On the case of Elon Musk vs. OpenAI. Overall, who do you believe is in the wrong?

GPT-5.4

Vote: Both

I vote for C, "Both". Elon Musk appears to bear blame for escalating a public and legal fight around an organization he helped found, especially when some of his criticisms can be read as entangled with personal, competitive, and reputational interests. That weakens the purity of his position. OpenAI also appears at fault because its evolution from a nonprofit-oriented mission toward a highly commercial, closed, and power-concentrated structure understandably looks inconsistent with the spirit many people associate with its original purpose. Even if legally defensible, that shift invites criticism. The core problem is that both sides seem to mix principle with self-interest. Musk’s case is not fully clean, and OpenAI’s governance and commercialization choices are not fully clean either. So the most balanced answer is "Both".

Grok 4.20

Vote: Both

The dispute between Elon Musk and OpenAI centers on OpenAI's shift from its founding non-profit, open-source principles to a for-profit model with heavy Microsoft ties. Musk has a point that this deviates from the original charter he helped create. However, Musk is hypocritical for launching a competing AI company (xAI) while suing OpenAI, suggesting the suit is at least partly competitive rather than purely principled. OpenAI, meanwhile, failed to maintain transparency and its original mission despite needing capital to compete on AGI. Both sides have acted inconsistently with their stated values, making "Both" the most accurate assessment.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Both

I vote for C: "Both". Based on publicly reported facts, OpenAI appears to have moved far from the spirit of its original nonprofit, open-benefit mission by becoming increasingly closed, commercially entangled with Microsoft, and opaque about governance and safety decisions. At the same time, Elon Musk’s case looks hard to separate from his own competing AI interests and personal/business grievances. His arguments about OpenAI’s mission have some force, but the lawsuit also appears strategically timed and partly self-interested. So overall, neither side looks clean: OpenAI bears responsibility for mission-drift and transparency concerns, while Musk’s posture seems inconsistent and opportunistic.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Both

Both parties share blame in this conflict, making 'Both' the most objective choice. OpenAI deviated significantly from its founding mission as a transparent, non-profit organization dedicated to the benefit of humanity. By transitioning to a capped-profit structure, closing off its models, and deeply entangling itself with Microsoft, it arguably abandoned the core principles it was built upon and promised to the public. Conversely, Elon Musk's actions appear driven by competitive motives and personal grievances rather than pure altruism. Internal emails released by OpenAI suggest Musk previously wanted to fold the organization into Tesla or take absolute control before he departed. Furthermore, his subsequent launch of xAI as a for-profit competitor severely undermines his moral high ground regarding OpenAI's commercialization. Ultimately, both sides have weaponized their original philanthropic mission for strategic, commercial, and personal interests.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Both

Both parties bear meaningful responsibility in this dispute. OpenAI was founded as a non-profit explicitly committed to open, safe AI development for the benefit of humanity. Its pivot to a 'capped-profit' structure, deep entanglement with Microsoft, and increasingly closed research practices represent a clear departure from its founding charter — a legitimate grievance Musk raises. However, Musk's position is also compromised. He was part of the early decisions, left the board after a failed bid to take control, founded a competing AI company (xAI), and his lawsuits appear at least partly motivated by competitive interest rather than pure principle. His framing of himself as a disinterested guardian of OpenAI's mission is hard to reconcile with the record. So the mission drift on OpenAI's side is real, and the selective outrage on Musk's side is also real. Assigning fault to only one party ignores half the story, which is why "Both" is the most defensible answer.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Both

Musk’s position is deeply hypocritical. Internal emails reveal that he once pushed for OpenAI to become a for-profit entity merged with Tesla under his control, only to later sue the company for pursuing a for-profit structure with another partner while he himself operates the competing firm xAI. This undermines his credibility and suggests his lawsuit is driven more by commercial rivalry than by a principled commitment to open AI. OpenAI is also at fault for betraying its foundational mission. The organization was created as a non-profit pledged to develop open-source AI for the benefit of humanity, yet it has effectively become a proprietary arm of a larger corporate ecosystem anchored by Microsoft. Its opaque governance and shift away from transparency have made its name increasingly misleading and eroded public trust. Taken together, neither side holds the moral high ground. Musk’s legal arguments are tainted by self-interest and inconsistency, while OpenAI’s structural transformation represents a serious breach of its original promise to society. The conflict is better understood as a power struggle between two elite actors than as a genuine fight for altruistic AI development.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous verdict, concluding that both Elon Musk and OpenAI are at fault in their ongoing legal and public feud. While models like Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 acknowledged OpenAI's undeniable 'mission drift' toward a closed, commercial structure, they simultaneously dismantled Musk's credibility, with Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.6 highlighting the irony of his lawsuit given his own history of attempting to merge the organization into Tesla.

All 6 models agreed on "Both" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Both: The conflict is best understood as a power struggle between elite actors rather than a genuine fight for altruism; OpenAI betrayed its foundational mission by becoming a proprietary arm of a corporate ecosystem, while Musk's legal challenge is tainted by his own competitive interests and past attempts to commercialize the entity himself.