Why do so many Americans hate Sam Altman

The jury sat in Court No. 9 of the Federal Court of Auckland, California, yesterday, nine people were sitting as "advisory juries" to attend a trial that was expected to last four weeks, culminating in a recommendation to Judge Rogers. Today, Tuesday, the opening statement will begin shortly。

Just the same day that the jury was selected yesterday, OpenAI announced a new amendment agreement with Microsoft. This deal kills one thing. Microsoft's exclusive authorization of OpenAI intellectual property, gone. And this, in 2019, was the last lock on OpenAI when it turned into a "profit-limited" structure。

What exactly did Mask tell you

Reuters reported and the CNBC diary combed a list of cases two weeks before the hearing. Musk initially filed 26 charges in 2024, ranging from securities fraud, extortion (RICO) to antimonopoly. There are only two cases before the court today: improper enrichment and breach of the charitable trust。

The remaining 24 were either dismissed by the judge at the motion stage or withdrawn by Mask himself. A few days before the trial, he voluntarily withdrew part of the charge of "fraud" and focused the case on the most central and simple sentence: "OpenAI promised me that it would never be for profit," which is not。

To that effect, Mask claims a maximum of $13.4 billion. In accordance with his complaint, the compensation was returned in full to the non-profit part of OpenAI, but sought the removal of Ottoman and Brockman and the withdrawal of the profit conversion package. This is the "real core" of the case. It's not about stock distribution. It's Openai, this shell, who exactly belongs。

Judge Gonzalez Rogers divided the trial into two stages. We'll finish by mid-May. If the liability is established, damages are awarded. The jury was only involved in the first stage and only consulted. The final judgement rests with the judge. This means that for Mask it is more important to win the "dissemination war" than to win the "compensation." The jury was convinced that “the company made a commitment to donors that year and then systematically dismantled it”. As long as these nine nod, the rest of the puzzle judges will fight for him。

OpenAI's strategy is almost mirrored. Let the jury believe that the real motive for the Mask case was competition for jealousy, not trust violation. OpenAI's official account opened fire on the day of jury selection: "We can't wait to show our evidence in court, the truth and the law are on our side." The lawsuit has been a baseless, jealous competition that has finally given us the opportunity to take the oath before a California jury."

Watch out for the phrase "Let Mask testify." This is the strategy, which OpenAI really wanted, to shape Mask in this public court as "the XAI founder who lost to OpenAI." Convince the judge in the second time. So that ordinary California residents in the jury would bring this filter to court。

How did OpenAI's locks get removed

To understand why Mask is so angry, we have to understand the three locks that OpenAI set for ourselves in 2019, each with a clear design intent。

You'll find something. In 2019, OpenAI was proving to donors that even if we wanted to make money, there was a limit to what we wanted to make, and that something had to stop. OpenAI, April 27, 2026, is proving to investors that we have no brakes。

THE PROFIT CEILING IS MOST DIRECTLY INTERPRETED. OTMAN’S EMPLOYEE LETTER OF 2025 STATES THAT THE “PROFIT-LIMIT” STRUCTURE IS REASONABLE IN THE WORLD OF ONLY ONE AGI COMPANY AND NO LONGER APPLIES WHEN THERE ARE MANY COMPETITIONS”. IT'S A BIG WHITE STORY: I GOT A RIVAL, SO I GOT TO MAKE MORE MONEY。

The decomposition of the AGI trigger clause is the most delicate. The original "achieving AGI is terminating Microsoft's business authorization" meant that AGI was public good, human, and OpenAI would not privatize it. After this rewriting, AGI was certified by an "independent panel of experts " , the Microsoft mandate was extended to 2032, explicitly "covering the model after AGI" and Microsoft was allowed to pursue AGI independently. This is a version of a lock core that even uses the key "Definition who's AGI."。

The last one was a monopoly. Its dismantling took place at that moment when the jury in Mask was sitting. The division is completely delinked from the OpenAI technological progress, which means that even if OpenAI really announced that it had reached AGI tomorrow, no commercial terms would trigger a change。

The Mask side will argue in court that this was a deliberate removal of the protective mechanism. OpenAI will argue that this is a necessary adjustment in a competitive environment. But one thing will not be refuted by either side. The 2019 self-restraint list, it's all left today。

Scam Altman. Why do so many people hate Ottman

On the day of jury selection, X was much more popular than in court. After two hours of fire from the official account of OpenAI, Mask reciprocated with seven tweets. Quick speech, heavy words, rhythm. Typical Mask-type. He gave him a nickname: Scam Altman。

He also forwarded a video clip from the former director of OpenAI, Helen Toner, in which Toner said, "Sam is a liar"。

"Sam is a liar." That's not what Mask said. OpenAI, former CTO Mira Murati, said when she left office that Ilya Sutskever had said in the "attempted coup d'état" that Jan Leike had resigned publicly with the entire super team。

There are three groups of people who hate Sam Otmann. The reasons vary。

The first is the old OpenAI board. The landmark event was the five-day dismissal wave in November 2023. The Board used the phrase “not always honest in its communication with the Board”。

What exactly? In May 2024, Helen Toner publicly stated that the board was aware from Twitter that his company had published a product that would reshape the global AI industry. It also claimed that Ottman had concealed his possession of OpenAI Startup Fund and repeatedly stated that "I have no financial interest in the company" until April 2024。

On several occasions, inaccurate information was provided to the Board on security processes. The two executives reported the "psychological abuse" of Ottman to the Board and provided evidence of the "false and manipulative" interception. After Toner published a research paper that OpenAI did not like, Otmann tried to squeeze her off the board。

The second batch is the old OpenAI security pie。

In May 2024, OpenAI's "Super Alignment Team" collapsed almost overnight. The leader of the resignation was one of Jan Leeke, OpenAI's most senior AI security researchers. The letter of resignation he wrote on X was one of the sharpest exits in the year of the AI Circle, stating that "safe culture and processes have given way to shining products"

Then Ilya Sutskever, co-founder and chief scientist of OpenAI, one of the key sponsors of the attempted coup. Subsequently, CTO Mira Murati (who temporarily took over the company during Otmann ' s dismissal), the Chief Research Officer, Bob McGrew, and the Research Vice-President, Barret Zoph, resigned during the same week. The "non-derogatory agreement" scandal came to light after that. Separated staff are required to sign confidentiality agreements or waive their equity。

The third was the contract pie of the old Silicon Valley, the most difficult to define and the largest。

They include early donors like Mask in 2015, including early OpenAI employees who really believe in "non-profit missions," including many angel investors who gambled early on in Silicon Valley, and a significant number of neutral observers who treated OpenAI as "common heritage of mankind"。

The common denominator of this group is that they have paid the non-monetary price of OpenAI ' s promises, fame, time, trust, social capital. And the last thing they can't forgive about Ottmann is that every time OpenAI breaks his lock, he says, "This is a mission."。

When the profit cap was lifted, he said, “in order to keep OpenAI engaged in AGI research”; when the AGI trigger clause was rewrited, he said, “in order for OpenAI to be able to carry out its mission after AGI”; and when Microsoft withdrew, he said, “in order to move OpenAI towards a wider cooperative ecology”。

And that's why some people in Silicon Valley are reluctant to stand by Mask in this case。

The amount of promise made in Silicon Valley is four weeks away

I think you've got a good look. They're not fighting for money。

Money is OpenAI's thing. Ottman's OpenAI in 2026 is already a private AI CEO with a market value of over $500 billion. Mask in 2026, also in the age of Grok 5, Anthropic is the one he's chasing, Openai is the one he's going to go over, he's not missing。

THEY ARGUE ABOUT A MATTER THAT ALMOST ONLY A FEW LONG-TERM PARTICIPANTS IN SILICON VALLEY CARE ABOUT. CAN A NON-PROFIT INSTITUTION THAT COLLECTS MONEY FROM SOCIETY IN THE NAME OF "THE COMMON GOOD OF MANKIND", ACCUMULATES MORAL CAPITAL, RECRUITS TALENT, OBTAINS REGULATORY IMMUNITY, AND IN 10 YEARS CAN IT BE RECAST AS A PROFIT-MAKING COMPANY WITH A JOINT CEO AND VC STAKE

IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN EVERY AI START-UP COMPANY IN THE FUTURE CAN DO IT. THE TERM "NON-PROFIT" BECOMES A CHEAP EARLY NARRATIVE TOOL THAT IS USED TO OVERWHELM NEWS HEADLINES, OVER-REGULATION, OVER-STAFF RECRUITMENT, BEFORE BEING QUIETLY REMOVED WHEN THE VALUATION IS LARGE ENOUGH。

If Mask wins, Silicon Valley may have a long history of embarrassment. So what you said in 2015, in 2026, you're going to be turned over word for word to testify in the California Federal Court. If OpenAI wins, the world still runs the way Silicon Valley did for the last 10 years. Early storytelling, late scale, middle responsibility for breaking the compact between storytelling and scale。

There will be answers in four weeks. But the word "Scam Altman" has been carved in social media, and it's going to stop, no matter how the verdict goes. The reason Ottman disgusts so many people is that he makes people who believe him feel deceived. How much money is secondary。

It's not possible to quash the sentence。