google DeepMind.

"To attract top talent and to purchase thousands of H100 graphics cards, we must introduce a for-profit structure," OpenAI's defense lawyer insisted that this is a "necessary evil."

But Musk's side countered: If you need money, you could re-finance, but you cannot directly take the assets and reputation built on the premise of "non-profit" and convert them into private shares.

It should be noted that in an early email, Brockman explicitly stated that if OpenAI transitioned to for-profit, it would be "moral bankruptcy."

Now, sitting on a $30 billion pile of equity, it remains to be seen if he remembers his words from back then.

The Great Value Rift in Silicon Valley

This trial is essentially the ultimate collision of two Silicon Valley values.

One is the "Old Testament Idealism" represented by Musk: A promise is a promise, and contracts must not be violated.

The other is the "Pragmatic Expansionism" represented by Altman: Technology iterates too rapidly; survival is paramount. Any adjustments of legal structures and changes in profit distribution are justified to achieve AGI.

California law may lean more towards the former.

In California, charitable assets are strictly protected. If you establish a charitable organization and then decide to turn it into a private company, you must undergo an extremely complex assessment and fully return the asset value to the public.

What would happen if Musk won?

Firstly, OpenAI may be forced to open source—that has always been Musk’s demand.

Secondly, Microsoft's investment may face risks. Musk has requested the cancellation of the exclusive licensing agreement with Microsoft. If the court supports this request, OpenAI's valuation would collapse instantly.

Thirdly, profits from OpenAI's for-profit division may be forcibly allocated back to the non-profit parent, and Brockman’s $30 billion "zero-cost equity" might turn to vapor.

Finally, this ruling would become a precedent, warning all AI startups: You cannot finance under the guise of charity and then harvest under the guise of business.

But if OpenAI wins, it signifies that the "savage growth" logic of Silicon Valley triumphs once again—

As long as you can create technology that changes the world, all the initial promises can be overshadowed by the golden light of success.

References:

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。