Attorneys delivered closing arguments in the Musk v. Altman trial on Thursday in a final attempt to convince a judge and jury that their respective clients, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, are the most well-intentioned, truth-telling stewards of OpenAI’s founding nonprofit mission. A judgement could be delivered as soon as next week, ending a decade-long battle between two of the technology industry’s most influential entrepreneurs.

But regardless of the outcome, there is a wide set of losers in this case. Based on ample amounts of evidence, it appears that the people worst off are the employees, policy makers, and members of the public who believed in the mission of a nonprofit research lab—and supported OpenAI because of it. What seemed to take precedent for Musk and OpenAI’s other cofounders at almost every turn was building the world’s leading AI lab—even if that meant creating a multibillion dollar for-profit company in the process.

“It’s hard to see how the public interest is being protected by either of these parties, and that is really what is ultimately at stake in a case about a nonprofit,” says Jill Horwitz, a Northwestern University law professor with expertise in nonprofits and innovation, who listened to the closing arguments. “The public interest in the nonprofit is at risk no matter who wins.”

OpenAI’s stated mission is to ensure artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits humanity, but humanity is not a party in this case. In practice, OpenAI has spent the last decade attempting to rival multitrillion dollar companies like Google, and build AGI first. Additionally, Musk and Altman have fought tooth and nail to be the ones who control OpenAI.

“Musk and Altman are basically locked in a race to be the first to build superintelligence, and they both rightly fear what the other will do if they win. The rest of us should fear them both,” says Daniel Kokotajlo, a former OpenAI researcher who joined in 2022 and has raised concerns over the company’s safety culture. He was part of a group of former OpenAI researchers that filed an amicus brief in this case against OpenAI’s for-profit conversion, arguing that the nonprofit structure was critical in their decision to join the company.

At trial, OpenAI’s nonprofit was discussed as if it were yet another corporate investor. OpenAI’s lawyers argued that giving the nonprofit a $200 billion stake in the for-profit company is proof that OpenAI is fulfilling its mission. Public advocacy groups disagree that funding alone is sufficient.

“I am among the many people who are glad to see how many philanthropic resources the OpenAI foundation has at its disposal to do good work,” says Nathan Calvin, VP of state affairs for the AI safety nonprofit Encode, which filed an amicus brief opposing OpenAI’s restructuring earlier in this case. “But it’s worth remembering that the nonprofit also has a governance role, and that the mission of the nonprofit is not that of a typical foundation, it is specifically to ensure that AGI benefits all of humanity. Money is important for that goal and is useful all else equal, but it is not the goal in and of itself.”

Origin Story

Evidence revealed in this case suggests Altman and Musk were in agreement about OpenAI launching as a nonprofit and operating much like a typical startup. They shared the goal of beating Google DeepMind in the race to AGI. But creating OpenAI as a nonprofit turned out to be a horribly inconvenient means to winning that race.

Musk has accused Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, and Greg Brockman, its cofounder and president, of straying from the nonprofit’s founding mission. He claims the founders used his $38 million investment to turn OpenAI into an $850 billion company and make several of its cofounders billionaires.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is monitoring 41 people in the US for the Andes hantavirus after a cruise ship was hit with a rare outbreak, but the risk to the public remains low, according to health officials.

This includes a group of 18 passengers from the cruise ship who are now in quarantine facilities in Nebraska and Georgia. The agency is also monitoring passengers who returned home before the outbreak was identified and others who were exposed during travel, specifically on flights where a symptomatic case was present.

“Most people under monitoring are considered high-risk exposures, and CDC recommends that everyone under monitoring stay at home and avoid being around people during their 42-day monitoring period,” David Fitter, incident manager for the CDC’s hantavirus response, told reporters during a media briefing on Thursday. “We emphasize not to travel across all these groups.”

The Andes virus is a strain of hantavirus found in South America that can be transmitted from person to person. Typically, hantavirus is passed to humans when they come into contact with rodent droppings or urine. A respiratory virus, the disease can cause difficulty breathing and carries a fatality rate of around 35 percent. As of Thursday, the World Health Organization has confirmed 11 cases of the Andes virus among passengers of the MV Hondius cruise ship, including three deaths.

A Department of Health and Human Services official confirmed to WIRED that all Americans who were on board the Hondius at any point during its journey are now back in the US.

The CDC has legal authority to issue federal quarantine and isolation orders to prevent the spread of certain communicable diseases into or within the US. Fitter said on Thursday that the CDC is not using that authority to manage all 41 of the individuals who were potentially exposed to the hantavirus.

“Our approach is based on risk and evidence,” he said. “We are working closely with passengers and public health partners to ensure monitoring and rapid access to care if symptoms develop. Our goal is to work with them and alongside them, building plans based on their specific situations to protect the health and safety of passengers and American communities.”

Individuals will be monitored for 42 days, which is the amount of time it can take for hantavirus symptoms to appear after exposure. Symptoms begin as flu-like, with fever, muscle aches, and fatigue, then rapidly progress to severe respiratory distress.

Meta’s decision to track employee keystrokes and mouse data is causing an uproar within the company. “Selfishly, I don’t want my screen scraped because it feels like an invasion of my privacy,” wrote an engineer in an internal post seen by nearly 20,000 coworkers this week. “But zooming out, I don’t want to live in a world where humans—employees or otherwise—are exploited for their training data.”

The message aimed to rally support for a petition circulating inside the company since last Thursday that demands an end to what Meta calls the Model Capability Initiative. It’s a piece of mandatory software that Meta began installing on the laptops of US employees last month. The tool records employees’ screens when using certain apps with the goal of collecting “real examples of how people actually use” computers, including “mouse movements, clicking buttons, and navigating dropdown menus,” according to Reuters. Meta has yet to say whether the initial data is paying off.

“I’m mixed on Al. On one hand, I really enjoy using it to write software. On the other hand, I’m really nervous about its impact on the world,” the engineer wrote in an internal forum for coders. “And what kind of norms are we establishing about how the technology is used, and how people are going to be treated?”

The petition, also seen by WIRED, states that “it should not be the norm that companies of any size are permitted to exploit their employees by nonconsensually extracting their data for the purposes of Al training.”

In the US, employers generally have wide latitude to monitor workers’ devices for security, training, evaluation, and safety purposes. But using these tools to build datasets that instruct AI systems on navigating computers without human supervision appears to be a new tactic—and one that doesn’t sit right with many Meta workers. Over the past few years, several companies have jumped into the race to develop agentic AI models. But when gathering data, they have typically tapped volunteers, sometimes paid, who are willing to have their computer activity recorded.

Meta’s decision to move forward with its tracking tool despite weeks of protest from employees has become one of the leading reasons for what 16 current and former employees recently described to WIRED as record-low morale. It’s also the leading driver of an employee unionization effort at Meta’s UK offices.

“The workplace surveillance and training AI models is the number one thing,” says Eleanor Payne, a representative of United Tech and Allied Workers, which is helping organize Meta employees. She declined to specify the number of employees seeking to form a labor union but called it “significant” and unprecedented.

While only US employees are currently subjected to tracking, UK employees are concerned for their colleagues and the potential for expansion of the program. “I think of it pretty much as a breakdown of trust,” Payne says. New laws that eased unionization in the UK have encouraged employees about the chances of success, she adds.

In Meta offices in California and New York, workers have been posting flyers in cafeterias and other communal areas pointing colleagues to the petition. Two employees, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, say the company has removed some posters, with those on bathroom walls seemingly staying up longer.