355
Audio & Video Production344
Automation & Workflow224
Software Development250
Marketing & Growth192
AI Infrastructure & MLOps173
Writing & Content Creation203
Data & Analytics140
Design & Creative169
Customer Support130
Photography & Imaging156
Sales & Outreach125
Voice & Speech135
Operations & Admin87
Education & Learning131
In a San Francisco civil trial, OpenAI pointed to messages showing Shivon Zilis sharing updates with Elon Musk even after he left OpenAI’s board.
In short: OpenAI’s lawyers used texts, emails, and meeting notes to argue that Shivon Zilis quietly kept Elon Musk informed about OpenAI during a lawsuit Musk brought against the company.
Elon Musk testified Wednesday in a civil trial in San Francisco where he is suing OpenAI and cofounders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. Musk claims OpenAI left its original nonprofit mission by moving toward a for-profit structure (a setup meant to make money for owners and investors).
During cross-examination, OpenAI’s legal team focused on Shivon Zilis. Zilis advised OpenAI starting in 2016 and later served as a board director from 2020 to 2023. She has also worked at Musk’s companies, including Tesla and Neuralink, and Musk described her in different ways, including as a close advisor and “chief of staff.” Zilis is also the mother of four of Musk’s children and lives with him, though she has said he keeps a separate residence.
OpenAI’s lawyers showed a February 2018 text exchange in which Zilis asked Musk whether she should “stay close and friendly to OpenAI to keep info flowing” or distance herself. Musk replied that she should stay “close and friendly,” and he said he planned to bring several OpenAI employees to Tesla. Musk testified he “wanted to know what’s going on.”
The court also reviewed emails where Zilis shared updates with Musk about internal OpenAI discussions, including fundraising and leadership plans. Meeting notes from 2017 referenced a discussion at Musk’s San Francisco home and suggested Musk told Zilis to help form a for-profit entity. Musk disputed his recollection of that.
This case is partly about trust and influence. If a board member or advisor was acting like a private backchannel (like someone quietly passing notes between two groups), it could affect how the court views OpenAI’s decisions and Musk’s claims about the company’s direction.
Source: NYTimes