Evidence Shows Elon Musk Proposed Merging OpenAI With Tesla
- 2017: Musk Loses Faith in OpenAI — and Looks to Tesla
- Early 2018: The Merge-or-Move Gambit
- The Tesla Board Seat and a World-Class Lab
- Inside OpenAI: Should Musk Be Pushed Out?
- Musk’s Narrative: Betrayed by a “Stolen” Charity
- OpenAI’s Counter: Control vs. Mission
- The Core Tension: Who Owns a Mission?
Evidence Shows Elon Musk Proposed Merging OpenAI With Tesla Human Human coverage portrays Musk’s merger proposal and recruitment drive as a decisive moment when his desire for control, secrecy, and a Tesla‑centric AI future collided with OpenAI’s nonprofit mission and leadership ethics. It emphasizes insider accounts and personal tensions to argue that Musk’s conditions on funding and governance largely precipitated his break with OpenAI. @Arstechnica @Verge Elon Musk’s courtroom showdown with OpenAI has cracked open a question that goes far beyond legalese: was his grand plan to “save” the lab from Big Tech—or to fold it into his own empire at Tesla?
2017: Musk Loses Faith in OpenAI — and Looks to Tesla
By late 2017, Musk had decided the original nonprofit OpenAI might never catch up in the race to build artificial general intelligence (AGI). According to evidence aired in court, he concluded there was “little chance of OpenAI being a successful force” if he focused his efforts instead on a new internal project, often dubbed “TeslaAI.”1
At the same time, Shivon Zilis—then an OpenAI adviser and later a board member—was sketching a radically different future. In her notes, she outlined plans for an event that would “share that Tesla is building a world-leading AI lab (?) which will rival the likes of Google / DeepMind and Facebook AI Research.”1 The question mark is doing a lot of work: this was an ambition, not yet a reality.
Behind the scenes, Zilis also drafted nine different scenarios for achieving AGI, most of which orbited around Tesla. Several of those scenarios involved bringing OpenAI leaders into the carmaker. One option: persuade Sam Altman to run AI at Tesla. Another: try to poach DeepMind founder Demis Hassabis for the same role.1
In other words, before OpenAI went for-profit, a very different merger was on the table: not OpenAI-plus-Microsoft, but OpenAI-plus-Tesla.
Early 2018: The Merge-or-Move Gambit
As OpenAI wrestled with its funding model and governance, Musk pushed a blunt proposition: move the mission under Tesla’s roof.
Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s cofounder and then-president, testified that Musk began tying his philanthropy to control. Musk “put conditions on his continuing donations at OpenAI, which he did not accept,” Brockman told the court.2 When those conditions didn’t fly, Musk escalated.
“Then Musk said they should merge OAI into Tesla,” Brockman recounted. Under Musk’s plan, the combined entity would “get the money, a billion dollar per year budget, and it’d grow from there.” But there was a crucial string attached: “The work would have to be secret — that would be a requirement to make it happen.”2
That requirement—secrecy at scale—ran directly against the open-research ethos that had originally defined OpenAI.
The Tesla Board Seat and a World-Class Lab
Court documents reveal just how far Musk was willing to go to make Tesla the gravitational center of AI. He offered Sam Altman a seat on Tesla’s board “as part of his push to increase Tesla’s AI presence.”3
Zilis captured the sales pitch in 2017: “Those who want to work on large scale AI research don’t currently think of Tesla, and Elon wants to change that by announcing his intention to create a world-class AI lab.”3 The message was clear—Tesla wouldn’t just be a car company with good software; it would be a peer to DeepMind and Facebook AI Research.
Together, the proposals—merging OpenAI into Tesla, shifting key founders across, throwing billions at the problem, and elevating Altman onto Tesla’s board—add up to a single, consistent vision: Musk wanted the OpenAI brain trust working under his corporate umbrella, with him in charge.
Inside OpenAI: Should Musk Be Pushed Out?
OpenAI’s leaders didn’t just quietly accept this trajectory. Internal deliberations turned to whether Musk himself should be removed from OpenAI’s board.
A contemporaneous journal entry, now part of the trial record, describes discussions “between Brockman, Altman, and Sutskever about removing Musk from the board.”4 Ultimately, according to that account, “Ilya and myself” decided not to remove him “because it felt right for the mission but wrong personally.” The twist: “By that point, Musk was trying to get them all to join Tesla.”4
That context reframes earlier notes about moral obligations. The same journal entry observes that “Ilya feeling like we morally should not be kicking elon out, and should be trying to make the non-profit work” and that “it’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him” take on a very different meaning once you realize Musk was simultaneously attempting to recruit the team to Tesla.4
To Musk, he was a founder trying to steer the project—and its people—toward a deeper-pocketed home. To some inside OpenAI, it was starting to look like an attempted takeover of a charity he didn’t own.
Musk’s Narrative: Betrayed by a “Stolen” Charity
Fast forward to the present courtroom drama. Musk’s lawsuit frames OpenAI’s eventual pivot to a capped-profit structure and deep partnership with Microsoft as a kind of moral and contractual betrayal.
He has accused Altman of having “stole a charity” by converting OpenAI into a for-profit vehicle, contrary to its founding ideals.1 The evidence aired this week, though, suggests Musk himself was willing to embrace a for-profit model—so long as he retained control.
OpenAI’s lawyers have leaned heavily on that point. Their line: Musk “was prepared to do the for-profit, provided he would get control.”1 The real dispute, they argue, is not about commercialization per se, but about who ended up holding the steering wheel.
Musk, for his part, continues to cast himself as the movement’s original conscience. In a retweeted post he amplified on X, the author declares that “Elon has been the longest and by far the biggest voice actively warning about the dangers of AI for a very long time,” adding that “The entire reason he started OpenAI was this one thing…..to make sure AI is built for the good of humanity and not against it.”5
That self-image—as the guy trying to keep AI safe—sits uneasily beside proposals to tuck OpenAI into a tightly controlled, secretive R&D arm of a public company.
OpenAI’s Counter: Control vs. Mission
From the OpenAI side, the story looks very different. Their lawyers argue that Musk’s real concern wasn’t that OpenAI abandoned its mission, but that it did so without him at the helm.
The Ars Technica account of the trial underscores this framing: Musk “proposed bringing Altman, Greg Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever to his carmaker, appointing Altman to the board or making OpenAI a Tesla subsidiary,” all while insisting that the nonprofit model could be swapped out in favor of a for-profit structure—if he stayed in charge.1
When those proposals were rejected, Musk walked away from the OpenAI board. The organization then pursued its own hybrid structure, raised money elsewhere, and eventually aligned with Microsoft—exactly the sort of big-tech entanglement Musk had once said he wanted to counter.
The irony is baked in: Musk now sues over a commercialization path that, in broad strokes, resembles what he had advocated—just under a different corporate roof.
The Core Tension: Who Owns a Mission?
The evidence revealed so far sharpens the core tension at the heart of Musk v. Altman: does the moral claim of a founder trump the legal and structural choices of a nonprofit that outgrows him?
On one side, Musk’s supporters argue that his early warnings about AI risk, his money, and his initial leadership give him a unique moral stake in OpenAI’s destiny.5 On the other, OpenAI’s current leadership points to governance, duties to the mission, and the dangers of letting any one billionaire convert a public-benefit lab into a private corporate fiefdom.
The timeline unearthed in court complicates both narratives. Musk wasn’t just a spurned donor; he was actively trying to hire OpenAI’s founding team to start an AI unit inside Tesla, to “rival the likes of Google / DeepMind and Facebook AI Research,” with a billion dollars a year on tap and secrecy as a non-negotiable.12 OpenAI’s leaders weren’t just idealists gone corporate; they seriously considered removing Musk from the board while wrestling with whether that would be “wrong personally” yet necessary “for the mission,” all while trying to avoid “steal[ing] the non-profit from him.”4
What’s left is a sharply drawn picture of the modern AI arms race: a swirl of altruistic language, billion-dollar budgets, bruised egos, and shifting corporate vehicles. The court will eventually decide the legal questions. The ethical one—who really owns a mission once it’s bigger than any one founder—won’t be settled so easily.
Story coverage
Write a comment