\n<\/p>\n
Every morning during the Elon Musk\u2013Sam Altman trial, before the jury files in, the lawyers from both sides hold their daily squabble sessions with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. They\u2019re some of the most sharp-elbowed and revealing portions of the proceedings, as the attorneys debate with the judge over what is or isn\u2019t fair game to discuss in front of the jury.<\/p>\n
One morning the topic of Armageddon came up.<\/p>\n
Musk\u2019s attorney Steven Molo had been leaning into the existential dangers of artificial intelligence in his questioning of his client and planned to keep going. Developing the technology safely and for the benefit of humanity was, after all, at the core of OpenAI\u2019s nonprofit mission and the very thing Musk\u2019s lawsuit claims the company has abandoned.<\/p>\n
OpenAI\u2019s lawyers weren\u2019t having it, and Judge Gonzalez Rogers was increasingly irritated by all the sci-fi being thrown around. Molo responded by loudly pleading his case that AI risks were arguably the<\/em> most important topic at hand.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a real risk. We all could die as a result of artificial intelligence,\u201d the lanky Chicagoan implored, leaning into the microphone.<\/p>\n William Savitt, OpenAI\u2019s wry and understated attorney, pushed back on the relevance, and the sides began talking over each other until the judge finally cut them off.<\/p>\n \u201cStop! Both of you!\u201d Gonzalez Rogers said, a silence settling over the teams of lawyers. She then turned to Molo.<\/p>\n William Savitt, representing OpenAI, speaks to press outside the federal court in Oakland, California.<\/p>\n <\/span>David Paul Morris\/Bloomberg\/Getty Images<\/span><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n \u201cIt is ironic that your client, despite these risks, is creating a company that is in the exact space,\u201d Gonzalez Rogers said. She was referring to Musk\u2019s OpenAI competitor, xAI. \u201cI suspect there are plenty of people who wouldn\u2019t like to put the future of humanity in Mr. Musk\u2019s hands.\u201d<\/p>\n She went on, now addressing both sides: \u201cThis is not a trial on the safety risks of AI; this is not a trial on whether AI has damaged humanity. It could be that one day in a federal court in this country we may have that trial.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n