OpenAI on Tuesday publicly responded to a lawsuit brought by co-founder Elon Musk, highlighting apparent hypocrisy on the part of the now-billionaire and early backer of the company.
In its response, OpenAI reproduced old emails from Musk in which the Tesla and SpaceX CEO encouraged the rising startup to raise at least $1 billion in funding, and agreed that it should “start being less open” over time and “not share” the company’s science with the public.
The reproduced messages follow a starkly different point of view Musk represented last week, when he sued OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman, alleging breach of contract and unfair competition.
In the suit, Musk’s attorneys allege that the inner workings of OpenAI’s GPT-4 AI model are “a complete secret except to OpenAI—and, on information and belief, Microsoft,” and that the secrecy is driven by commercial purpose rather than safety. OpenAI said, “We intend to move to dismiss all of Elon’s claims.”
In November, Musk told an audience at the The New York Times’ DealBook conference that OpenAI had deviated from its original mission in his view.
“OpenAI should be renamed ‘super closed source for maximum profit AI,’ because this is what it actually is,” Musk said onstage at the event. He noted that it’s transformed from an “open source foundation” to multibillion-dollar “for-profit corporation with closed source.”
By contrast, Musk appeared to discourage OpenAI co-founders from taking a too-lean approach to fundraising, according to emails the company reproduced from December 2018. He wrote that OpenAI had a zero-percent chance of becoming a relevant competitor to Google’s DeepMind unless the startup made a “dramatic change in execution and resources.”
“My probability assessment of OpenAI being relevant to DeepMind/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%. Not 1%. I wish it were otherwise,” Musk wrote in one email to fellow OpenAI co-founders Sutskever, Brockman and Altman. “Even raising several hundred million won’t be enough. This needs billions per year immediately or forget it.”
Musk is now the CEO of automaker Tesla, defense contractor SpaceX and the owner of X Corp., as well as the founder of brain computer interface startup Neuralink, and a would-be competitor to OpenAI that he named xAI.
Before he left OpenAI, the company said in its response to his lawsuit, “Elon wanted majority equity, initial board control, and to be CEO” of the AI venture. The startup also said in its blog post that Musk sought to become OpenAI’s CEO in 2017 as it was changing its structure.
Musk’s companies have, at times, attracted talent away from OpenAI. In the case of xAI, Musk positions the company’s first product, Grok, as competitive with OpenAI’s software ChatGPT.
In emails from January 2018 reproduced by OpenAI, Musk agrees with an unnamed sender who encouraged the startup’s co-founders to rely on Tesla as their “cash cow.” Going into the first quarter of 2018, Tesla reported a cash balance of $3.4 billion, after it reported a net loss of $2.24 billion for the full year in 2017 on revenue that year of $11.8 billion.
CNBC has not independently verified the authenticity of the emails included in OpenAI’s response on Tuesday, some of which contained partial redactions.
The “contract” at the heart of Musk’s recent lawsuit against OpenAI isn’t a formal written agreement signed by all parties involved in creating the company.
Instead, Musk via his attorneys argues that the early OpenAI team had forged agreements to develop artificial general intelligence, or AGI, “for the benefit of humanity” as a nonprofit. However, the project was transformed into a company with a complex corporate structure including a for-profit entity that Musk argues is largely controlled by Microsoft.
Musk used much of his legal complaint to remind the world of his central position in the creation of OpenAI, which has become one of the hottest startups on the planet, thanks largely to the viral spread of ChatGPT and image generator DALL-E.
OpenAI’s public response on Tuesday night mirrored executives’ memos sent to employees at the company last week.
Musk’s lawsuit and OpenAI’s response follow a rollercoaster few months for the company including board room drama, a reshuffling of the board and an investigation by financial regulators.
Attorneys for Elon Musk were not available to comment on Tuesday night after OpenAI published its response.
Lemon8, a photo-sharing app by Bytedance, and RedNote, a Shanghai-based content-sharing platform, have seen a surge in popularity in the U.S. as “TikTok refugees” migrate to alternative platforms ahead of a potential ban.
Now a law that could see TikTok shut down in the U.S. threatens to ensnare these Chinese social media apps, and others gaining traction as TikTok-alternatives, legal experts say.
As of Wednesday, RedNote — known as Xiaohongshu in China — was the top free app on the U.S. iOS store, with Lemon8 taking the second spot.
While the legislation explicitly names TikTok and ByteDance, experts say its scope is broad and could open the door for Washington to target additional Chinese apps.
“Chinese social media apps, including Lemon8 and RedNote, could also end up being banned under this law,” Tobin Marcus, head of U.S. policy and politics at New York-based research firm Wolfe Research, told CNBC.
If the TikTok ban is upheld, it will be unlikely that the law will allow potential replacements to originate from China without some form of divestiture, experts told CNBC.
PAFACA automatically applies to Lemon8 as it’s a subsidiary of ByteDance, while RedNote could fall under the law if its monthly average user base in the U.S. continues to grow, said Marcus.
The legislation prohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services to any “foreign adversary controlled application.”
These applications include those connected to ByteDance or TikTok or a social media company that is controlled by a “foreign adversary” and has been determined to present a significant threat to national security.
The wording of the legislation is “quite expansive” and would give incoming president Donald Trump room to decide which entities constitute a significant threat to national security, said Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond.
Xiaomeng Lu, Director of Geo‑technology at political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, told CNBC that the law will likely prevail, even if its implementation and enforcement are delayed. Regardless, she expects Chinese apps in the U.S. will continue to be the subject of increased regulatory action moving forward.
“The TikTok case has set a new precedent for Chinese apps to get targeted and potentially shut down,” Lu said.
The fate of TikTok rests with Supreme Court after the platform and its parent company filed a suit against the U.S. government, saying that invoking PAFACA violated constitutional protections of free speech.
TikTok’s argument is that the law is unconstitutional as applied to them specifically, not that it is unconstitutional per se, said Cornell Law Professor Gautam Hans. “So, regardless of whether TikTok wins or loses, the law could still potentially be applied to other companies,” he said.
The law’s defined purview is broad enough that it could be applied to a variety of Chinese apps deemed to be a national security threat, beyond traditional social media apps in the mold of TikTok, Hans said.
Trump, meanwhile, has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hold off on implementing PAFACA so he can pursue a “political resolution” after taking office. Democratic lawmakers have also urged Congress and President Joe Biden to extend the Jan. 19 deadline.
Synthesia is a platform that lets users create AI-generated clips with human avatars that can speak in multiple languages.
Synthesia
LONDON — Synthesia, a video platform that uses artificial intelligence to generate clips featuring multilingual human avatars, has raised $180 million in an investment round valuing the startup at $2.1 billion.
That’s more than than double the $1 billion Synthesia was worth in its last financing in 2023.
The London-based startup said Wednesday that the funding round was led by venture firm NEA with participation from Atlassian Ventures, World Innovation Lab and PSP Growth.
NEA counts Uber and TikTok parent company ByteDance among its portfolio companies. Synthesia is also backed by chip giant Nvidia.
Victor Riparbelli, CEO of Synthesia, told CNBC that investors appraised the businesses differently from other companies in the space due to its focus on “utility.”
“Of course, the hype cycle is beneficial to us,” Riparbelli said in an interview. “For us, what’s important is building an actually good business.”
Synthesia isn’t “dependent” on venture capital — as opposed to companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and Mistral, Riparbelli added.
These startups have raised billions of dollars at eye-watering valuations while burning through sizable amounts of money to train and develop their foundational AI models.
Read more CNBC reporting on AI
Synthesia’s not the only startup shaking up the world of video production with AI. Other startups offer solutions for producing and editing video content with AI, like Veed.io and Runway.
Meanwhile, the likes of OpenAI and Adobe have also developed generative AI tools for video creation.
Eric Liaw, a London-based partner at VC firm IVP, told CNBC that companies at the application layer of AI haven’t garnered as much investor hype as firms in the infrastructure layer.
“The amount of money that the application layer companies need to raise isn’t as large — and therefore the valuations aren’t necessarily as eye popping” as companies like Nvidia,” Liaw told CNBC last month.
Riparbelli said that money raised from the latest financing round would be used to invest in “more of the same,” furthering product development and investing more into security and compliance.
Last year, Synthesia made a series of updates to its platform, including the ability to produce AI avatars using a laptop webcam or phone, full-body avatars with arms and hands and a screen recording tool that has an AI avatar guide users through what they’re viewing.
On the AI safety front, in October Synthesia conducted a public red team test for risks around online harms, which demonstrated how the firm’s compliance controls counter attempts to create non-consensual deepfakes of people or use its avatars to encourage suicide, adult content or gambling.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology test was led by Rumman Chowdhury, a renowned data scientist who was formerly head of AI ethics at Twitter — before it became known as X under Elon Musk.
Riparbelli said that Synthesia is seeing increased interest from large enterprise customers, particularly in the U.S., thanks to its focus on security and compliance.
More than half of Synthesia’s annual revenue now comes from customers in the U.S., while Europe accounts for almost half.
Synthesia has also been ramping up hiring. The company recently tapped former Amazon executive Peter Hill as its chief technology officer. The company now employs over 400 people globally.
U.K. Technology Minister Peter Kyle said the investment “showcases the confidence investors have in British tech” and “highlights the global leadership of U.K.-based companies in pioneering generative AI innovations.”
The SEC filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk on Tuesday, alleging the billionaire committed securities fraud in 2022 by failing to disclose his ownership in Twitter and buying shares at “artificially low prices.”
Musk, who is also CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, purchased Twitter for $44 billion, later changing the name of the social network to X. Prior to the acquisition he’d built up a position in the company of greater than 5%, which would’ve required disclosing his holding to the public.
According to the SEC complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., Musk withheld that material information, “allowing him to underpay by at least $150 million for shares he purchased after his financial beneficial ownership report was due.”
The SEC had been investigating whether Musk, or anyone else working with him, committed securities fraud in 2022 as the Tesla CEO sold shares in his car company and shored up his stake in Twitter ahead of his leveraged buyout. Musk said in a post on X last month that the SEC issued a “settlement demand,” pressuring him to agree to a deal including a fine within 48 hours or “face charges on numerous counts” regarding the purchase of shares.
Musk’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, said in an emailed statement that the action is an admission by the SEC that “they cannot bring an actual case.” He added that Musk “has done nothing wrong” and called the suit a “sham” and the result of a “multi-year campaign of harassment,” culminating in a “single-count ticky tak complaint.”
Musk is just a week away from having a potentially influential role in government, as President-elect Donald Trump’s second term begins on Jan. 20. Musk, who was a major financial backer of Trump in the latter stages of the campaign, is poised to lead an advisory group that will focus in part on reducing regulations, including those that affect Musk’s various companies.
In July, Trump vowed to fire SEC chairman Gary Gensler. After Trump’s election victory, Gensler announced that he would be resigning from his post instead.
In a separate civil lawsuit concerning the Twitter deal, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System sued Musk, accusing him of deliberately concealing his progressive investments in the social network and intent to buy the company. The pension fund’s attorneys argued that Musk, by failing to clearly disclose his investments, had influenced other shareholders’ decisions and put them at a disadvantage.
The SEC said that Musk crossed the 5% ownership threshold in March 2022 and would have been required to disclose his holdings by March 24.
“On April 4, 2022, eleven days after a report was due, Musk finally publicly disclosed his beneficial ownership in a report with the SEC, disclosing that he had acquired over nine percent of Twitter’s outstanding stock,” the complaint says. “That day, Twitter’s stock price increased more than 27% over its previous day’s closing price.”
The SEC alleges that Musk spent over $500 million purchasing more Twitter shares during the time between the required disclosure and the day of his actual filing. That enabled him to buy stock from the “unsuspecting public at artificially low prices,” the complaint says. He “underpaid” Twitter shareholders by over $150 million during that period, according to the SEC.
In the complaint, the SEC is seeking a jury trial and asks that Musk be forced to “pay disgorgement of his unjust enrichment” as well as a civil penalty.
