Elon Musk, the billionaire chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX who also runs the social media platform X and the artificial intelligence company xAI, sat for a deposition in his long-running legal dispute with OpenAI — and what emerged was a combative, sometimes startling defense of his own AI chatbot Grok, a dismissal of OpenAI’s safety concerns, and a broadside against the company he helped co-found nearly a decade ago.
According to reporting by TechCrunch, Musk used the deposition to draw a sharp contrast between his AI venture and OpenAI, making the provocative claim that “nobody committed suicide because of Grok” — an apparent reference to incidents involving other AI chatbots that have drawn public scrutiny and regulatory attention. The remark underscored the deeply personal and increasingly bitter nature of the legal fight between Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, two men who once shared a vision for safe artificial intelligence development but have since become fierce adversaries.
A Legal War With Roots in Silicon Valley’s Ideological Divide
The lawsuit, which Musk originally filed in early 2024 and has since amended multiple times, alleges that OpenAI abandoned its founding nonprofit mission by converting to a for-profit structure and entering into a lucrative partnership with Microsoft. Musk, who contributed significant early funding to OpenAI and served on its board before departing in 2018, has argued that the organization’s leaders — principally Altman — engaged in a bait-and-switch, luring donors with promises of open, humanity-serving AI research and then pivoting toward a closed, profit-driven model once the technology proved commercially viable.
OpenAI has vigorously contested these claims, arguing that Musk’s legal action is motivated not by genuine concern for the nonprofit mission but by competitive jealousy. Musk founded xAI in 2023 and launched Grok as a direct competitor to OpenAI’s ChatGPT. OpenAI’s legal team has pointed to Musk’s own earlier proposals to take control of the company or merge it with Tesla as evidence that his interest was always more commercial than altruistic.
“Nobody Committed Suicide Because of Grok”: Musk’s Pointed Defense
The most headline-grabbing moment from the deposition, as reported by TechCrunch, was Musk’s assertion about the safety record of his own AI product. The comment appeared to be a reference to widely reported cases in which users of AI chatbots — including at least one instance involving a Character.AI product — experienced psychological distress, with families alleging that emotionally dependent interactions with AI contributed to self-harm. Musk’s implication was clear: whatever risks OpenAI claims to be mitigating through its careful, controlled approach to AI deployment, his own less restricted chatbot has not produced the kind of tragic outcomes that have plagued competitors.
The statement is likely to draw criticism from AI safety researchers, who have noted that the absence of reported incidents does not equate to the absence of risk. Grok, which is integrated into the X platform and has been marketed as a less censored alternative to ChatGPT, has itself generated controversy for producing outputs that critics describe as inflammatory or misleading. Musk has consistently framed Grok’s more permissive content policies as a feature rather than a bug, arguing that excessive content moderation amounts to ideological censorship.
The Deposition as a Window Into Musk’s AI Philosophy
Beyond the specific legal claims, Musk’s deposition testimony offered a revealing look at how he views the current state of the AI industry. He reportedly characterized OpenAI’s safety rhetoric as performative, suggesting that the company uses concerns about AI risk as a justification for keeping its models proprietary — thereby protecting its commercial interests under the guise of public responsibility. This argument resonates with a segment of the AI community that has grown skeptical of what they see as “safety-washing” by large AI companies.
Musk has long occupied an unusual position in the AI debate. He was among the earliest and most prominent voices warning about the existential risks of artificial intelligence, famously calling it “more dangerous than nuclear weapons.” Yet his own company, xAI, has taken an approach to AI deployment that many safety advocates consider reckless. This tension — between Musk the AI doomsayer and Musk the AI entrepreneur — has become a central theme of the OpenAI litigation and of public discourse around his credibility on the subject.
OpenAI’s Counteroffensive and the Stakes of the Case
OpenAI has not been passive in the face of Musk’s legal assault. The company has released internal communications, including emails from Musk himself, that it says demonstrate his early support for a for-profit transition and his desire to maintain personal control over the organization. In court filings, OpenAI has argued that Musk’s departure from the board was driven by his inability to secure a dominant role in the company’s governance, not by principled disagreement over its direction.
The stakes of the case extend well beyond the two parties. A ruling that OpenAI violated its nonprofit charter could have far-reaching implications for how AI companies structure themselves, particularly those that began as research-oriented nonprofits and later sought commercial investment. The case also raises questions about the enforceability of founding commitments in the technology sector, where pivots in business model are common and where the line between mission-driven and profit-driven work is often blurred.
A Broader Industry Watching Closely
The Musk-OpenAI dispute is playing out against a backdrop of intense competition and rapid consolidation in the AI industry. OpenAI, valued at over $150 billion following its latest funding round, has become the dominant player in generative AI, with Microsoft as its principal backer and distribution partner. Musk’s xAI, while smaller, has attracted significant investment of its own and has aggressively positioned Grok as an alternative for users who want fewer content restrictions.
Other major players — including Google DeepMind, Anthropic, and Meta’s AI division — are watching the litigation closely. The outcome could influence how companies approach open-source commitments, nonprofit governance structures, and the increasingly fraught question of AI safety regulation. If Musk prevails, it could embolden critics who argue that the largest AI companies have become too secretive and too focused on profit. If OpenAI wins, it could reinforce the legal standing of companies that transition from nonprofit to for-profit models, provided they can demonstrate that the change serves their broader mission.
The Human Drama Behind the Corporate Battle
At its core, the case is also a story about a fractured relationship between two of the most prominent figures in technology. Musk and Altman were once allies who shared a genuine concern about the trajectory of AI development. Their falling out — driven by disagreements over governance, strategy, and ego — has become one of the defining feuds of the current tech era. Musk’s deposition, with its combative tone and pointed barbs, made clear that whatever collegial feelings once existed between the two men have long since evaporated.
Legal analysts have noted that depositions in high-profile cases often serve a dual purpose: they are both a legal proceeding and a public relations exercise. Musk, who is no stranger to using media attention to advance his interests, appeared to use the deposition as an opportunity to prosecute his case in the court of public opinion as much as in the courtroom itself. His comment about Grok and suicide was the kind of provocative soundbite that ensures media coverage — and ensures that the narrative remains focused on OpenAI’s perceived failures rather than on the merits of Musk’s own legal claims.
What Comes Next in the Courtroom
The case is expected to proceed to trial later this year, barring a settlement that neither side has shown much interest in pursuing. Both Musk and OpenAI have indicated a willingness to fight the matter to its conclusion, and the discovery process has already produced a trove of internal documents and communications that have fueled public interest in the dispute.
For the AI industry, the trial will be a defining moment. It will test whether the founding principles of an organization can be legally enforced against its current leadership, whether competitive motives can disqualify a plaintiff from seeking such enforcement, and whether the courts are prepared to wade into the complex and rapidly shifting world of artificial intelligence governance. Whatever the outcome, the Musk-OpenAI case has already reshaped the conversation about who controls the future of AI — and on whose terms.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication