Tag: Charity / nonprofit

Posted on

Musk v. Altman week 1: Elon Musk says he was duped, warns AI could kill us all, and admits that xAI distills OpenAI’s models

In the first week of the landmark trial between Elon Musk and OpenAI, Musk took the stand in a crisp black suit and tie and argued that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman had deceived him into bankrolling the company. Along the way, he warned that AI could destroy us all and sat through revelations that he had poached OpenAI employees for his own companies. He even confessed, to some audible gasps in the courtroom, that his own AI company, xAI, which makes the chatbot Grok, uses OpenAI’s models to train its own. 

The federal courthouse in Oakland, California, was packed with armies of lawyers carrying boxes of exhibits, journalists typing away at their laptops, and a handful of concerned OpenAI employees. Outside, protesters lined the streets, carrying signs urging people to quit ChatGPT, boycott Tesla, or both. Musk looked calm and comfortable, slipping in the occasional quip in his distinct South African accent. But he also was full of remorse. 

“I was a fool who provided them free funding to create a startup,” Musk told the jury. He said when he cofounded OpenAI in 2015 with Altman and Brockman, he was donating to a nonprofit developing AI for the benefit of humanity, not to make the executives rich. “I gave them $38 million of essentially free funding, which they then used to create what would become an $800 billion company,” he said.

Musk is asking the court to remove Altman and Brockman from their roles and to unwind the restructuring that allowed OpenAI to operate a for-profit subsidiary. The outcome of the trial could upend OpenAI’s race toward an IPO at a valuation approaching $1 trillion. Meanwhile, xAI is expected to go public as a part of Musk’s rocket company SpaceX as early as June, at a target valuation of $1.75 trillion.

This week’s testimony revolved around a central question of the trial: why Musk is suing OpenAI. Musk argued he was trying to save OpenAI’s mission to develop AI safely by restoring the company to its original nonprofit structure. OpenAI’s lawyer, William Savitt, who once represented Musk and his electric-car company Tesla, countered that Musk was “never committed to OpenAI being a nonprofit” and instead was suing to undermine his competitor. 

Who is the steward of AI safety?

During his direct examination early in the week, Musk painted himself as a longtime advocate of AI safety. He said he cofounded OpenAI to create a “counterbalance to Google,” which was leading the AI race at the time. He said that when he asked Google cofounder Larry Page what happens if AI tries to wipe out humanity, Page told him, “That will be fine as long as artificial intelligence survives.” 

“The worst-case scenario is a Terminator situation where AI kills us all,” Musk later told the jury.

Savitt stood at the lectern and argued that Musk was not a “paladin of safety and regulation.” As he cross-examined Musk in his sharp, surgical cadence, Savitt pointed out that xAI sued the state of Colorado in April over an AI law designed to prevent algorithmic discrimination. 

Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, sprang to his feet to object. He asked the judge if he, too, could weigh in on ChatGPT’s safety record. 

The lawyers then entered a heated debate about who was the true guardian of AI safety. 

The sparring continued the next morning. “We all could die as a result of artificial intelligence!” said Molo, suggesting that OpenAI could not be trusted to build AI safely.

“Despite these risks, your client is creating a company that’s in the exact space,” Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said sternly, referring to xAI. “I suspect there’s plenty of people who don’t want to put the future of humanity in Mr. Musk’s hands.”

When the lawyers began talking over each other, the judge snapped. “This is not a trial on whether or not artificial intelligence has damaged humanity,” she said. 

When did Musk think he was being duped?

As Savitt continued to cross-examine Musk, he pressed on the idea that Musk had never been committed to keeping OpenAI a nonprofit. He also claimed that Musk waited too long to sue OpenAI, filing after the statute of limitations ran out. 

Musk explained why he sued in 2024 rather than earlier, describing “three phases” in his views of OpenAI. In phase one, he was “enthusiastically supportive” of the company.” In phase two, “I started to lose confidence that they were telling me the truth,” he said. In phase three, “I’m sure they’re looting the nonprofit.” 

In 2017, Musk and other OpenAI cofounders discussed creating a for-profit subsidiary to raise enough capital to build artificial general intelligence—powerful AI that can compete with humans on most cognitive tasks. Musk wanted a majority interest in the subsidiary and the right to choose a majority of the board members. He also pitched having Tesla acquire OpenAI. (He left OpenAI in 2018.)

“I was not opposed to there being a small for-profit that provides funding to the nonprofit,” he told the jury, “as long as the tail didn’t wag the dog.” 

But it was only in late 2022, Musk testified, that he “lost trust in Altman” and his commitment to keeping the company a nonprofit. The key moment came, he said, when he learned that Microsoft would invest $10 billion in OpenAI. 

“I texted Sam Altman, ‘What the hell is going on? This is a bait and switch,’” he told the jury. Microsoft would give $10 billion only if it expected “a very big financial return,” he said.

Is Musk just trying to kill competition?

But Savitt argued that Musk was really suing to undermine OpenAI as a competitor to his empire of tech companies. While he was on the board of OpenAI, Musk was also running Tesla and his brain-implant company, Neuralink. He founded xAI in 2023.

Savitt pulled up an email that Musk had sent to a Tesla vice president in 2017 after hiring Andrej Karpathy, a founding member of OpenAI, to work at Tesla.“The OpenAI guys are gonna want to kill me. But it had to be done,” he wrote.

When asked about it, Musk was flustered. He claimed Karpathy had already decided to leave OpenAI when he recruited him to work at Tesla. “I believe it’s a free world,” he said.

Savitt pulled up another email that Musk sent to a cofounder at Neuralink in 2017. He wrote that they could “hire independently or directly from OpenAI.” When pressed about it, he sounded frazzled. “It’s a free country,” he said. “I can’t restrict their ability to hire people from other companies.” 

Savitt also pointed out that Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and X were socially beneficial for-profit companies, like OpenAI. He stressed that xAI was also a closed-source, for-profit company.

But Musk claimed that xAI was not a real competitor to OpenAI. “We’re not currently tracking to reach AGI first,” he told the jury. 

In fact, Musk admitted that xAI uses OpenAI’s technology. In response to Savitt’s relentless questioning, he said xAI “partly” distills OpenAI’s models. Some people in the courtroom gasped. 

Distillation is a technique where a smaller AI model is trained to mimic the behavior of larger, more capable models, so it can run faster and more cheaply while performing nearly as well. But OpenAI and other AI companies have pushed back against the practice. In February, OpenAI accused the Chinese AI company DeepSeek of distilling its AI models. In August 2025, Wired reported that Anthropic had blocked OpenAI’s access to Claude for violating the company’s terms of service, which prohibit, among other things, reverse-engineering its services and building competing products. 

“It is standard practice to use other AIs to validate your AI,” argued Musk.

Next week, Stuart Russell, a computer scientist at UC Berkeley, will testify about AI safety. Brockman, who has been taking notes during Musk’s testimony, will also testify.

This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s ongoing coverage of the Musk v. Altman trial. Follow @techreview or @michelletomkim on X for up-to-the-minute reporting.

Posted on

Trump’s mass firing just dealt another blow to American science

This past week delivered another gut punch for science in the US. This time, the target was the National Science Foundation—a federal agency that funds major research projects to the tune of around $9 billion. The foundation’s efforts were overseen by a board of 22 prominent scientists. On Friday last week, they were all fired.

The NSF has been without a director since April 2025, when former director Sethuraman Panchanathan stepped down in the wake of DOGE-led funding cuts and mass firings. Trump’s nominee for the role is Jim O’Neill, an investor and longevity enthusiast who does not have a science background.

It’s hard to predict exactly how things will shake out for science. But it’s not looking great.

The NSF was established in 1950 to “promote the progress of science,” among other goals. It has served as a major source of support for research and education since then. In 2024, the agency spent $9.39 billion—a substantial figure but only 0.1% of all federal spending.

Key decisions about how that money is spent have been made by the National Science Board. Each of the scientists who made up the board until last week was appointed by a US president to serve, at least initially, a six-year term. Those members were responsible for establishing NSF policies, authorizing major expenditures and providing oversight, says Keivan Stassun, a physicist and astronomer at Vanderbilt University who was appointed to the board in late 2022.

A few years ago, the board was responsible for establishing a new “directorate” within the agency to channel funding to “technology, innovations and partnerships,” for example. The board also authorized funding for the US Extremely Large Telescope Program.

“It’s a relatively small group with a tremendous amount of responsibility and authority,” says Stassun. He viewed his appointment as “a tremendous honor.”

Then, last Friday, the email landed in his inbox. “It said: On behalf of President Trump, this letter is to notify you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” says Stassun. “It was deeply disappointing.”

Still, Stassun wasn’t surprised, given the administration’s actions across federal science agencies over the past year.

Since Donald Trump took office at the start of 2025, the NSF—along with many other federal agencies—has frozen, unfrozen, and terminated grants. “The board was not involved in any of those [terminations],” says Stassun. Members had no say in the firing of agency staff either, he says. Staff numbers are currently down 40%, he adds.

In a 2026 budget request, the Trump administration sought to cut the NSF’s budget by around 57%. Last summer, NSF staffers wrote a letter of dissent arguing that such substantial cuts would “cripple American science.” The proposed cuts would have hit biological sciences, engineering, and STEM education particularly hard.

Those cuts were rejected by Congress earlier this year. But grant terminations and firings are essentially allowing them to take effect regardless, says Stassun. “The funds that the White House has been dispersing to the agency … have been far less than what Congress intended,” he says.

Many ambitious research projects are grinding to a halt as a result. “The Extremely Large Telescope Program appears to be dead in the water for now,” says Stassun. And the NSF arm dedicated to science education “has effectively zeroed out,” he says.

But not all of them. While the administration’s 2027 budget request states that NSF will “close out” its directorate for social, behavioral, and economic sciences, it describes AI and quantum information science as key “frontier initiatives.” Biotechnology is described as a “focal point.” 

When asked for comment, the NSF directed MIT Technology Review to the White House press office. The White House did not respond directly to questions about the firing of NSB members and said in a statement, “The National Science Foundation’s work continues uninterrupted.”

Jim O’Neill, Trump’s current candidate for the position of NSF director, is certainly interested in biotechnology. Specifically, when I spoke to O’Neill in February, he told me that he supposes he is a Vitalist—a hardcore supporter of efforts to extend human longevity who believes that death is wrong.

O’Neill was deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention until a leadership shakeup a couple of months ago. But he isn’t a scientist. And that has some scientists worried. He has yet to be confirmed by the Senate for the role.

In the meantime, the administration’s efforts are having a real impact on research. “We [NSB members] tried to stand for a continued investment in science, engineering, and technology, and in science education broadly,” says Stassun. “The administration will now be able to operate the agency the way that [it wants to, with] no governance body in the way.”

Posted on

The Download: the North Pole’s future and humanoid data

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Digging for clues about the North Pole’s past

In the past, getting to the North Pole involved a treacherous trip through ice many meters thick. But last year, a research vessel encountered open water and thin ice, which created an easy passage. It provided a reminder of how quickly the Arctic is changing. 

Now scientists are digging deep below the seabed to find out if the Arctic Ocean was ever ice-free—and what that could mean for the future of Earth’s northernmost waters. Here’s what they hope to discover.

—Tim Kalvelage

This story is from the latest issue of our print magazine, which is all about nature. Check out the full issue here, and subscribe to get the next one when it lands. 

Humanoid data: 10 Things That Matter in AI Right Now

I was recently invited to join an app that would pay me to film myself doing tasks like putting food in a bowl and microwaving it. Another site asked if I’d like to remotely control a robotic arm to help improve its dexterity. What on earth is happening?

These examples are just part of a growing push by robotics companies to collect data on our movements for training humanoids. As the race for real-world data heats up, our everyday movements are being turned into training data. Read the full story.

—James O’Donnell

Humanoid data is one of our 10 Things That Matter in AI Right Now, a new look at the big ideas, trends, and technologies really worth your attention in the buzzy world of AI.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta have all set AI spending records
Collectively, they’re up 71% on the same quarter last year.  (NYT $)
+ Microsoft, Google and Amazon reported big payoffs from the splurge. (FT $)
+ But Meta’s shares slid after its plans spooked investors. (BBC)
+ What even is the AI bubble? (MIT Technology Review)

2 The White House opposes Anthropic’s plan to expand Mythos access
It’s concerned about the model’s cyber risks. (Bloomberg $)
+ And worried that the government will lose compute access. (WSJ $)
+ Anthropic is seeking funding at a valuation over $900 billion. (Bloomberg $)

3 Elon Musk has claimed OpenAI’s leaders “looted the nonprofit”
During testimony, Musk said he “was a fool” for trusting them. (Gizmodo)
+ But he had raised his own concerns about OpenAI’s non-profit status. (The Verge)
+ The case could reshape the AI landscape. (MIT Technology Review)

4 Autonomous vehicles may be worsening
According to emergency first-responders, glitches are increasing. (Wired)

5 OpenAI has abandoned much of its Stargate plan
It will no longer develop its own data centers. (FT $)
+ The project’s compute requirements have been questioned. (MIT Technology Review)

6 A convicted Harvard scientist is rebuilding a brain-computer lab in China
He had previously been named the world’s top chemist. (Reuters $)
+ But was then convicted for lying about payments from China. (NYT $)

7 Families have sued OpenAI over a mass shooter’s use of ChatGPT
They say OpenAI provided a dangerously defective version of the chatbot. (NPR)

8 Apple is reportedly close to giving up on the Vision Pro
After the latest model flopped. (MacRumors) 

9 Senators are interrogating US AI firms on safeguards against China
Over fears of IP theft. (Axios)

10 Friendly AI chatbots are more likely to be inaccurate
A new study found kinder answers contained more mistakes. (BBC)

Quote of the day

“Never talk about goblins, gremlins, raccoons, trolls, ogres, pigeons, or other animals or creatures unless it is absolutely and unambiguously relevant to the user’s query.” 

—OpenAI instructs Codex to avoid critter talk in a system prompt for the coding agent, Ars Technica reports.

One More Thing

illustration of a house with numbered features

ARTHUR MOUNT


Is this the most energy-efficient way to build homes?

When engineers began designing an ultra-efficient home in the 1970s, they realized the trick wasn’t generating energy in a greener way, but using less of it. They needed to make a better thermos, not a cheaper coffee maker.

That idea helped inspire today’s passive-house standard: airtight buildings that can cut energy use by up to 90% through better windows, insulation, and ventilation.

Although they’re often considered a cold-climate approach, passive houses actually have universal benefits. Find out what makes them so efficient.


—Patrick Sisson

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ Finally, someone built a gaming PC inside a microwave that runs DOOM.
+ Experience the rhythm of the city through this rapid-fire collage of urban photography.
+ Get a dose of pure cuteness as these tiny snow leopard cubs leave their den for the first time.
+ If you’re staring at a random assortment of groceries, SuperCook will find a recipe based on what’s already in your pantry.

Posted on

The Download: storing nuclear waste and orchestrating agents

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

It’s time to make a plan for nuclear waste

Today, nuclear energy enjoys rare support across the political spectrum. Public approval has spiked, and Big Tech is throwing money around to meet rising electricity demand. That newfound interest is exactly why it’s time to talk about an old problem: nuclear waste.

In the US, nuclear reactors produce about 2,000 metric tons of high-level waste each year—and there’s nowhere to put it. Now, the need for a permanent storage solution is becoming urgent. Here’s what’s at stake.

—Casey Crownhart

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday.

Orchestrated agents are coming for white-collar work

When people say AI will transform industries, what they have in mind—whether they know it or not—are AI agents. ChatGPT showed AI can talk. But to change the world, it needs to do stuff.

The real power comes when agents work as teams, coordinating multiple roles to tackle complex tasks. Apps like Codex and Claude Cowork offer a glimpse of this shift, bringing multi-agent general-purpose productivity tools.

In theory, networks of AI agents could do to white-collar knowledge work what assembly lines did to manufacturing. That’s the vision. But as agents move into real-world systems, the risks grow too. Read the full story.

—Will Douglas Heaven

Agent Orchestration is one of the 10 Things That Matter in AI Right Now, MIT Technology Review’s guide to what’s really worth your attention in the busy, buzzy world of AI. We’re unpacking one item from the list each day here in The Download, so stay tuned.

MIT Technology Review Narrated: no one’s sure if synthetic mirror life will kill us all

In February 2019, a group of scientists proposed a high-risk, cutting-edge, irresistibly exciting idea that the National Science Foundation should fund: making “mirror” bacteria.

These lab-created microbes would be organized like ordinary bacteria, but their proteins and sugars would be mirror images of those found in nature. Researchers believed they could reveal new insights into building cells, designing drugs, and even the origins of life.

But now, many of them have reversed course. They’ve become convinced that mirror organisms could trigger a catastrophic event threatening every form of life on Earth. Find out why.

—Stephen Ornes

This is our latest story to be turned into an MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we publish each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Elon Musk says Sam Altman “stole a charity” at the OpenAI trial
Musk testified for the first time yesterday in the landmark legal showdown. (FT $)
+ He said OpenAI was founded as a non-profit to avoid a “Terminator outcome.” (Wired $)
+ And claimed he came up with the idea for the company. (Reuters $)
+ The trial could upend the global AI race. (MIT Technology Review)

2 The White House has plans to bypass Anthropic’s blacklisting
It’s drafting guidance to sidestep the supply-chain risk designation. (Axios)
+ The White House is also meeting other tech firms to discuss AI risks. (Politico)
+ The Pentagon’s culture war against Anthropic has backfired. (MIT Technology Review)

3 OpenAI is tightening ties with Amazon after retreating from Microsoft
AWS customers are getting extra access to OpenAI systems. (NBC News)
+ While OpenAI gets new users and cloud-computing capabilities. (CNBC)

4 AI bots told scientists how to create biological weapons
And unleash them in public spaces. (NYT $)
+ AI will change war forever. (MIT Technology Review)

5 China has suspended robotaxi licenses after a scary outage
Dozens of Baidu vehicles suddenly stopped last month. (The Verge)
+ Chinese robotaxi firms are planning global expansions. (Guardian)

6 Meta has been found in breach of EU rules on protecting children
After failing to block access to Facebook and Instagram. (Guardian)
+ Parents are forcing schools to roll back classroom tech use. (NYT $)

7 AI is spotting pancreatic cancer years before symptoms appear
 A study found it could catch the tumor early enough to treat. (Bloomberg)

8 The Iran war is disrupting data center rollouts
Oaktree-owned Pure DC is the latest firm to pause investments. (CNBC)

9 SpaceX is tying Elon Musk’s pay to Mars colonization goals
It’s set lofty goals for his jaw-dropping compensation. (Reuters $)

10 AI has reconstructed the face of an ancient Pompeii victim
 Technology is reshaping our understanding of the distant past (NPR)

Quote of the day

“Overnight, without you even knowing it, your own life chances, the life chances of your children, will be dependent on people continuing to prop up Musk’s visions of how the world should look.”

—Elon Musk biographer Michel Martin tells NPR how the Tesla tycoon is shaping our lives.

One More Thing

a person with luggage walks through and airport setting

NEIL WEBB


Inside Clear’s ambitions to manage your identity beyond the airport

If you’ve ever been through a large US airport, you’re probably aware of Clear, the identity verification service that uses biometric scans to whisk travelers past standard security checks.

Now Clear wants to expand that “face-first” experience from airports to just about everywhere, from retailers and banks to even your doctor’s office. Its CEO has designs on making Clear the “identity layer of the internet” and the “universal identity platform” of the physical world.

All you have to do is show up—and show your face. But as biometric identity systems go mainstream, concerns about privacy, security, and control are becoming harder to ignore. And the cost of convenience may not be shared equally. Discover what’s at stake. 


—Eileen Guo

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ Discover why the eight-hour night is a modern invention.
+ This artist creates masterpieces using only a vintage typewriter and a lot of patience.
+ Test your local knowledge with this game that drops you in a random Street View location.
+ Watch this incredible feat of precision piloting as a race aircraft touches down on a 120km/h cargo train.

Posted on

Mechanistic insights from experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis into immune regulation, autophagy, gut microbiota, blood-brain barrier integrity, and NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated pyroptosis in multiple sclerosis: potential clinical implications

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammatory demyelination in the central nervous system, predominantly presenting in young adults, with a steadily increasing global incidence. In China, MS is classified as a rare disease and imposes a considerable medical and socioeconomic burden. Current clinical management mainly relies on immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive therapies; however, limitations in long-term efficacy, safety, and economic cost highlight the need for a more comprehensive understanding of disease mechanisms. Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is a widely used animal model for investigating the immunopathological basis of MS. Although EAE does not fully replicate the heterogeneity and long-term progression of human MS, it provides an important experimental framework for elucidating specific molecular and cellular pathways involved in disease development. This review synthesizes mechanistic evidence derived from EAE studies, focusing on immune regulation, autophagy modulation, gut microbiota-brain axis interactions, maintenance of blood-brain barrier integrity, and inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated pyroptosis. By integrating findings within these defined pathological domains, this work aims to clarify how modulation of these interconnected pathways contributes to the present understanding of MS pathogenesis and to discuss their potential clinical relevance. These findings not only enhance our understanding of MS pathogenesis but also provide a foundation for developing multi-target, synergistic therapeutic strategies.
Posted on

STAT+: Health system CEOs get off easy at Congressional hearing on affordability 

The four health system CEOs summoned before a Congressional committee Tuesday likely breathed sighs of relief early in the hearing, when it became clear they had friends in the audience. 

Instead, committee members largely blamed the other party’s health care policies for driving U.S. health care prices to levels inaccessible to many Americans.

The hearing was part of the House Ways and Means Committee’s effort to understand the root causes of rising health care costs in the U.S. It comes three months after the committee heard from the CEOs of the country’s largest health insurers, who largely deflected blame onto hospitals and drugmakers. 

In attendance were the CEOs of some of the country’s largest health systems: HCA Healthcare, a for-profit system of 190 hospitals, and CommonSpirit Health, a nonprofit system of 158 hospitals. The CEOs of New York-Presbyterian and North Carolina’s ECU Health were also there.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

Posted on

Elon Musk and Sam Altman are going to court over OpenAI’s future

After a yearslong legal feud, Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman are heading to trial this week in Northern California in a case that could have sweeping consequences. Ahead of OpenAI’s highly anticipated IPO, the court could rule on whether the company is allowed to exist as a for-profit enterprise and might even oust its current executive leadership, including Altman.

Musk is suing OpenAI, alleging that Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman deceived him into bankrolling the company in its early days by promising to maintain it as a nonprofit dedicated to developing AI that benefits humanity, only to later restructure the company to operate a for-profit subsidiary. Musk cofounded OpenAI with Altman and others in 2015, but he left in 2018 after a bitter power struggle. 

Musk is seeking as much as $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, one of OpenAI’s biggest financial backers. He is also asking the court to remove Altman and Brockman from their roles and to restore OpenAI as a nonprofit. Musk has asked the court to award any damages to OpenAI’s nonprofit rather than to him personally. 

Nine jurors will deliver an advisory verdict, a non-binding recommendation, to guide the judge in deciding Musk’s claims against Altman. Musk, Altman, and Brockman will take the stand. Former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella are also expected to testify. Cringey texts, raw diary entries, and endless scheming behind the founding and growth of OpenAI are expected to come to light.

In an industry enveloped in secrecy, the trial will be a rare opportunity for the public to look behind the curtain and find out what’s going on in the companies creating the most transformative technology ever built. 

What are they fighting about?

When OpenAI was originally founded as a nonprofit, backed by a $38 million donation from Musk, the company vowed to create open-source technology for the public’s benefit, unconstrained by a need to generate financial returns. But over the years, the company began to claim that intensifying competition could make it dangerous to share how it develops its AI models and that a nonprofit structure could not raise enough money to keep building AI. (MIT Technology Review was first to report on OpenAI’s internal conflicts around its mission.)

The court has already found that in 2017 Altman and Brockman wanted to establish a for-profit arm, while Musk proposed merging OpenAI with his electric-car company, Tesla. When Musk threatened to stop funding, Altman and Brockman told him that they were committed to keeping the company a nonprofit. Musk alleges that they pursued plans to pivot to a for-profit without informing him. According to OpenAI, Musk agreed that the company needed a for-profit entity and even wanted to be its CEO. 

But even if Musk proves he was duped by Altman and Brockman, he may not have standing in the first place to sue them for restructuring the company to operate a for-profit subsidiary. Some legal scholars are puzzled over why the judge allowed him to bring this claim. “The idea that Elon Musk can sue because he was a donor or used to be on the board is pretty puzzling,” says Jill Horwitz, a law professor who studies nonprofit law at Northwestern University. “Typically, it’s up to the attorneys general to bring such a claim to enforce the charitable purposes. And that’s already happened.” 

In October 2025, state attorneys general of California, where OpenAI is headquartered, and Delaware, where OpenAI is incorporated, struck a deal with OpenAI to approve its new corporate structure on a series of conditions. For example, a safety and security committee at the nonprofit would review safety-related decisions made by the for-profit subsidiary. Critics of the restructuring, including Musk, AI safety advocates, and civil society groups, have tried to stop it. 

California’s attorney general has declined to join Musk’s lawsuit, saying that the office did not see how his action serves the public interest.

Still, whether the deal holds OpenAI to its nonprofit mission is an open question. “Elon Musk should have to show … what the deficiencies are in what’s been agreed to by OpenAI with the attorneys general,” says Rose Chan Loui, the director of the UCLA School of Law’s philanthropy and nonprofit program. Even with the terms in place, holding OpenAI to them depends on “how much they can enforce it and how much transparency they get into OpenAI’s work.”

More importantly, legal experts say the case is being considered under the wrong body of law. Musk argues that Altman and Brockman breached OpenAI’s charitable trust by creating a closed-source, for-profit subsidiary. As a result, the court has been analyzing the claim under the law of trusts. “But OpenAI is not a trust. OpenAI is a corporation. And so really they should be looking at … the law of charitable nonprofit organizations,” says Chan Loui.

What’s on the line?

Despite all the legal muddiness, the outcome of the trial could upend the AI race. Any one of the remedies that Musk seeks could cripple OpenAI as it races to go public by the end of the year. OpenAI, which is valued at over $850 billion, has described the litigation with Musk as a potential risk to its business. Musk’s rival company xAI, which makes the chatbot Grok, is expected to go public as a part of his rocket company SpaceX as early as June. If Musk prevails, xAI, which in combination with SpaceX is valued at $1.25 trillion, could get a big advantage in the AI race. 

And the trial has helped expose the bitter schism between Musk and the company he once helped to found. An OpenAI spokesperson referred MIT Technology Review to a post on X: “This lawsuit has always been a baseless and jealous bid to derail a competitor.” Although Musk’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment, he has posted on X that “Scam Altman lies as easily as he breathes.”  

MIT Technology Review will have ongoing coverage of Musk v. Altman until its conclusion. Follow @techreview or @michelletomkim on X for up-to-the-minute reporting. 

Posted on

Frugal-Oriented Information and Communication Technology for Development Framework Toward Low-Cost Digital Maternal Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Quantitative Descriptive Study

Background: The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to eradicate poverty and inequality while ensuring that all individuals enjoy good health. Among these, target 3.1 seeks to reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births. However, progress toward this target has been limited, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where health care delivery remains constrained by limited resources. While digital innovations have increasingly been adopted to improve health care access and service delivery, a significant proportion of populations in LMICs continues to experience inadequate access to essential maternal health services. This gap underscores the need for affordable, sustainable, and contextually appropriate strategies that are cost-effective in improving maternal health outcomes in underserved communities. Objective: This study leverages the principles of frugal innovation and information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D) to propose a frugal-oriented ICT4D framework to deliver low-cost digital maternal health solutions in LMIC settings. The framework seeks to optimize the use of available resources, foster equitable access to maternal health care, and contribute toward achieving SDG 3, particularly target 3.1. Methods: The study was conducted in both rural and urban-poor settings in Kenya using a 2-phased quantitative approach. In phase 1, eight theoretical themes relevant to maternal health uptake were explored. These themes were represented on color-coded sorting cards, which participants ranked according to perceived importance. Phase 2 involved administering structured survey questionnaires to collect empirical data. The study included a total of 32 participants, whose insights provided a foundation for analyzing the significance of contextual factors influencing maternal health service utilization. Results: The weighted scores for 3 of the 8 predetermined theoretical themes—such as resources, information services, and social support programs—emerged as the most influential factors shaping maternal health promotion (N=32). Resources ranked highest (n=6, 18.81%), followed by information services (n=6, 17.99%), while social support programs accounted for 9.64% (n=3) of the overall influence. These findings highlight critical enablers and barriers within the maternal health care landscape and provide a nuanced understanding of contextual dynamics that affect the uptake of maternal health services. The results informed the design of a frugal-oriented ICT4D framework that prioritizes low-cost digital interventions tailored to resource-limited settings. Conclusions: Despite increasing recognition of digital innovations as tools for health care transformation in LMICs, adoption of existing capital-intensive solutions remains low due to financial and infrastructural constraints. This study emphasizes the importance of adopting frugal innovation and ICT4D principles in designing low-cost, scalable digital health interventions to improve access to maternal health care. Implementing such approaches can address resource limitations, enhance maternal health outcomes, and support progress toward SDG 3, particularly target 3.1. The proposed framework provides a foundation for future research and practical interventions aimed at sustainable, equitable maternal health service delivery in LMIC contexts.
<img src="https://jmir-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/thumbs/a79f286809b201742b849fb573582897" />