Connect with us

Tech

How Elon Musk left OpenAI, according to Greg Brockman

Published

on

In late August 2017, key figures at OpenAI (then a small non-profit research lab) gathered to discuss how they would create a for-profit to commercialize its technology and raise the funds needed to realize AGI.

Elon Musk was demanding full control of the company and had just given each of his cofounders a Tesla Model 3. CTO Greg Brockman said he saw that as way of buttering them up at a time when Musk and Sam Altman were vying to win support for their respective visions of the company’s future. OpenAI’s head of research, Ilya Sutskever, had commissioned of a painting of a Tesla to give Musk during the meeting as a friendly gesture.

The conversation didn’t follow that mood: When Musk was told the others would not accede to his demand for control of the company, Brockman said he got angry and upset. He sat for several minutes thinking quietly.

Then, in Brockman’s telling, Musk said, “I decline.” The SpaceX and Tesla founder “stood up and stormed around the table…I thought he was going to hit me. He grabbed the painting and started to storm out of the room. And then he turned around and said, ‘When will you be departing OpenAI?’”

Brockman and Sutskever didn’t leave or commit to Musk’s vision. Musk stopped his regular donations to the company’s operating budget, and within six months, he would leave the board, though he paid for office space the company shared with Neuralink until 2020.

As today’s legal battle over the future of OpenAI proceeds, scrutiny has settled on a key period in 2017 when the the organization’s original cofounders disagreed about who would control its future, eventually bringing us Musk’s lawsuit against his cofounders.

We have yet to hear from Sam Altman, but OpenAI president Greg Brockman testified for two days, often referencing a personal journal that offers a rare insight into what’s like to be a 30 year-old tech executive in a pitched battle with Elon Musk.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

“It’s very painful,” Brockman said of the publicity around the journal, which he called “deeply personal writings that there were never meant for the world to see. [But] there’s nothing in there I’m ashamed of.”

Cutthroat negotiations between startup founders are rarely shared so publicly, especially when a company becomes as world-changing as OpenAI.

We saw a recent taste this rancor when OpenAI’s lawyers shared a text message Musk sent to Brockman two days before the trial began: “By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be.”

The jury won’t see that note, but they Musk’s lawyers have done their best to realize its spirit. They are trying to show the court that Altman and Brockman “stole a charity,” while OpenAI’s legal team tries to show that Musk had the exact same plan in mind.

The inciting incident for all of this was when an OpenAI model defeated the top human player in the video game DOTA II. Brockman said that convinced everyone in the organization that compute was the key resource to create powerful AI tools, but that fundraising purely as a nonprofit would be insufficient.

That led to talks about a for-profit subsidiary, of which Musk wanted “unequivocal” control, at least at the start. The other founders said proposed equal shares, and perhaps more more equity comensurate with a cash investment. Another idea on the table was somehow connecting OpenAI to Tesla’s AI work. Shivon Zilis, an OpenAI advisor who acted as a go-between for Musk and the team there, said there were more than 20 variations on the plan.

But when the other founders wouldn’t give Musk control, their partnership unravelled.

“It should not be the case that there exists one person with full and absolute control over OpenAI,” Brockman testified. Brockman and Sutskever discussed a plan to kick Elon out off OpenAI’s board in order to move forward, resulting in a November 2017 journal entries that Musk’s lawyers have focused on.

‘[C]an’t see us turning this into a for-profit without a very nasty fight,” Brockman wrote. “[I’m] just thinking about the office and we’re in the office. and his story will correctly be that we weren’t honest with him in the end about still wanting to do the for profit just without him….btw another realization from this is that it’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. to convert to a b-corp without him. that’d be pretty morally bankrupt. and he’s really not an idiot.”

That “steal the non-profit” line may seem damning, but the context, according to Brockman, was whether or not to try and toss Musk off the board. They ultimately did not do that. Musk left the board voluntarily in February 2018, concluding that “OpenAI is on a path of certain failure,” saying he planned to focus more on AI at Tesla.

Brockman described his reflections as an effort to determine whether he would be satisfied with his work life.

“This is the only chance we have to get out from Elon,” he wrote during the talks. “Is he the ‘glorious leader’ that I would pick? We truly have a chance to make this happen. Financially what will take me to $1B?”

That last reflection was also seized on by Musk’s lawyers as a sign that Brockman was thinking more about his personal wealth than the non-profit’s mission. Brockman said his current stake in the company is worth almost $30 billion, which became an opportunity for Steve Molo, the main trial attorney for Musk, to berate him.

“Why you didn’t take the $29 billion more than the billion you said you would be good with, and donate that to the charity?” Molo demanded.

“Look at what we accomplished,” Brockman replied. “The OpenAI non-profit has over $150 billion of OpenAI equity value. That is something we have built through hard work, blood, sweat and tears, all this time since Elon has left.”

Molo also dwelt on emails from where Brockman said he will donate $100,000 to OpenAI, something he never did. Ironically, Brockman might be best known to the public for making the largest donation of the 2025 political cycle, $25 million given to MAGA Inc., a SuperPAC supporting President Donald Trump, but that didn’t come up in the trial.

Molo did mock Brockman’s description of the charged meeting around his control of the company as Musk being “mean” to Brockman, and suggested that Brockman didn’t understand the governance issues the way Musk, a serial founder, did.

Brockman, though, said Musk didn’t understand AI. “He did not and does not know AI,” he testified, describing Musk dismissing an early demonstration of the software that would become ChatGPT. “We did not think he was going to spend the time required to actually get good at it.”

“The fact that Elon saw this very early version of the research, that really set all these things in motion, [and] didn’t recognize that spark—that was exactly the kind of thing that was critical to avoid happening in this environment,” Brockman said.

In 2019, OpenAI would create a for-profit and use it to raise $1 billion from Microsoft. The company would raise a further $13 billion from the software giant over the next four years, fueling its rise as the leading AI frontier lab. It also fueled the net worth of the company’s executives and employees, as well as the assets held by OpenAI the non-profit.

And ultimately, those deals fueled Musk’s suspicions that Altman and Brockman got one over on him, leading him to file his suit in 2024. The trial is expected to continue through next week.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

>

Continue Reading

Tech

Truecaller takes its scam intelligence to the open web as it looks beyond caller ID

Published

on

After more than a decade building a caller ID business serving over 500 million users, Truecaller is now taking the scam intelligence it gathered along the way to the open web, with no app or sign-in required.

The Swedish company on Sunday launched Scam Checker, a new web and Android service that lets users paste in a suspicious phone number, link, or message to find out if it’s fraudulent. To work, the service surfaces related reports from Truecaller’s community, ScamFeed. However, more detailed information about a phone number, including the name associated with it, remains available only through Truecaller’s existing service, which requires a sign-in.

The free-to-access tool will initially be available in India and is set to expand to Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, and Southeast Asia, the company said.

In addition to serving as lead generation for its app, the community reports can give Truecaller a better view of the scams circulating at a given time. This could also help the company with its fraud and risk products sold to enterprises through Truecaller for Business, although Jhunjhunwala said Scam Checker itself is aimed at consumers.

To work, Truecaller’s Scam Checker checks the link the user submits, expanding shortened URLs and following redirects to the final destination. It then checks these against its proprietary risk database and other fraud signals. Users can also paste a suspicious message, allowing the service to pick out a phone number or link and surface related reports from the Truecaller community.

Truecaller Scam Checker
Truecaller’s scam checkerImage Credits:Truecaller

The launch comes as scams have grown well beyond phone calls to text messages, messaging apps, and web links. In a 2025 GSMA survey of Indian adults (PDF), 46% of those who reported being scammed said they were approached through messaging apps, while 37% via SMS and 32% through voice calls.

Truecaller estimates that people make about 14 million web searches a month to check suspicious links and phone numbers, based on its analysis of search volumes and traffic to existing verification services. That behavior helped shape Scam Checker, CEO Rishit Jhunjhunwala told TechCrunch.

“When you need it, you’re usually somewhere else. The link shows up on WhatsApp. Your mum gets a message about a traffic fine. A friend forwards you a screenshot and asks, ‘Is this real?’” Jhunjhunwala said. “What people do in that moment is search.”

Truecaller’s community is becoming a crucial piece of its scam-detection effort. The company told TechCrunch that about 20,000 scam reports are live on ScamFeed, its crowdsourced feed where users can post and discuss scams, in India, with around 1,300 new reports added each week. Between September 14 and 20, the company also said it evaluated 12.9 billion messages globally and flagged 20.3 million as fraudulent.

In the near future, Truecaller says it plans to broaden the types of scams Scam Checker can detect and add screenshot uploads for further analysis.

The company’s push beyond caller ID comes as its core business faces new pressures in India, its largest market with more than 350 million users. Telecom operators are rolling out the federal government-backed Calling Name Presentation service, while Apple and Google have added their own caller identification and spam-protection features. Last week, India’s telecom regulator also ordered caller-ID apps to share user-submitted spam reports with telecom operators, a move Truecaller criticized as a “one-way exchange.”

As a result, Truecaller’s focus is evolving beyond caller ID.

“Caller ID was the first problem we solved, and it’s still how most people find us,” he said. “But scams moved to a more multi-channel approach with links and messages, and increasingly to voice and video. Our protection has to follow the scammer.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

>

Continue Reading

Tech

Anthropic’s CEO is about to have dinner with President Trump

Published

on

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei seems to be everywhere this weekend: He was lampooned on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live, and tonight, he’s set to have dinner with President Donald Trump at the White House.

Axios first broke the news of Amodei’s dinner plans, which were subsequently confirmed by other publications.

This will be the first one-on-one meeting between the two men, who recently found themselves on opposite sides of the AI safety debate. Amodei released a plan to slow AI development (or at least proceed with more caution), while Trump has insisted, without evidence, that the AI backlash is a Democratic hoax; he also wants to rebrand the technology as “super intelligence.”

Even before the current back-and-forth, Amodei and Anthropic have to had a fraught relationship with Trump’s administration. Earlier this year, the Pentagon designated Anthropic a supply-chain risk in response to the company’s attempt to put guardrails around the use of its technology (Anthropic has been fighting the designation in court), although other administration officials have been friendlier.

>

Continue Reading

Tech

Can Muse overcome Meta’s trust issues?

Published

on

Meta’s new AI agent Muse took the spotlight at the company’s annual Connect event, where CEO Mark Zuckerberg made it clear that Facebook’s parent company plans to push AI features everywhere.

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed Meta’s AI announcements seemed to steal the spotlight during a week of new model launches from OpenAI and Anthropic.

With other big AI companies focused on coding and enterprise tools, it was a little surprising to see Meta move in the opposite direction, with a consumer focus and a cute, Tamagotchi-style AI device that Meta insists is for adults only. But as Kirsten noted, this could be playing to Meta’s strengths.

Sean tried Muse for himself, and while he was pleased that the agent actually found him some unclaimed money, he described the feature as more “a party-trick type thing,” rather than something that will drive ongoing usage. Plus, there’s the question of whether users can trust Meta’s AI with sensitive information.

“Meta’s business is to sell you ads,” Sean said. “And yes, they’ll make the argument that the more they know about you, the more accurate and interesting the ads will be — wake me up when we get to that fever dream.”

Keep reading for a preview of our full conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Kirsten Korosec: So how do you put Muse, which is this new personal AI agent that’s just been released by Meta and [is] clearly a bet on consumer — how does that fit into what you just described, at least with other frontier AI model companies seeing opportunity and business within enterprise? Because Meta Connect, which is their big annual event, just happened, and they are all-in on Muse, that is very clear.

Anthony Ha: That was definitely very head spinning for me, because it certainly feels like what we’ve been talking about has been this shift towards enterprise — not exclusively, but certainly that’s where the money, the attention is going.

Maybe some of that is because of the relative position of these different companies — OpenAI and Anthropic are in the lead in a lot of ways, but also, they’re planning to go public either this year, or next year in the case of OpenAI. And so there’s this feeling of, “I think we’ve got to actually make money now.” Not to say that they’re not making money [already], but because the costs are so high and the valuations are so high, they have to make money on this scale that’s essentially unprecedented. And I think they’re seeing enterprise as the way to do that.

And I wonder if Meta, for a variety of reasons, sees a different opportunity. There’s a part of me that’s like, “Wait, did they not get the memo?” But I think more charitably, you could say, “Well, if that’s where OpenAI and Anthropic are going, then maybe there is more of an opportunity for Meta to make the more consumer-friendly [version and] continue advancing AI on the consumer side.”

Kirsten: I mean, we can complain about or criticize or critique Meta all day long, but they’re very good and have [an] established track record of embedding themselves in everyday people’s lives. I mean, there’s a reason why Facebook has so many users — Instagram, WhatsApp. And I’ve never really thought of them as an enterprise product anyway. So I think it’s smart for them to continue to push on the consumer piece. 

Sean, you’ve already tried Muse, which has already been out for a couple weeks. And I’m wondering if you see what your impression is, and if you see it being successful in the bid to become part of every part of your life.

Sean O’Kane: I mean, not really. I understand why some people think that is going to be the case. I’m sure a lot of people understand this, but this is roughly Meta’s kind ground-up version of an on-your iPhone, or on your Android, app of OpenClaw, which we talked about a couple months ago, which Meta went out and basically bought and integrated those folks’ work. It was the first big explosion of like, “Holy smokes, these agents can do all this stuff for me while I’m out and about, and I can just text with it and let it control my whole computer.” There’s a lot of the same elements of that at play. And having it in your hand, on an app that works like a relatively good chatbot as the interface, it does seem pretty powerful.

One of the first things that I did with it was — because it makes a bunch of suggestions for you, as to things that it can do, and one of them was, “I’ll scan to see if you have any unclaimed funds,” this thing that I think no one ever really thinks about and often is going to completely miss, because there’s just not a lot of unclaimed property funds out there in your name. Surprise, surprise, there were some for me.

It helped me make some money on my first day, and that was pretty cool. I wouldn’t have done that if I hadn’t been prompted by this thing to do it. And there’s a check on its way to me in the mail. Fantastic. [But] that ends pretty quickly, right? That was a one-time shot, but it’s not a thing that’s repeatable. That’s more like a party trick-type thing.

Kirsten: I mean, you just killed your own argument. I don’t see how that wouldn’t become wildly popular.

Sean: The more sustainable version of that, and the thing that Meta’s talked up a lot over the last couple of days, is taking that idea and applying it to your real, true everyday financials, like giving it your information for your credit card, your Gmail account, all this other stuff, do things that we’ve seen other companies do, like Rocket Money or whatever, where it’ll go cancel subscriptions that you’re not using or identify double charges, things that frankly the credit card company should be doing already. 

And at that point you just run into that trust wall with Meta. I think one of the reasons that I was willing to explore this and was curious to stick with it a little bit — even through to today — is that somewhat shockingly, when I downloaded it, I just assumed that it would like really instantly prompt me and like plug me right into Threads, Instagram, Facebook, which I don’t really use ever, and pull up that context immediately.

But it didn’t. And it was working with me like I was a stranger at first, which made me more willing to use it, because I didn’t feel like Meta had everything on me already. But you can see, as you start to use it, it really tries to grab you and pull those things into the system, so that it can learn all this stuff about you. 

I don’t know that I will ever trust Meta the same way. I think it’s an interesting timing for me, having just upgraded my iPhone and getting onto the new iOS with the new Siri that actually works and can do some controls on your phone in a way that is surprising and helpful, that it’s never been able to do. [I’ve been] thinking about how much I’ve been using that over the last week and how much more how much more willing I would be to have the Siri version of Muse take that information, because I just trust Apple more with that really sensitive information and not only trust it with the information from a cybersecurity perspective, but from the fact that its business is not to sell me a bunch of crappy ads.

Meta’s business is to sell you ads. And yes, they’ll make the argument that the more they know about you, the more accurate and interesting the ads will be — wake me up when we get to that fever dream. 

And beyond the one-time money lever that I got, which was great, I don’t feel like I’ve found anything else that’s really all that useful — other than the fact that it is, to Anthony’s point, really tailored at keeping it sort of consumer-y in your interactions with it, with which I do think helps it and is why people are talking about it so much.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

>

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.