内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/musk-v-altman-trial-openai-xai/

内容总结：

马斯克诉奥特曼案本月开庭，OpenAI命运与AI行业格局面临裁决

一场关乎全球顶尖人工智能公司OpenAI未来走向、甚至可能重塑AI行业格局的法律对决，即将于本月在美国加州奥克兰联邦法院拉开帷幕。特斯拉及xAI创始人埃隆·马斯克，将与其联合创立的OpenAI及其CEO萨姆·奥特曼对簿公堂。此案不仅是一场亿万富翁之间的“创始人内战”，其裁决结果更可能深远影响领先AI技术的控制与分配模式。

核心争议：背离初心还是商业必然？

马斯克诉讼的核心，是指控OpenAI及其管理层（包括奥特曼、总裁格雷格·布罗克曼及大投资者微软）背离了其创立时的非营利使命——确保通用人工智能（AGI）造福全人类。马斯克声称，他早期约3800万美元的捐赠是基于OpenAI将开源技术、广泛共享的承诺，而如今公司却成立了年收入数十亿美元的营利部门，并对最先进模型的代码高度保密，构成了“违反慈善信托”、“欺诈”和“不当得利”。

OpenAI则反驳指控毫无根据，并在一份声明中指责马斯克是出于“嫉妒、对离开OpenAI的后悔以及试图阻碍竞争对手”而进行长期骚扰。微软被指控协助违反了慈善信托。

高额赌注：IPO计划与行业竞争

此案判决对OpenAI的商业化未来至关重要。若结果不利，可能严重影响其计划于今年晚些时候启动的首次公开募股（IPO）。目前，OpenAI正与Anthropic及马斯克旗下的xAI等对手在上市道路上竞速。

马斯克作为OpenAI直接竞争对手的身份，使其提起诉讼的动机受到广泛质疑。法律专家指出，尽管他可能出于私利，但其诉讼在法理上仍可能成立，旨在挑战非营利机构过度商业化的趋势。

广泛关注：超越创始人纷争的行业影响

此案吸引了前OpenAI员工及多个AI安全非营利组织的关注，他们提交法庭之友简报，强调在OpenAI商业压力日增的当下，确保其坚守安全、造福人类的创始原则至关重要。同时，案件也可能与已批准OpenAI转型的加州和特拉华州总检察长的监管决定产生冲突，引发关于非营利法律监管先例的讨论。

庭审看点：大量内部细节或将曝光

预计庭审将传唤包括马斯克、奥特曼、布罗克曼、OpenAI前首席科学家伊尔亚·苏茨克维、微软CEO萨蒂亚·纳德拉等多位关键人物作证。此前诉讼已披露大量内部邮件、日记等，庭审可能进一步揭示OpenAI发展历程中的更多核心细节。

尽管双方仍有可能达成庭外和解，但接近案件的人士认为可能性较低。这场交织着理想、利益与个人恩怨的法律战，其结局必将为快速演进的AI行业留下深刻印记。

中文翻译：

埃隆·马斯克诉萨姆·阿尔特曼一案将于本月在加利福尼亚州奥克兰联邦法庭开庭审理，九名陪审员将就此裁决OpenAI联合创始人间围绕该组织创立宗旨的多年纠纷。硅谷最具影响力的亿万富翁之间的争执本就引人注目，而本案更因判决结果可能影响全球领先人工智能开发商对其技术的控制与分发方式，受到OpenAI前员工及非营利组织的特别关注。

此案对OpenAI的企业未来影响尤为重大，不利的判决结果可能对其计划于今年晚些时候申请首次公开募股（IPO）产生负面影响。这家ChatGPT制造商正与Anthropic及马斯克的SpaceX（旗下现已拥有竞争性AI实验室xAI）竞相争取上市。马斯克作为OpenAI的竞争对手——若胜诉将获得巨大利益——其是否适合向陪审团提起本案已引发严重质疑。庭外和解虽仍有可能，但法律专家及接近案件的人士认为可能性不大。

以下是关于马斯克诉阿尔特曼案您需要了解的全部信息。

本案核心是什么？

马斯克的诉讼实质指控OpenAI背离其非营利的创立初衷：确保能执行广泛工作的高能人工智能系统（AGI）造福人类。本案被告包括OpenAI、阿尔特曼、OpenAI总裁兼联合创始人格雷格·布罗克曼，以及OpenAI最大投资者微软。

尽管已创造数十亿美元收入，OpenAI目前仍由非营利机构监管。马斯克曾是OpenAI非营利机构的原始联合创始人之一，早期捐赠约3800万美元，但因与阿尔特曼及布罗克曼意见不合于2018年退出。如今，马斯克的诉讼已精简为针对OpenAI的三项核心主张。

第一项涉及OpenAI是否违反慈善信托义务。马斯克声称，在OpenAI早期阶段，他相信自己投资的是一个致力于开源（即免费广泛提供其AI技术）的非营利组织。但他指控阿尔特曼和布罗克曼未按其意图使用投资。OpenAI现已设立年收入数十亿美元的营利部门，并对顶尖AI模型的代码高度保密。（OpenAI则称马斯克早在2017年就知悉公司需要营利部门，甚至协助联合创始人搭建企业架构。）微软被指控协助并教唆违反慈善信托。

第二项核心主张是欺诈，具体指阿尔特曼和布罗克曼在将OpenAI转为营利公司意图方面欺骗马斯克。第三项主张是不当得利，认为阿尔特曼、布罗克曼及其他OpenAI投资者以损害马斯克利益的方式牟利。

被告方称马斯克的主张毫无根据，指其仅为扶持xAI而试图削弱OpenAI。马斯克向法院提出多项救济请求，包括罢免阿尔特曼和布罗克曼在OpenAI的职务、将ChatGPT制造商的"不当得利"归还非营利机构，以及阻止OpenAI以公益公司形式存续（其营利部门目前归类为此）。

OpenAI发言人在回应置评请求时，引导《连线》查阅公司博客章节，其中写道："出于嫉妒、离开OpenAI的悔意及破坏竞争性AI公司的企图，埃隆多年来通过无根据的诉讼和公开攻击骚扰OpenAI。"马斯克的律师未回应多次置评请求。

为何值得关注？

在本案中提交法庭之友简报支持马斯克的前OpenAI研究员及AI安全非营利组织表示，他们认为确保ChatGPT制造商恪守安全与造福人类的创立原则至关重要，尤其是在其商业压力日益增长之际。

前OpenAI员工雅各布·希尔顿参与签署了一份此类简报，特别反对OpenAI向营利实体的转型方式。"OpenAI践行其使命无疑十分重要。我认为OpenAI的许多行为仍不符合其使命。近期人们讨论的一个例子是支持伊利诺伊州一项使其免于承担责任的法案，"希尔顿表示。

其他团体和专家计划关注本案审理，因其可能与特拉华州和加利福尼亚州总检察长的决定产生冲突——两州对OpenAI非营利机构均有监管权，且均已同意在遵守特定承诺前提下允许其转型营利机构。

非营利组织Encode总顾问内森·卡尔文表示，总检察长们"比马斯克更有能力维护公共利益和慈善使命"。该组织支持多项AI安全法案并反对OpenAI重组。他补充说，Encode的重点是确保OpenAI履行其AGI协议，"特别是在竞相IPO背景下，OpenAI可能面临在承诺上偷工减料的压力。"

西北大学专注非营利组织与创新领域的法学教授吉尔·霍维茨表示，她对法院允许私人主体挑战州监管机构已认可架构感到困惑。"若心怀不满的创始人能推翻总检察长的决定，对非营利组织法律而言并非良好先例，"她说。

是否已披露关键细节？还会有更多吗？

本案已披露阿尔特曼与OpenAI前首席科学家伊利亚·苏茨克维尔的数百封邮件、布罗克曼的日记条目，以及马斯克与马克·扎克伯格的短信——但庭审很可能揭示更多OpenAI核心人物的内幕。

当然，马斯克、阿尔特曼和布罗克曼将出庭作证。此外，OpenAI过去和现在的其他多位证人也预计将出庭，包括苏茨克维尔、前OpenAI首席技术官米拉·穆拉蒂、微软首席执行官萨提亚·纳德拉和首席技术官凯文·斯科特，以及OpenAI董事会主席布雷特·泰勒。其他预计出庭的核心人物包括前OpenAI董事会成员、马斯克数名子女的母亲希冯·齐利斯，以及马斯克脑机接口公司Neuralink首席执行官兼家族办公室经理贾里德·伯查尔。

曾参与短暂罢免阿尔特曼首席执行官职务的前董事会成员可能通过视频会议作证，包括海伦·托纳和塔莎·麦考利。

马斯克是提起本案的合适人选吗？

几乎可以肯定不是，但这未必完全否定案件合理性。卡多佐法学院专注税法与慈善领域的副教授路易斯·卡尔德隆·戈麦斯告诉《连线》，马斯克可能出于私利行事，但其主张仍可能合理。

" cynical的观点认为马斯克试图阻碍OpenAI以推动xAI的聊天机器人Grok发展。但即便如此，对欺诈的正确救济仍是解除现有架构并加强未来监管，"戈麦斯表示，"（马斯克的行动）是对慈善机构普遍商业化趋势的有力回击。"

前OpenAI研究员希尔顿表示对此案心情复杂，因马斯克"可能个人获益"。但他认为"可能存在某些积极结果，例如OpenAI非营利机构获得更多独立性，或让OpenAI原始使命得到更多关注。"

本文摘自麦克斯韦·泽夫的《模范行为》通讯。阅读往期通讯请点击此处。

更新于2026年4月16日美国东部时间晚上7:05：本文已更新，明确埃隆·马斯克的诉讼仅包含一项针对微软的指控。

英文来源：

Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Sam Altman will head to trial this month in an Oakland, California, federal courtroom, where nine jurors will settle a years-long dispute between the cofounders of OpenAI over the group’s founding mission. While spats between Silicon Valley’s most influential billionaires are notable in their own rite, former OpenAI employees and nonprofits have taken a special interest in this case because the ruling could influence how the world’s leading AI developer controls and distributes its technology.
The stakes are especially high for OpenAI’s corporate future, as a bad outcome in this case could negatively impact its plans to file for an IPO later this year. The ChatGPT-maker is racing against Anthropic and Musk’s SpaceX (which now owns a rival AI lab, xAI) to go public. Musk’s status as an OpenAI competitor—who could benefit significantly if the case goes his way—has raised serious questions about whether he’s the right person to bring it before a jury. A settlement out of court is still possible, though legal experts and people close to the case say it’s unlikely.
Here’s everything you need to know about Musk v. Altman.
What Is This Case?
Musk’s suit essentially accuses OpenAI of straying from its founding nonprofit mission: ensuring AGI, a highly capable AI system that can perform a wide range of jobs, benefits humanity. The defendants in the case are OpenAI, Altman, OpenAI’s President and cofounder Greg Brockman, and OpenAI’s biggest investor, Microsoft.
Despite generating billions of dollars in revenue, OpenAI is still overseen by a nonprofit today. Musk was one of the original cofounders of the OpenAI nonprofit and donated about $38 million to it during those early days, but he split off in 2018 after getting into disagreements with Altman and Brockman. Now, Musk’s lawsuit has been whittled down to three core claims against OpenAI.
The first concerns whether OpenAI breached its charitable trust. Musk alleges that in the early days of OpenAI, he believed he was investing in a nonprofit with a commitment to open source, or making its AI technology available widely for free download. However, Musk alleges that Altman and Brockman have not used his investment as he intended. OpenAI now has a for-profit arm that generates billions of dollars in yearly revenue, and the company is highly secretive about the code for its best AI models. (OpenAI alleges that Musk knew back in 2017 that the company would need a for-profit division, and even helped his cofounders set up the corporate structure.) Microsoft is accused of aiding and abetting the breach of the charitable trust.
The second core claim is fraud, and specifically that Altman and Brockman deceived Musk about their intentions to turn OpenAI into a for-profit company. The third claim is unjust enrichment, which argues that Altman, Brockman, and other OpenAI investors have enriched themselves at the expense of Musk.
The defendants say Musk’s claims are baseless and that he is simply seeking to cripple OpenAI as he tries to build up xAI.
Musk is asking the court for a number of different remedies, including removing Altman and Brockman from their roles at OpenAI, returning the ChatGPT-maker’s “ill-gotten gains” to the company’s nonprofit, and blocking OpenAI from existing as a public benefit corporation, which its for-profit arm is categorized as today.
When reached for comment, an OpenAI spokesperson directed WIRED to a section of a company blog that reads, “Motivated by jealousy, regret for walking away from OpenAI and a desire to derail a competing AI company, Elon has spent years harassing OpenAI through baseless lawsuits and public attacks.” Lawyers for Musk did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Why Should I Care?
Former OpenAI researchers and AI safety nonprofits that have filed amicus briefs in support of Musk in this case say they believe it’s important the ChatGPT maker is held accountable to its founding principles of safety and benefiting humanity, especially as its commercial pressures grow.
Jacob Hilton is part of a group of former OpenAI employees that signed one such brief objecting specifically to how OpenAI converted into a for-profit entity. “It’s definitely important that OpenAI lives up to its mission. I think we’re still seeing a lot of things that OpenAI is doing that, in my view, aren’t really consistent with its mission. One recent example people are talking about is backing this Illinois state bill that would shield them from liability,” Hilton says.
Other groups and experts plan to follow the trial because of its potential to conflict with decisions by the attorneys general of Delaware and California, each of which have regulatory authority over OpenAI’s nonprofit. They both already agreed to allow the for-profit conversion to proceed as long as the company follows certain commitments.
The attorneys general “are in a much better position to advocate for the public interest and the charities mission” than Musk, says Nathan Calvin, general counsel for Encode, a nonprofit that has supported several AI safety bills and objected to the OpenAI restructuring. He adds that Encode’s focus is on holding OpenAI accountable to its AG deals, “particularly given the pressures OpenAI may be under to cut corners on those commitments in the context of racing for an IPO.”
Jill Horwitz, a law professor with expertise in nonprofits and innovation at Northwestern University, says she is puzzled at why the court is allowing a private actor to challenge a structure that a state authority has just blessed. “It’s not a great precedent for nonprofit law if an aggrieved founder can override the actions of the attorney general,” she says.
Have Any Juicy Details Emerged? Will Any More Come Out?
This lawsuit has already surfaced hundreds of emails between Altman and OpenAI’s former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, entries from Brockman’s diary, and texts between Musk and Mark Zuckerberg—but the trial is likely to reveal a lot more about the core people behind OpenAI.
Of course, Musk, Altman, and Brockman will take the stand in this trial. However, several other witnesses from OpenAI’s past and present are expected to testify as well. That includes Sutskever, former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and CTO Kevin Scott, and OpenAI Board chairman Bret Taylor. Other central players expected to testify are Shivon Zillis, the former OpenAI board member and mother of several of Musk’s children, as well as Jared Birchall, the CEO of Musk’s brain-chip interface company Neuralink and manager of his family office.
It’s possible that former board members involved with Altman’s brief ouster as CEO will testify via video conference, including Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley.
Is Musk the Right Person to Bring This Case?
Almost certainly not, but that doesn’t necessarily disqualify it altogether. Luís Calderón Gómez, an associate professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law with expertise on tax laws and charities, tells WIRED that Musk may be acting out of self-interest, but he still may be in the right.
“The cynical view is that Musk is trying to hinder OpenAI to get [xAI’s AI chatbot] Grok going. But even if that’s right, the right remedy for fraud is to unwind the structure and to have oversight going forward,” said Gómez. “[What Musk is doing:] It’s a good attempt to push back on that general commercialization of charities.”
Hilton, the former OpenAI researcher, says he has mixed feelings about the case since Musk “stands to benefit personally.” However, he believes there “are some potentially good outcomes, like the OpenAI nonprofit being given more independence, or more light being shed on OpenAI’s original mission.”
This is an edition of Maxwell Zeff’s Model Behavior newsletter. Read previous newsletters here.
Updated: 4/16/26, 7:05 pm EST: This story has been updated to clarify that Elon Musk’s lawsuit includes only one claim against Microsoft.