在上周 Elon Musk 对 OpenAI 提起的未决诉讼庭审中，他在证词里主张此案关系到人类存亡，告知陪审团若 AI 失控可能走向「Terminator」场景，最坏情况可能「全部被杀」。他将 OpenAI 从创立初期的非营利定位转向营利模式描绘为核心风险来源，尽管他是在 2015 年加入该机构，当时主要是因为担心主要竞争者对 AI 安全不足。
在交叉诘问中，这种叙事因 OpenAI 律师强调，包含他自己的 xAI 在内的所有以营利为目的的公司都面临相同的 AI 安全风险而显得削弱；法庭似乎也接受了该论点。Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 法官在「末日」发言后即刻插话，表示该诉讼不会讨论「灭绝」议题。Musk 亦承认，自己早先与 Sam Altman 等人在十年前共同成立 OpenAI，并非因为已确立非营利优势，而是因他在当时认为谷歌在 AI 安全上不够警觉。
这场听证显示其一贯模式：Musk 常以长期灾难叙事来服务短期商业或政治目标。过去他曾称 X（前 Twitter）是「文明未来」之战，将 SolarCity 与 Tesla 合并描绘成「地球解方」，并将电动车与可再生能源叙事为避免气候崩坏的关键；但 2024 年在与 Donald Trump 对话中，他又表示自己认为全球变暖风险没有外界说得那么高，且不再妖魔化石油与天然气。特斯拉后续未再披露太阳能部署数据，且太阳能安装呈明显下滑，但其储能业务持续增长，文章借此指出其「末日论」与商业激励在法庭对话中逐渐分离。
In last week’s testimony in Elon Musk’s ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI, he framed the case as one about humanity’s fate, telling jurors that uncontrolled AI could trigger a “Terminator” scenario and even “kill us all.” He portrayed OpenAI’s shift from its original nonprofit structure into a profit model as the central social threat, even though he joined the company in 2015 out of concern that major competitors, especially Google, were not taking AI safety seriously enough.
During cross-examination, that narrative weakened when OpenAI counsel argued that for-profit entities—including Musk’s own xAI—face the same core AI safety risks as OpenAI, an argument that appeared persuasive in court. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers curtailed the apocalyptic framing and explicitly said the case would not be litigating extinction. Musk also acknowledged he co-founded OpenAI with Sam Altman a decade ago not from proof that nonprofit is safer, but from fear, during an early research race, that AI safety was being neglected.
The hearing fit a wider pattern Musk often uses: high-end catastrophe framing to defend near-term interests. He has called X a “battle for the future of civilization,” sold SolarCity and Tesla integration as “Earth’s solution,” and presented EVs and renewables as remedies for climate disruption. Yet in 2024, in conversation with Donald Trump, he downplayed global warming severity and said he did not want to vilify oil and gas. Tesla later stopped disclosing solar-deployment metrics and its solar installations reportedly fell sharply, while its energy-storage segment surged, supporting the article’s argument that his rhetoric and incentives diverged when speculative “doom” claims were constrained in court.