Elon Musk Warns AI Could Kill All Humans as OpenAI Trial Kicks Off

Elon Musk walked into a federal courtroom on April 29, 2026, and told jurors something that stopped the room cold: artificial intelligence is powerful enough to wipe out the entire human race. Reporting by Cryptopolitan confirms that Musk made this chilling declaration during his opening testimony in his high-stakes lawsuit against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, turning what many expected to be a corporate dispute into a conversation about the survival of humanity itself.

How the Trial Began

Jury selection wrapped up on April 28, 2026, and by April 29, 2026, both sides had delivered their opening statements. Musk then took the stand, marking the first time he testified in the case. Both Musk and Altman were present at the start of the session, though Altman exited the courtroom before Musk began speaking. The trial is expected to run for four weeks, with a witness list that could include Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, AI researchers, and current and former OpenAI board members.

Musk Says He Built OpenAI to Protect Humanity

Musk made clear to the jury that OpenAI was never intended to operate like a conventional tech company chasing funding rounds or serving powerful corporate partners. He told the court it was designed to keep advanced AI within a public-minded structure, specifically to prevent the technology from falling under the control of organizations that might prioritize profit over human safety. His argument was direct: the original mission was safety first, not revenue.

Musk Claims He Originated the Idea and Funded It

On the stand, Musk was unambiguous about his founding role. "I came up with the idea, name, recruited the key people, provided the funding. I could have started it as a for-profit, and I chose not to," he said. He described early conversations with Altman as centered entirely on building OpenAI as a charitable organization. Under that framework, any surplus money was supposed to stay within the group as reserves. He pointed directly to founding documents that read: "no person shall benefit from this charity."

The Nonprofit Structure Musk Says Was Abandoned

Musk testified that OpenAI was supposed to remain an independent 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. He argued passionately that converting the nonprofit into a profit-generating structure amounted to looting. His words carried weight: "If the verdict comes out that it's OK to loot a charity, charitable giving in America will be destroyed." OpenAI's legal team objected immediately after that statement. Musk did acknowledge that the founding team discussed a business arm, but insisted that any profit structure was meant to serve the nonprofit, not override it. His framing: "As long as the tail didn't wag the dog, essentially."

OpenAI Fires Back: Musk Wanted Control, Not Safety

OpenAI's legal team presented a sharply different picture. Attorney Bill Savitt used his opening statement on April 29, 2026, to challenge nearly every point Musk raised. Savitt told jurors that Musk walked away from OpenAI after Altman, Greg Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever refused to hand him control of the company or merge it with Tesla. On Musk's safety arguments, Savitt was blunt: "Musk never cared whether OpenAI was a not-for-profit. He never cared about AI safety. What he cared about was Elon Musk on top." Savitt also told the court plainly: "We're here because Mr. Musk didn't get his way at OpenAI."

The $1 Billion Promise OpenAI Says Was Never Fully Delivered

One of the central disputes in the case revolves around money. OpenAI's lawyers claim Musk pledged $1 billion to the organization but never fully delivered on that promise. They say he used the pledge as a pressure tool against the founding team. This is a critical plank of OpenAI's counterclaim and directly undermines Musk's portrayal of himself as a selfless founder who put humanity first. Musk, for his part, argues that OpenAI benefited enormously from his cash, ideas, recruitment efforts, and professional network regardless of the exact dollar amount delivered.

ChatGPT's Rise and What OpenAI Says Musk Missed

OpenAI's counterclaim points to ChatGPT as evidence that the company succeeded on its own terms after Musk departed. The chatbot launched in November 2022 and brought global attention to OpenAI almost overnight. The filing states directly: "Musk had nothing to do with it." This framing is central to OpenAI's argument that Musk's contributions, while real in the early years, do not entitle him to $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft. Microsoft, a major backer of OpenAI, is named as a co-defendant in the suit. For background on how OpenAI has managed investor relations ahead of major legal and financial scrutiny, see this publication's earlier coverage on OpenAI reassuring investors ahead of key developments.

The Restructuring Musk Calls a Web of Lies

Musk's lawsuit takes direct aim at OpenAI's corporate restructuring, which was completed in October 2025. Under the new structure, the for-profit arm remains technically under the oversight of a nonprofit foundation, but the company removed its profit cap entirely. OpenAI subsequently raised $122 billion in its latest funding round. Musk's legal filings describe this transformation in stark terms, alleging it "requires lying to donors, lying to members, lying to markets, lying to regulators, and lying to the public." That language signals just how far Musk believes OpenAI has drifted from its founding principles.

Terminator vs. Star Trek: How Musk Frames AI's Future

To make his case to the jury in human terms, Musk leaned on cultural shorthand. He compared poorly controlled AI development to the Terminator franchise, where machines turn on humanity. His vision for a safer path looked more like Star Trek, a future where technology serves human flourishing. His argument was that OpenAI was founded to be a counterweight to profit-driven tech giants, not to become one. The contrast he drew was stark: one path leads to extinction, the other leads to a civilization worth living in. The AI industry's growing power dynamics, including the rivalry between major players, are something this publication has examined in depth in an earlier report on why Google won't share data in the ongoing tech war.

The Larry Page Conversation That Still Haunts Musk

Musk also brought up a 2015 conversation with Google co-founder Larry Page to illustrate how differently tech leaders think about AI risk. Page reportedly called Musk a "speciesist" because Musk placed human survival above the rise of digital intelligence. That single word captures a real philosophical divide in the AI field: some builders see AI as the next evolutionary step, while others, like Musk, see unchecked AI as a species-level threat. That exchange clearly shaped Musk's motivation to create an alternative institution dedicated to safety principles rather than commercial scale.

What Comes Next in the Trial

Musk was scheduled to return to the witness stand on April 30, 2026, for a second round of testimony. The four-week trial will draw in a wide range of voices, from Microsoft's Satya Nadella to AI researchers and current and former OpenAI board members. The outcome could reshape how courts interpret the obligations of nonprofit tech organizations when they pivot toward commercial dominance. With $134 billion in damages on the table and the future governance of one of the most powerful AI companies at stake, this is far more than a corporate squabble. It is a defining moment for how society handles the development of technology that, in Musk's own words, has the power to kill us all.

Source & AI Information: External links in this article are provided for informational reference to authoritative sources. This content was drafted with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence tools to ensure comprehensive coverage, and subsequently reviewed by a human editor prior to publication.