Forced to answer the question "Are you trustworthy?" in court, Altman admitted to lying and engaging in cross-investment conflicts of interest.

According to Dynasty Beating Monitor, during the cross-examination phase of Musk v. OpenAI case, Musk's proxy attorney Steven Molo bypassed the intricate architectural dispute and launched a direct series of attacks on OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's personal ethics and integrity.

“Are you a completely trustworthy person?“ “Do you only say what others want to hear, regardless of the truth?” Faced with a plethora of former employee testimonies presented by the attorney, Altman abandoned a perfect defense. He admitted in court, “There have indeed been moments in my life where I did not tell the truth,” and confessed to hearing business partners refer to him as a “fraud” behind his back.

To prove that Altman is using OpenAI for personal gain, the attorney dramatically presented a glaring “Conflict of Interest List”: Altman's substantial personal investments in the nuclear fusion startup Helion Energy and chip manufacturer Cerebras, both deeply engaged in business partnerships with OpenAI. Faced with a pointed question, “As a board member, would you fire yourself for engaging in these behaviors,” Altman responded bluntly, “I do not intend to do so.”

As this round of questioning concluded, Musk's camp's tactical intent was thoroughly exposed: since it is challenging to completely undermine OpenAI, valued at $730 billion, on business logic alone, the strategy is now to firmly nail its helmsman to the moral pillar of "self-enrichment and blatant lies."