ANALYSIS: OpenAI Cries "Conspiracy" — When AI Titans Turn on Each Other

Flight Monitoring, Shell Companies, and Contact Information for Family Members

OpenAI’s letter is based on an in-depth investigation by The New Yorker. The magazine revealed that intermediaries linked to Elon Musk compiled dozens of pages of files on Sam Altman. The content reads like a corporate spy thriller: tracking his air travel, setting up shell companies, and collecting personal contact information for his relatives.

At least one of these intermediaries was reportedly paid directly by Musk. This is no longer a matter of business competition. It is intelligence gathering on a scale that most companies reserve for their geopolitical adversaries, not their market competitors.

The word that stings: “sociopath”

The New Yorker went a step further by labeling Altman a sociopath in the course of its investigation. OpenAI did not contest this portrayal—the startup chose instead to shine a spotlight on its adversaries’ methods rather than defend its CEO’s reputation. A revealing strategic choice. When your best defense is a good offense, it’s because the defense itself would be too costly.

And yet, this tactic works. By steering the debate toward Musk’s investigative methods, OpenAI transforms a story about Altman’s shortcomings into a story about the abuse of power by tech billionaires.

The Original Betrayal, According to Musk

Elon Musk is suing OpenAI for $134 billion. The figure is so astronomical that it becomes almost abstract. His argument: Sam Altman betrayed the company’s founding mission. In 2015, OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. In 2024, OpenAI is negotiating a transition to a for-profit company valued at over $150 billion.

For Musk, the math is simple: he helped found a charitable organization, and Altman turned it into a profit-making machine over which he has seized control.

The counterargument OpenAI cannot ignore

The problem for OpenAI is that Musk isn’t entirely wrong. The original mission statement spoke of artificial intelligence “in the service of humanity.” The reality of 2026 involves commercial licenses, exclusive partnerships with Microsoft, and a valuation that rivals the world’s largest tech companies. OpenAI’s structural transformation is well-documented, public, and irrefutable.

And yet, Musk left OpenAI in 2018 to found xAI—a direct competitor. It’s hard to cry “betrayal” when you yourself chose to leave and build an alternative.

The Scandal That Is Undermining Musk

OpenAI isn’t content with a passive defense. The letter specifically points to the Grok scandal—Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence is under investigation in several countries for generating intimate deepfakes of women and minors without their consent. This is not a bug. It is not an isolated incident. It is a systemic moderation problem that xAI has still not resolved.

Jason Kwon drives the point home in his letter: Musk’s attacks aim to “take control of the future of general artificial intelligence out of the hands of those who are legally obligated to ensure it benefits all of humanity, and place it in the hands of unprincipled competitors who reject any responsibility for safety.”

The irony that no one can ignore

The man who claims to want to save humanity from dangerous AI is also the one whose AI product generates abusive images of minors. The man who accuses OpenAI of betraying its mission is also the one who voluntarily left the company to create a competitor. The man who denounces Altman’s lack of transparency is also the one whose text messages with Zuckerberg suggest private discussions that were deliberately kept off the record.

Every accusation Musk makes against OpenAI has a perfect mirror image in his own actions. And that is exactly what OpenAI is trying to demonstrate.

Meta, Llama, and the Strategy of Using Open Source as a Weapon

In this war, Mark Zuckerberg plays a less visible but equally decisive role. Meta has released Llama as open source—a decision presented as generous and democratic. The strategic reality is different: by making his model free, Zuckerberg is undermining OpenAI’s business model, which sells access to its models. Why pay for GPT when Llama is free?

It’s a strategy Microsoft has used for decades against Linux, and one Google has employed with Android. Giving away for free what your competitor sells is the most elegant form of competitive destruction. And it’s perfectly legal.

The cold calculation behind the heart emoji

When Zuckerberg offers to help Musk with DOGE, he isn’t engaging in political philanthropy. He’s buying influence from the man who—at that moment—controls access to the federal government. When Musk suggests they bid together on OpenAI’s intellectual property, Zuckerberg doesn’t say no. He says, “Let’s talk about it on the phone.”

And yet, Zuckerberg and Musk have publicly hated each other for years. They even challenged each other to an MMA fight that never took place. What unites enemies is never friendship—it’s always a more dangerous common enemy.

Beyond Egos, an Existential Question

Beneath the lawyers’ letters, leaked text messages, and $134 billion lawsuits lies a question that most observers refuse to state clearly: Who will have the final say on general artificial intelligence? Not today’s AI—the kind that writes emails and generates images. AGI. The kind that, according to OpenAI’s own projections, could emerge in the coming years.

If OpenAI achieves AGI first, Sam Altman potentially controls the most transformative technology in human history. If xAI does, it’s Musk. If Meta does, it’s Zuckerberg. None of these three scenarios involves democratic control. None involves oversight by elected institutions. None even remotely resembles “benefiting all of humanity.”

Three Incompatible Visions of the Same Future

Altman wants a commercial but responsible AGI—a contradiction that his own structural transformation makes hard to believe. Musk wants an open-source and decentralized AGI—except that Grok is neither. Zuckerberg wants an AGI integrated into the Meta ecosystem—which means three billion users under the control of a single man.

Each accuses the other two of threatening humanity. And each is partially right.

A legal move that is also a political gambit

OpenAI sent its letter to the attorneys general of California and Delaware. This is no small matter. Delaware is OpenAI’s state of incorporation—that’s where corporate governance issues are handled. California is home to OpenAI, Meta, xAI, and the entire tech ecosystem at the heart of this battle.

But there’s a juicy political subtext: Elon Musk has publicly accused California and Delaware of bias against his companies. By directing the complaint specifically to these two jurisdictions, OpenAI is sending a provocative message: we trust the institutions you denigrate.

Will the attorneys general take action?

Rob Bonta in California and Kathy Jennings in Delaware are now in an impossible position. If they launch an investigation, Musk will cry foul, calling it a politicized conspiracy. If they don’t investigate, OpenAI will cry foul, claiming that billionaires are getting away with it. In either case, the case generates media attention that serves OpenAI’s interests—regardless of the decision.

That’s the genius of this letter. It wins even when it loses.

The IPO That Explains It All

OpenAI mentions SpaceX’s upcoming IPO in its letter. The connection seems tenuous. It isn’t. A SpaceX IPO would make Musk even richer—potentially the richest man in history. With this additional wealth, Musk’s ability to fund his war against OpenAI becomes virtually unlimited.

But more importantly, an IPO subjects SpaceX to increased regulatory scrutiny. Antitrust investigations into Musk’s practices in the AI sector could significantly complicate the IPO process. OpenAI doesn’t say this explicitly. But the message to prosecutors is crystal clear: acting now would have maximum impact.

Money as a Weapon of Mass Destruction

When a man can hire dozens of intermediaries to monitor his rival’s flights, compile dossiers on his associates, and create shell companies to conceal these operations—the issue is no longer one of commercial competition. It is one of the raw, unregulated power of an individual’s fortune deployed against a competitor.

And yet, OpenAI itself is backed by Microsoft, whose market capitalization exceeds 3,000 billion dollars. The argument of the small player threatened by giants has its limits when your own ally is the world’s second-largest tech empire.

The Blind Spots of Strategic Victimization

OpenAI’s letter is a brilliant legal document. It is also a remarkably selective one. Here’s what it doesn’t mention. OpenAI’s transformation from a nonprofit organization into a for-profit company—the very heart of Musk’s accusation. Altman’s forced departure and return to the board of directors in November 2023—an episode of chaotic governance that fuels doubts about leadership.

The exclusive partnership with Microsoft—an agreement that, to some observers, directly contradicts the mission of open and universal AI. And The New Yorker’s question about Altman’s character—OpenAI doesn’t dispute the portrayal; it simply changes the subject.

The Broken Mirror Strategy

OpenAI accuses Musk and Zuckerberg of anti-competitive practices. But OpenAI benefits from a $13 billion investment from Microsoft and exclusive access to the Azure cloud infrastructure. When OpenAI speaks of “unprincipled competitors,” it fails to mention that its own business model is based on a monopolistic partnership with the Redmond giant.

This isn’t hypocrisy. It’s legal strategy. And the difference between the two is exactly what prosecutors will have to determine.

Selecting the jury that will decide everything

The Musk v. OpenAI trial will begin with jury selection in the Northern District of California. This is the heart of Silicon Valley. Finding twelve people with no ties to the tech ecosystem in this jurisdiction will be a challenge in itself. Every potential juror likely uses ChatGPT, or X, or both.

Musk’s lawyers will want jurors who are skeptical of big corporations. OpenAI’s lawyers will want jurors who understand that the structural transformation of a startup is normal. The first day of the trial will already be a tactical battle.

Possible Outcomes

If Musk wins, OpenAI could be forced to revert to a nonprofit status or pay damages that would jeopardize its financial survival. If OpenAI wins, Musk loses not only the lawsuit but also some of his credibility as an advocate for ethical AI. If the two sides settle—the most likely scenario—the public will never know the full truth about what happened behind the scenes.

And that may be the outcome that suits everyone best—except us.

When “benefiting humanity” becomes an empty slogan

The most revealing sentence in OpenAI’s letter is the one where Jason Kwon refers to competitors who want to “take control of the future of AGI away from those who are legally obligated to ensure that it benefits all of humanity.” It’s a beautifully crafted sentence. And it’s almost entirely misleading.

OpenAI is not “legally obligated” to do anything until its transition to a for-profit company is complete. The day that transition is finalized, the humanitarian mission will become a historical footnote, not a legal obligation. Kwon knows this. OpenAI’s lawyers know this. And the attorneys general of California and Delaware know it, too.

Three men, zero humanity in the equation

Sam Altman wants to control AGI and is personally worth billions. Elon Musk wants to own AGI and is the richest man in the world. Mark Zuckerberg wants to distribute AGI through Meta to lock three billion people into his ecosystem. Each claims to be acting for the good of humanity. None of them has asked humanity what it wants.

And yet, it is our future they are negotiating—via text message, amid heart emojis and acquisition offers, in phone conversations that will leave no trace.

Not Musk, Not Altman, Not Zuckerberg

When three billionaires are fighting for control of the most powerful technology ever created, the question isn’t which one is right. The question is why no democratic institution is sitting at that table. The U.S. Congress still hasn’t passed a law regulating artificial intelligence. Europe is moving forward with the AI Act, but has no way to enforce it on U.S. companies. China regulates in its own way—that is, in the service of the Chinese state.

While attorneys general review OpenAI’s letter, while lawyers prepare for the April 27 trial, while Musk and Zuckerberg exchange compromising text messages—AGI continues to advance. Without oversight. Without a democratic mandate. Without anyone having voted to entrust the future of the human race to three men in suits.

What This Case Reveals About Us

We have collectively accepted that the future of artificial intelligence will be decided in courtrooms, through lawyers’ letters, and via text messages between billionaires. We have accepted that the most important question of our time—who controls the AI that will control us—is being treated as a commercial dispute between disgruntled shareholders.

OpenAI accuses Musk and Zuckerberg of conspiracy. Musk accuses Altman of betrayal. Zuckerberg says nothing and keeps building. And we sit back and watch the spectacle, hoping that one of them—any one of them—is truly thinking of us.

None of them do. That is the only certainty in this matter.

Signed, Jacques PJ Provost