Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has made an audacious move to reclaim influence over OpenAI—the company he co-founded in 2015 but later distanced himself from. Backed by a powerful consortium of investors, the CEO of X, Tesla and SpaceX, reportedly offered $97.4 billion to acquire OpenAI’s nonprofit arm, aiming to restore its original mission of open-source, safety-first AI development.
Musk’s Bold Attempt to Take Over OpenAI
The takeover bid, was first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Monday (Feb. 10), citing Musk’s attorney, Marc Toberoff.
“It’s time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was. We will make sure that happens,” Musk declared in a statement provided by Toberoff.
Among the high-profile backers of Musk’s bid are Valor Equity Partners, Baron Capital, Atreides Management, Vy Capital, 8VC, and Endeavor CEO Ari Emanuel—a coalition that suggests Musk is not alone in his belief that OpenAI has strayed from its intended path.
Toberoff reinforced Musk’s position, arguing that if OpenAI’s leadership intends to fully embrace a for-profit structure, it should compensate the nonprofit for relinquishing control over “the most transformative technology of our time.”
Altman’s Swift Rejection & The Counteroffer That Shook the Internet
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wasted no time in rejecting Musk’s offer. In a move that shocked the tech world, Altman responded with a bold counteroffer—offering to buy X (formerly Twitter) for just $97.4 billion.
“No thank you, but we will buy Twitter for $97.4 billion if you want,” Altman posted on X.
The response not only dismissed Musk’s ambitions but also underscored the growing tensions between the two tech titans. Altman’s OpenAI has rapidly become a dominant force in the AI space, with ChatGPT leading the charge as one of the world’s most widely used AI applications. Meanwhile, Musk’s own AI venture, xAI, has struggled to gain comparable traction, despite launching the rival chatbot Grok.
A Battle Over the Soul of AI
This latest confrontation goes beyond business—it’s a battle over AI’s future direction and governance.
- Musk’s Vision: AI should be open-source, controlled by non-profit organizations, and developed with a strong focus on safety. He has frequently warned that OpenAI’s current trajectory risks prioritizing corporate interests over human welfare.
- Altman’s Approach: AI progress must be practical and commercially sustainable. Under his leadership, OpenAI has secured massive investments from Microsoft ($13 billion) and integrated its models into leading software products worldwide.
Musk has long criticized OpenAI’s shift from a nonprofit research lab to a profit-driven corporation, arguing that it no longer serves the broader good of humanity. Altman, on the other hand, contends that commercialization is necessary to fund the research and development needed to build safe and powerful AI systems.
What Comes Next?
Musk’s rejection and Altman’s counteroffer mark a dramatic turning point in the AI industry’s power struggle. While OpenAI has successfully deflected Musk’s takeover attempt, the saga is far from over.
- Musk could escalate his efforts, possibly through legal action or regulatory challenges to OpenAI’s structure.
- Microsoft, OpenAI’s key financial backer, may take further steps to ensure its dominance in AI remains unchallenged.
- xAI could intensify competition, as Musk aims to position Grok as a viable alternative to OpenAI’s models.
One thing is clear: the battle for AI’s future is not just about money—it’s about ideology, ethics, and control over one of the most powerful technologies ever created.
UPDATE 13/02/2025
Elon Musk is willing to withdraw his $97.4 billion bid for OpenAI’s nonprofit arm if the ChatGPT maker stops its conversion into a for-profit enterprise, according to a court filing.
“If OpenAI, Inc.‘s Board is prepared to preserve the charity’s mission and stipulate to take the ‘for sale’ sign off its assets by halting its conversion, Musk will withdraw the bid,” read the filing, which was submitted Wednesday to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. “Otherwise, the charity must be compensated by what an arms-length buyer will pay for its assets,” it added.
