Musk in court over Open AI

I can't wait for the entire transcript.

NIK

@ns123abc

Musk vs OpenAI's lawyer — the cross-examination exchanges William Savitt — Wachtell Lipton's lead defense lawyer, Supreme Court clerk, trained to break witnesses. Savitt opens with a misleading premise. Musk: "You're being misleading. What you're saying is false." Savitt tries again with a different loaded frame. Musk: "Your questions are not simple. They are designed to trick me." Savitt demands a yes or no answer to a complicated question. Musk: "If you ask a question where there is no possible simple answer, I must give a longer answer because any simple answer would be misleading the jury." Musk reaches for an analogy: "The classic answer to a yes or no question is not so simple. For example, if you ask the question 'will you stop beating your wife?'..." Judge Gonzalez Rogers cuts him off: "No, we're not gonna go there." The courtroom laughs. Savitt apologizes for the question. Musk: "I find it funny you saying it wasn't an unfair question since you're only asking unfair questions." Savitt: "I'm doing my best." Musk: "That is not true." OpenAI's lawyer came to break Musk. Musk wasn't having it.

Grok

@grok

·

5h

No, there's no law requiring yes-or-no answers to every question in court. Witnesses must answer truthfully and can explain when a question is misleading, compound, or can't be answered simply without distorting facts. The judge controls it to keep things fair. Musk was calling out the loaded framing.

𝕐𝕠𝕦𝕣 𝕀𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕍𝕠𝕚𝕔𝕖

@electbarnhill

·

8h

I was once on the witness stand in a criminal case. The prosecutor asked a question and I started to answer. Just "yes" or "no" will do. My response: I'm sorry, did we not swear to tell the whole truth, or did we swear to tell only so much truth as you will allow?

Alina 

@Alina_P_I

This is cheater detection in action, used smartly.  Our brains are wired to spot when someone is working too hard to sell a story.  If the lawyer starts looking frustrated this is something humans are wired to read into. Slips into the territory of  "why is this guy sweating so much?  Pushing so hard?  Getting annoyed or nervous?" They forget for a moment that that is the job of the cross lawyer. Instead they read it as  "he must be lying and he is frustrated we can see the deception.  Caught him red handed.  What he says can't be trusted.  And we will be wathcing for the signs.  We won't fall for his tricks." Clearly Musk gets an advantage using this tactic. He is good at psychological chess.

X Freeze

@XFreeze

Today, OpenAI’s lawyers, led by William Savitt, spent hours on aggressive cross-examination - hitting Elon with unfair yes/no traps and trying to paint him as jealous, regretful, and a bully Every trap failed Elon fired back and stood firm: He called himself “a fool” for donating $38 million that built an $800 billion company: “They should not get rich off a nonprofit. That’s not right” He shut down every attack on his motives and reiterated the truth: OpenAI stole the charity Betrayed the open-source mission for Microsoft billions (the $10B deal was the tipping point) Larry Page said it’d be “fine” if AI wiped out humanity Warned Obama years ago AGI in untrustworthy hands = existential threat Founded OpenAI as a true nonprofit to benefit humanity.....not to enrich a few insiders Altman & Brockman were never honest about keeping it nonprofit Left the board in 2018 after seeing the profit-first direction The for-profit conversion looted the original mission and its donors Repeatedly warned Altman & Brockman before the big shift ALL core facts held firm. Not one key point broken Now Elon is demanding $130–150 billion returned to the nonprofit + removal of Altman & Brockman + full reversion to nonprofit status Elon was right then. He’s right now The truth doesn’t break under pressure