This week, the attorneys for Elon Musk vs OpenAI presented their final arguments. Now, it is up to the jury to determine if OpenAI committed any wrongdoing in its transformation into a somewhat more-for-profit company.

However, as Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I pointed out in the most recent episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, a major theme in the trial’s closing days was whether OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is reliable. For instance, Steve Molo, Musk’s lawyer, questioned Altman about the veracity of statements he had made during congressional testimony.

Kirsten pointed out that Musk has made numerous false claims of his own and that Altman is not the only one who struggles with trust.

“For many tech journalists, legislators, and an increasing number of customers, this is a basic question [about] all the AI labs,” she stated. “It really comes down to trust because we do not necessarily have the insight—these are all privately held firms; there is still a lot behind the veil.”

A summary of our discussion, edited for clarity and length, may be found by continuing to read.

Anthony Ha: One of our writers, Tim Fernholz, came up with a pretty daring title at the end of the trial that simply asks, “Who trusts Sam Altman?” Would someone like to attempt to answer this?

Kirsten Korosec: I will give it back to you, Anthony. Is Sam Altman someone you trust?

Anthony: It is an intriguing question because, although it seems like a bit of a strange topic to address in a journalistic setting, in many respects, that is the main point of the trial.

Sean O’Kane: The answer is no.

Anthony: In fact, it appears to be fundamental to comprehending a great deal of what has transpired at OpenAI, particularly this significant executive power struggle that they now refer to as “The Blip.”

Simply put, it appears that many individuals who have collaborated with Altman lack confidence in him. And he has admitted this to some extent because he will discuss how he is attempting to address his conflict aversion and his tendency to tell people what they want to hear.

I mean, it makes sense, and I can see how that may cause miscommunication in some circumstances. However, I am also quite conflict-averse, so I would like to think that if any of this went to trial, people would not be wondering, “Is Anthony Ha trustworthy?”

Sean: I am still not sure!

Kirsten: I believe that you are trustworthy. Even while the question is thought-provoking, it does not fully capture the essence of this trial. This is a critical question [for] many tech journalists, policymakers, and an increasing number of consumers regarding all the AI labs, I would argue, zooming out even further. Since these businesses are all privately held and there is still much hidden behind the scenes, it truly comes down to trust.

We might get a glimpse when they all go public, but trust and abuse are at the core of this, and can we trust the intent? What I would add is that occasionally good intentions can be abused. Even yet, it might turn out to be a bit of a s— show. Although Sam Altman’s trustworthiness was a fascinating aspect of this trial, I believe the issue is more broadly applicable to the industry as a whole.

Sean: To be honest, I do not trust him. However, I suppose that is just the baseline because I do not trust most people.

We will watch how this develops. Today is the last day of the trial. I have been eager to learn how the jury makes all of these decisions. I believe that Elon Musk’s initial attempt to disparage a rival and someone he felt had wronged him was a major driving force behind this. Furthermore, I am not sure if we know enough to conclude that he has a chance to win or if that was fully accomplished. However, I believe that each of these individuals looked slightly worse after this.

Anthony: before be more precise, the reason this is happening this week is that [Altman] was being questioned about remarks he had previously made in testimony before [Congress], essentially claiming he had no ownership stake in OpenAI. And he held a stake through Y Combinator, which he used to operate, therefore it is untrue. “I assume that everybody understands what it means to be a passive investor in a VC fund,” he said in an attempt to dismiss that. And to be fair, I believe [Elon Musk’s] attorney said, “Really? Do you believe the congressman who conducted your interview was aware of that?

Kirsten: He was really playing the semantics game. The way Sam Altman responded to questions [in contrast to] Elon Musk on the stand is what I found so fascinating about [this].

Therefore, we can refer to the fact that Elon Musk posted something on Twitter that was a lie or a bit of a fib and then corrected the record while testifying. In contrast to Altman, who really adopted this [attitude of], “I am working on it,” and tried to seem sort of affable, I am not sure if that will work for him. Elon Musk has a history of, I would say, non-truthfulness-slash-lying, blatant or not, but how he handled it was extremely combative.

Because the jury should focus on the essential facts, which are what actually matter. However, I found that to be extremely intriguing—both of them were lying, but they handled it in quite different ways.