Saying “I don’t lose my temper” in a courtroom can be risky. During Elon Musk’s testimony, his claim contrasted sharply with his later behavior. Despite improved direct testimony, Musk’s cross-examination was rocky, filled with evasive answers and arguments with defense lawyer William Savitt. Jurors showed discomfort, and even the judge struggled with Musk’s conduct. Musk described himself as calm, yet was goaded into frustration and inconsistencies by Savitt. His testimony implied he quit OpenAI payments due to a lack of control and attempted to incorporate it into Tesla, showing a disconnect with OpenAI’s goals. He backed away from commitments, poaching a top engineer without allegiance to OpenAI. By 2018, he viewed OpenAI’s structure as flawed. On the stand, Musk admitted it might’ve been a mistake to structure OpenAI as it was. Throughout, he dodged questions, accused Savitt of trickery, and created tense exchanges. Asserting OpenAI was being “looted,” Musk claimed to have been deceived by Altman, feeling his donations supported an unforeseen for-profit turnaround. He showed a lack of thorough engagement with OpenAI’s proposal documents, leading to disputes with Savitt about his level of attentiveness. Ultimately, Musk’s courtroom demeanor revealed contradictions with his self-described temper control, leaving observers questioning his consistency and honesty.
Elon Musk’s Greatest Courtroom Adversary: Himself
2 Min Read