内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/920191/elon-musk-sam-altman-trial-day-one

内容总结：

马斯克诉奥特曼案今日开庭，首名出庭证人正是埃隆·马斯克本人。出乎意料的是，这位科技巨头的表现显得平淡且缺乏焦点，远不如他此前在诽谤案中展现的魅力和从容。

在针对萨姆·奥特曼的开场证词中，马斯克显得准备不足，讲话散漫，甚至有些小家子气。他情绪最为激动的时刻，仅限于吹嘘自己为OpenAI所作的巨大贡献。

马斯克在直接询问环节大肆谈论个人经历，包括声称自己每周工作80到100小时，并强调OpenAI的创立离不开他：“我提出了创意和公司名称，招募了关键人才，传授了他们我所知道的一切，提供了全部初始资金。除此之外，就没什么了。”他刻意停顿等待笑声，但法庭内只有一两人勉强附和，大多人保持沉默。

马斯克将OpenAI的创立描述为阻止谷歌在AI领域一家独大的结果。他称自己早年与谷歌创始人拉里·佩奇交谈时问及“AI消灭人类怎么办”，佩奇竟认为只要AI不灭绝就无所谓，并称他为“物种主义者”。马斯克表示，之后他挖走谷歌研究员伊利亚·苏茨克维加入OpenAI，导致拉里·佩奇从此不再与他说话。

然而，庭审的关键争议——OpenAI是否背离其使命并欺骗马斯克进行慈善捐赠——并未得到有力论证。马斯克承认他同意过建立营利模式，但辩称“同意的是那种模式，不是现在这种”。分析人士指出，这并非强有力的论点。

旁听席上，当马斯克被问及前OpenAI董事会成员希冯·齐里斯身份时，他支支吾吾回答：“她是，嗯，我的幕僚长，呃，你知道的……”现场有人因知悉齐里斯是马斯克数名子女的母亲而笑出声，但陪审团成员一脸困惑。

外界普遍认为，若辩方接下来能提供更为清晰的叙事，该案基本胜负已定。今天马斯克的表现显然不在状态，或许他本人也清楚，这场庭审正在浪费自己的时间。

中文翻译：

今天，在“马斯克诉奥特曼案”中，首位证人宣誓作证：埃隆·马斯克本人。我很惊讶他表现得如此平淡。
埃隆·马斯克显得斤斤计较，而非有备而来
在对萨姆·奥特曼的开庭证词中，马斯克缺乏焦点，也毫无魅力。
埃隆·马斯克显得斤斤计较，而非有备而来
在对萨姆·奥特曼的开庭证词中，马斯克缺乏焦点，也毫无魅力。
这并非我第一次看到马斯克出庭。在他那起诽谤案中，他魅力全开，陪审团的回应是认定他无罪。而今天，他看起来茫然无措，准备不足。他唯一表现出真正活力的时刻，是在吹嘘自己为OpenAI做出了多少贡献。
直接询问是通过提问来讲述故事的一种方式；让叙述清晰明了至关重要。对于一项指控萨姆·奥特曼背离OpenAI使命的诉讼，马斯克花了大量时间来谈论自己、讲述其生平事迹，以及吹嘘他从事过的、与OpenAI毫无关系的各种事业，这显得很奇怪。
“我想出了这个主意、取了名字、招募了关键人才。把我所知道的一切教给他们，提供了所有的初始资金。除此之外，就没什么了。”
例如，他告诉陪审员，他每周工作“80到100个小时”，这就是他能完成这么多事情的原因。我不清楚他频繁的发布帖子习惯是否算在工作时间之内。我希望辩方会就此提问。
我们最终确实谈到了OpenAI，马斯克将自己描绘成背后的驱动力。他从小就对人工智能感到担忧，并最终觉得必须有人阻止谷歌开发人工智能。他作证说，他之所以涉足人工智能安全领域，是因为他与谷歌的拉里·佩奇有过一次对话，他问道：“如果人工智能消灭了所有人类怎么办？”佩奇基本上只是耸了耸肩——在他看来，只要人工智能没有同时灭绝，那就没问题。“我说，‘这太荒唐了’，他则因为我是支持人类的，而称我为‘物种主义者’。”因此，对马斯克来说，OpenAI的创立初衷就是为了防止谷歌在人工智能领域拥有过大的权力。真是小心眼！马斯克还表示，在他将当时在谷歌担任研究科学家的伊利亚·苏茨克弗招募到OpenAI后，“拉里·佩奇再也不跟我说话了。”
马斯克在OpenAI做了什么？“我想出了这个主意、取了名字、招募了关键人才。把我所知道的一切教给他们，提供了所有的初始资金。除此之外，就没什么了。”他停顿了一下等待笑声，有一两个人配合地轻轻笑了笑。但法庭内大部分人都沉默了。我认为他听起来像是在耍脾气。“我本可以把它创办成一家营利性公司，但我选择不这么做，”马斯克说。
如果不亲自论证，就很难先发制人地反驳你预期的论点
我确实好奇陪审团能跟上多少内容。我们非常快速地过了一遍很多概念，包括“通用人工智能”——一个虚构的东西，但许多人工智能研究者却对其感到恐惧。马斯克将其定义为计算机“变得和任何人类一样聪明，甚至可以说比任何人类都聪明”。（大型语言模型与智能并非一码事，而且通用人工智能的定义在相当长一段时间内已经被下调了标准。但无论如何！这个案子与那无关！）
在另一点上，马斯克被要求解释前OpenAI董事会成员希冯·齐里斯是谁。“希冯是，嗯，我的幕僚长，而且，呃，你知道，”马斯克说。旁听席上有一人——大概知道齐里斯是马斯克几个孩子的母亲——突然大声笑了起来。但陪审员们看起来一脸困惑。
在讨论如何最好地为OpenAI获得其计算所需的巨额资金时，确实与马斯克讨论过设立一个营利性分部的方案。我认为，这里的策略是明确表明马斯克的意图与后来实际成立的营利实体截然不同。（这是真的！他并没有像某个潜在股权结构表建议的那样，获得其中55%的股权。）这一切似乎都相当模糊，而且我们被纠缠于讨论在马斯克看来，创始人与投资者之间合理的股权分配比例；如果不亲自论证，就很难先发制人地反驳你预期的论点。
这也在某种程度上偏离了审判的核心要点：OpenAI是否背叛了其使命声明，并欺骗马斯克进行了慈善捐赠？我同意了一个营利性模式，但不同意那个具体的营利性模式——这算不上一个强有力的论点。
我们将继续关注马斯克的更多证词，预计还会有交叉询问。如果辩方能提供一个更清晰的故事版本，那么这场审判实际上除了争论外，就已接近尾声了。我以前见过马斯克在证人席上表现出色。但今天，他似乎完全不在状态。也许他对这场审判感到恼火，因为他知道自己在浪费时间。

英文来源：

Today the first witness was sworn in in Musk v. Altman: Elon Musk. I was surprised by how flat he seemed.
Elon Musk appeared more petty than prepared
In his opening testimony against Sam Altman, Musk was unfocused and uncharming.
Elon Musk appeared more petty than prepared
In his opening testimony against Sam Altman, Musk was unfocused and uncharming.
This is not the first time I’ve seen Musk in court. During his defamation suit, he turned on the charm and the jury responded by finding him not guilty. Today he looked adrift and unprepared. The only times he showed real animation were when he was bragging about how much he’d done for OpenAI.
The direct examination is a way of telling a story through questions; it’s important to make the narrative clear. For a suit that accuses Sam Altman of straying from OpenAI’s mission, Musk spent a weird amount of time talking about himself, recounting his biography, and hyping up the various ventures he’s undertaken that have nothing to do with OpenAI.
“I came up with the idea, the name, recruited the key people. taught them everything I know, provided all the initial funding. Besides that, nothing.”
For instance, he told jurors that he worked between “80 to 100 hours a week,” which was how he got so much done. It is unclear to me whether his prolific posting habits count as part of the workweek. I hope the defense asks.
We did eventually get around to OpenAI, where Musk portrayed himself as the driving force. He’d been worried about AI since childhood, and who had finally felt that someone needed to prevent Google from developing it. He testified that he became involved in AI safety because he had a conversation with Google’s own Larry Page and asked, “What if AI wipes out all the humans?” Page essentially shrugged — as far as he was concerned, as long as the AI didn’t also go extinct, things were all right. “I said, ‘That’s insane,’ and he called me a species-ist for being pro-human.” So OpenAI, for Musk, was born specifically to keep Google from having too much power in AI. Petty! Musk also said that after he recruited Ilya Sutskever, then a research scientist at Google, to OpenAI that “Larry Page refused to speak to me ever again.”
What did Musk do at OpenAI? “I came up with the idea, the name, recruited the key people. taught them everything I know, provided all the initial funding. Besides that, nothing.” He paused for laughter, and one or two people obligingly chuckled. But most of the courtroom was silent. I thought he sounded petulant. “I could have started it as a for-profit and I chose not to,” Musk said.
It’s hard to preempt the argument you are expecting without making it yourself
I do wonder how much of this the jury is following. We went very quickly through a lot of ideas, including “artificial general intelligence,” an imaginary thing that many AI researchers are nonetheless afraid of. Musk defined this as being when a computer “becomes as smart as any human, arguably smarter than any human.” (Large language models are not the same as intelligence, and AGI has been defined downward for quite some time. But whatever! This case is not about that!)
At another point, Musk was asked to explain who former OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis was. “Shivon was the, um, my chief of staff and, uh, you know,” Musk said. One person in the gallery — presumably familiar with the fact that Zilis is the mother of a few of Musk’s kids — burst out in loud laughter. But the jury looked puzzled.
During discussions of how best to get OpenAI the vast amounts of funding it would need for compute, there was indeed discussion of a for-profit arm of OpenAI with Musk. The strategy here, I think, was to make clear that Musk’s intentions were very different than the for-profit that came to pass. (That’s true! He did not get 55 percent equity in it, as one possible cap table suggested he should.) This all seemed pretty mushy, and we got bogged down in a discussion of what, in Musk’s opinion, a reasonable equity split between founders and funders would be; it’s hard to preempt the argument you are expecting without making it yourself.
This is also kind of a distraction from the core point of the trial: Did OpenAI betray its mission statement and fool Musk into making a charitable donation? I agreed to a for-profit model but not THAT for-profit model isn’t a strong argument.
We’ll be back with more Musk testimony and presumably his cross-examination. If there’s a clearer story from the defense, this trial is effectively all over but the shouting. I’ve seen a strong performance from Musk on the stand before. Today he just didn’t seem dialed in. Maybe he’s grumpy about this trial because he knows he’s wasting his own time.