内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/tech/921022/elon-musk-cross-openai-altman

内容总结：

马斯克庭审表现引关注：情绪失控、证词矛盾，被指试图控制OpenAI未果后“拆台”

在长达五小时的庭审中，特斯拉CEO埃隆·马斯克的表现令旁观者感叹“从未如此同情过山姆·奥特曼”。他在法庭上的最大敌人，似乎正是他自己。

当日的直接询问环节，马斯克的表现尚可，但随后的交叉质询彻底暴露了问题。面对辩护律师威廉·萨维特的提问，马斯克多次拒绝直接回答“是”或“否”，甚至“忘记”了自己上午的证词。他指责律师“总是问不公平的问题”，并与对方发生激烈争执。一名陪审员无奈地搓着额头，连法官也多次催促他直接作答。法官在陪审团离场后表示：“他有时很难对付……我的管理目标就是让他完成作证。”

马斯克在庭审中自称“从不发脾气”、“不对人吼叫”，但话音刚落，就被萨维特律师激怒。他反复纠结于简单问题，证词多次被自己的先前陈述推翻。萨维特通过对比马斯克此前的证词，成功塑造了一个因未能获得OpenAI完全控制权而停止注资、并试图将OpenAI并入特斯拉的“失败收购者”形象。

庭审核心争议：从合作到翻脸

马斯克在庭审中透露，他最初要求OpenAI董事会给予他4个席位及51%的股份，其余三位联合创始人仅共享3个席位，且需由股东投票决定。当这一要求被拒后，他随即中止了资金承诺，并在2017年挖走了OpenAI的第二号工程师安德烈·卡帕西。尽管身为OpenAI董事会成员负有信托责任，但他并未劝阻卡帕西离开。

马斯克在法庭上表示：“在我看来，特斯拉是唯一能与谷歌DeepMind抗衡的路径。”他早在2016年就对OpenAI的非营利结构表示担忧，在给Neuralink同事的邮件中写道：“DeepMind进展太快，OpenAI赶不上。现在看，设立为非营利可能是个错误。”

关键证词：承认“信任破裂”

当被问及是否了解停止捐赠会给OpenAI带来财务压力时，马斯克多次拒绝回答，并指责律师设局。他甚至辩称自己并未仔细阅读相关文件，只读了“重要警告”的标题框，引发法庭尴尬笑声。最终，他承认：“我失去了对奥特曼的信任，担心他们真的想偷走这个慈善机构。”

庭审影响

马斯克在庭审中的表现被观察人士形容为“不仅让律师痛苦，也让陪审团和所有人痛苦”。他的反复无常和情绪化回应，使得案件走向更加复杂。旁听席上，有人感慨：“我宁愿直接割腕，也不想和这样的人做联合创始人。”该案核心争议仍在审理中。

中文翻译：

在埃隆·马斯克作证大约五个小时后，我在笔记中打下了这样一句话：“我这辈子从未像现在这样同情山姆·奥尔特曼。”
埃隆·马斯克在法庭上最大的敌人是他自己。
在法庭上说出“我不发脾气”是很危险的。
埃隆·马斯克在法庭上最大的敌人是他自己。
在法庭上说出“我不发脾气”是很危险的。
马斯克的直接陈述比昨天有所改善——尽管他的律师不断用诱导性问题提示他如何回答。但这段记忆很快就被一场极其痛苦的交叉质询彻底抹去了。几个小时里，马斯克拒绝用“是”或“否”回答是非题，偶尔会“忘记”自己上午作证时说过的话，还训斥了辩护律师威廉·萨维特。我看到几位陪审员互相交换了眼神。在一次激烈的交锋中，一位女性陪审员揉着自己的额头。我也是，亲爱的。
就连法官——她有时会提示马斯克回答“是”或“否”——也感到很难办。“他有时很难对付，”在陪审团离开法庭后，伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯这样说道。（有次，当她打断他争辩式的回答时，她引来了当天最大的笑声。）“从我的角度看，管理工作的一部分就是顺利走完作证过程。”
“我不会对人吼叫，”马斯克说。
昨天，马斯克花了大量时间为自己描绘了一个英雄般的形象。而今天上午，在他直接陈述接近尾声时，他说：“我不发脾气，”以及“我不会对人吼叫。”他说他可能曾叫过某人“蠢货”，但那只是在说“别做蠢货”这种话的语境下。
紧接着，萨维特就引诱他变得小气、惹人厌烦，总之很难相处。有一次，我们都看到马斯克发了脾气。他花了好几个小时在一些简单的问题上纠缠不清。萨维特一遍又一遍地引用马斯克之前的证词笔录，当时他对问题的回答略有不同，从而质疑马斯克说法的可信度。即使普通陪审员不认为他在撒谎，他的说法也显然前后矛盾。
萨维特的交叉质询给人留下了明确印象：马斯克之所以停止了向OpenAI的季度付款，是因为他无法获得公司的完全控制权，随后他试图削弱OpenAI并将其并入特斯拉。最初，马斯克想要四个董事会席位和51%的股份。其他联合创始人将共同获得三个席位，由股东（包括其他员工）投票选出。尽管马斯克说最终计划是将董事会扩大到12个席位，但很明显，在最初的七人董事会中，马斯克拥有完全控制权。
当马斯克未能如愿时，他切断了自己的资金承诺，并在2017年挖走了OpenAI的第二优秀工程师安德烈·卡帕斯，让他加入特斯拉。尽管作为董事会成员，他对OpenAI负有信托责任，但当他听说卡帕斯想离开时，他并没有试图挽留他留在OpenAI。（“我认为人们有权在他们想工作的地方工作，”马斯克在证人席上说。）
“在我和安德烈看来，特斯拉是唯一有希望与谷歌一较高下的路径。”
到2018年，马斯克声称OpenAI以其现有结构没有出路，在给伊利亚·苏茨克维和格雷格·布罗克曼的邮件中宣布它正走在“一条注定失败的路上”。他提出的解决方案是将特斯拉和OpenAI合并。“在我和安德烈看来，特斯拉是唯一有希望与谷歌一较高下的路径，”马斯克说。这个计划从未实现，马斯克也在那一年辞去了OpenAI董事会的职务。
早在2016年，马斯克就对OpenAI作为非营利组织有所担忧。在给Neuralink一位同事的邮件中，他写道：“Deepmind进展非常迅速。我担心OpenAI无法追上。事后看来，将其设立为非营利组织可能是个错误之举。紧迫感不够强。”
当被问及此事时，马斯克说他只是推测。萨维特说：“这是你自己的话，是还是不是？”
“你大多问的是不公平的问题。”
马斯克回答：“这是个假设性的问题。”
萨维特说：“所以你认为那可能是个错误之举？这是你说的话，对吧？”
最后，马斯克说了“是”。
让马斯克把这些话记录在案极其困难。他多次拒绝回答诸如他是否知道切断对OpenAI的捐款会造成财务压力，或者他是否曾要求卡帕斯留在OpenAI等问题。他指责萨维特问的问题是“旨在欺骗我”，而且我们听到了多个类似这样的对话版本：
马斯克：你大多问的是不公平的问题。
萨维特：我正尽力以最公平的方式提问。我已经尽力了。
马斯克：这不是真的。
马斯克试图让萨维特尽可能难受，但他也让其他所有人——包括陪审团——非常难受。看着他明明在直接询问时能轻松回答的问题，却在交叉质询时拒绝回答，真是令人恼火。看着他拒绝承认自己理解线性时间的本质——因此也拒绝承认他在2018年辞职前仍是OpenAI董事会董事这一事实——更是让人气愤。这让他显得很不诚实。
“我已经不再信任奥尔特曼，我担心他们真的在试图窃取这家慈善机构。”
在本周作证期间，马斯克反复讲述的一个基本故事是：OpenAI正在“窃取一家慈善机构”和“掠夺一家非营利组织”。他坚称，他对某些有限的营利活动没有意见，但绝不能容忍任何会盖过OpenAI非营利工作、构成“尾巴摇狗”的行为——这是他像抓安全毯一样反复使用的另一个说法。在直接陈述中，他把自己描绘成一个轻信的“傻瓜”，相信了山姆·奥尔特曼及其同伙狡猾的承诺：“我给了他们大约3800万美元基本上是免费的资金，他们却用这些钱创建了一个价值8000亿美元的营利性公司，”他哀叹道。他自家律师的提问结束时，马斯克声称自己对后来与微软达成的数十亿美元交易毫不知情。
“我已经不再信任奥尔特曼，我担心他们真的在试图窃取这家慈善机构，”马斯克说。“事实证明这是真的。”
“我说了我没仔细看！我看了标题！”
在交叉质询中，马斯克甚至几乎不愿解释，在几年后起诉OpenAI之前，他到底花了多少精力去了解OpenAI的运营情况。当OpenAI在2018年左右提议设立一个营利性部门时，他收到了一封概述拟议公司架构的邮件。在证人席上，他说他只读了邮件的第一部分，其中提到出资者应将投资视为可能没有回报的捐赠。“我读了那个标有‘重要警告’的高亮框，”马斯克说。
萨维特问马斯克，当时他收到这些文件时，是否对架构提出过任何反对意见。马斯克说他没读那个高亮框以外的内容。
马斯克：我没读那些细则……我们现在要追究这份文件里的细则了。
萨维特：这是一份只有四页的文件。
马斯克随后表示，他只是在将其视为“捐赠行为”的前提下读了这些内容，没有读更多。然后我们又看到了证词笔录，其中马斯克说：“我不认为我读过这份条款清单……我不确定我是否真的读过这份条款清单……我没有仔细看过这份条款清单。”萨维特指出，在证词笔录中，马斯克完全没有提到他读过了第一段，而马斯克提高音量——实际上是在否定自己上午声称的不发脾气（哈哈）和不吼人（笑死）——说道：“我说了我没仔细看！我看了标题！”
想象一下要和这个人做联合创始人。我想我宁愿先在自己身上开道口子。

英文来源：

About five hours into Elon Musk’s testimony, I typed the following sentence into my notes: “I have never been more sympathetic to Sam Altman in my life.”
Elon Musk’s worst enemy in court is Elon Musk
It’s dangerous to tell a courtroom “I don’t lose my temper.”
Elon Musk’s worst enemy in court is Elon Musk
It’s dangerous to tell a courtroom “I don’t lose my temper.”
Musk’s direct testimony was an improvement over yesterday — even if his lawyer kept asking leading questions to cue him in how to answer. But that memory was immediately obliterated by an absolutely miserable cross-examination. For hours, Musk refused to answer yes or no questions with yes or no, occasionally “forgot” things he’d testified to in the morning, and scolded defense lawyer William Savitt. I watched a few jury members glance at each other. During one testy exchange, one woman was rubbing her head. Me too, babe.
Even the judge, who at times prompted Musk to answer “yes” or “no,” was having a bad time. “He was at times difficult,” said Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers after Musk after the jury left the room. (At one point, when she’d cut off his argumentative answer, she got the biggest laugh of the day.) “Part of management from my perspective is just to get through testimony.”
“I don’t yell at people,” Musk said
Musk spent a lot of yesterday painting this heroic picture of himself, and this morning, near the end of his direct examination, said, “I don’t lose my temper,” and “I don’t yell at people.” He said he might have called someone a “jackass,” but only in the spirit of saying something like, “don’t be a jackass.”
Immediately afterward, Savitt baited him into being petty, irritating, and generally hard to deal with. At one point, we all watched Musk lose his temper. He spent hours quibbling over simple questions. Again and again, Savitt referred back to Musk’s deposition, where he’d answered questions slightly differently, calling Musk’s accounts into question. Even if the average juror didn’t think he was lying, he was certainly inconsistent.
Savitt’s cross-examination left the distinct impression that Musk quit his quarterly payments to OpenAI because he wasn’t going to get full control of the company, then tried to kneecap it and fold it into Tesla. Initially, Musk wanted four board seats and 51 percent of the shares. The other co-founders would get three seats, together, to be voted on by shareholders (including other employees). Though Musk said that the eventual plan was to expand to 12 seats, it was obvious that Musk had full control on the initial board of seven.
When Musk didn’t get what he wanted, he pulled the plug on his funding commitment and hired Andrej Karpathy, OpenAI’s second-best engineer, to Tesla in 2017. Despite his fiduciary duty to OpenAI as a board member, he did not try to get Karpathy to stay at OpenAI when he said he heard Karpathy wanted to leave. (“I think people should have a right to work where they want to work,” Musk said on the stand.)
“In my and Andrej’s opinion, Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google.”
By 2018, Musk was saying that OpenAI had no path forward with its current structure, declaring it was on “a path of certain failure” in emails to Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman. His proposed solution was to merge Tesla and OpenAI. “In my and Andrej’s opinion, Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google,” Musk said. The plan never came to fruition, and Musk resigned from OpenAI’s board that year.
As early as 2016, Musk had own concerns about OpenAI as a non-profit. In an email to a colleague at Neuralink, he wrote “Deepmind is moving very fast. I am concerned that OpenAI is not on a path to catch up. Setting it up as non-profit might, in hindsight, have been the wrong move. Sense of urgency is not as high.”
Asked about this, Musk said he was just speculating. Savitt said, “Those are your words, yes or no?”
“You mostly do unfair questions.”
Musk replied, “This is a hypothetical.”
Savitt said, “So you thought it might have been a wrong move? That’s what you said?”
Finally, Musk said yes.
Getting Musk to put any of that on the record was intensely difficult. He refused repeatedly to answer questions like whether he knew cutting off OpenAI donations would create financial pressure, or whether he’d asked Karpathy to stay at OpenAI. He accused Savitt of asking questions that were “designed to trick me,” and we got multiple versions of this:
Musk: You mostly do unfair questions
Savitt: I am trying to put the questions as fairly as I can. I am doing my best.
Musk: That’s not true.
Musk was trying to make this as painful as possible for Savitt, but he also made it as painful as possible for everyone else, including the jury. Watching him simply refuse to answer questions during cross he’d easily answered during direct was annoying. Watching him refuse to admit he understood the nature of linear time — and therefore the fact that he was still a director of OpenAI’s board before he resigned in 2018 — was infuriating. It made him look dishonest.
“I’d lost trust in Altman and I was concerned they were really trying to steal the charity.”
Musk’s basic, oft-repeated story during this week’s testimony has been that OpenAI is “stealing a charity” and “looting a non-profit.” He maintains that he was all right with some limited for-profit activity, but not anything that would overshadow OpenAI’s nonprofit work and constitute “the tail wagging the dog” — another phrase he reached for, over and over, like a security blanket. In direct testimony, he painted himself as a trusting “fool” who had believed the wily promises of Sam Altman and his cohort: “I gave them $38 million of essentially free funding, which they used to create an $800 billion for-profit company,” he lamented. His own lawyer’s questioning wrapped up with Musk being purportedly blindsided by a multibillion-dollar deal with Microsoft.
“I’d lost trust in Altman and I was concerned they were really trying to steal the charity,” Musk said. “It turned out to be true.”
“I said I didn’t look closely! I read the headline!”
On cross examination, Musk would barely even explain how much he bothered to learn about OpenAI’s operations before suing over them a few years later. When OpenAI proposed a for-profit arm around 2018, he got an email outlining the proposed corporate structure. On the stand, he said he’d only read the very first section of it,, which said that contributors should consider the investments as donations that may have no return. “I read the highlighted box with ‘important warning,’” Musk said.
Savitt asked Musk if he’d raised any objection to the structure then, when he’d received the documents. Musk said that he didn’t read beyond that first box.
Musk: I didn’t read the fine print.. We’re going into the fine print of this document.
Savitt: It’s a four-page document.
Musk then said he hadn’t read beyond taking this in the “spirit of a donation.” And then we got the deposition, where Musk said, “I don’t think I read this term sheet… I’m not sure I actually read this term sheet… I did not closely look at this term sheet.” Savitt pointed out that nowhere in the deposition did Musk say he’d read the first paragraph and Musk, raising his voice and effectively undermining his claims from the morning that he doesn’t lose his temper (lol) or yell at people (lmao), said, “I said I didn’t look closely! I read the headline!”
Imagine having to deal with this man as your cofounder. I think I would sooner open a vein.