AI大战彻底打响,马斯克与OpenAI今日将对簿公堂,彻底闹崩

marsbitPublished on 2026-04-27Last updated on 2026-04-27

4月27日消息,日前马斯克和人工智能初创公司OpenAI上演对簿公堂。

一边是特斯拉、SpaceX、xAI、X平台老板马斯克;另一边是手握ChatGPT、背后站着微软的AI巨头OpenAI,CEO是萨姆·奥特曼。

小雷认为,这妥妥的是一场关于AI控制权的终极对决。

令人唏嘘的是,十年前他俩还是并肩创业的合伙人,十年后直接法庭相见,这剧情比好莱坞还刺激。

马斯克这次起诉不是为了钱。虽然他之前曾提出高达1340亿美元的天价赔偿,但现在已经放弃个人赔偿,但要求是法院把胜诉所得资金全部返还给OpenAI的公益部门。

图源:微博

他真正想要的,是撤销OpenAI这些年的营利化重组,让它彻底变回2015年创立时那个纯粹的非营利机构,还要把奥特曼从管理层位置上拉下来。

而OpenAI这边呢,觉得没钱根本搞不出顶尖AI,商业化是活下去的唯一出路。

说到这儿,有很多网友吐槽马斯克“双标”,因为马斯克现在手里的公司基本都是营利性的。

比如特斯拉,全球市值最高的汽车公司,卖车、卖FSD自动驾驶,妥妥商业巨头。SpaceX,发射火箭搞星链,也是奔着上市大赚一笔去的。还有他2023年新创立的xAI,推出Grok模型直接对标ChatGPT,目的就是在AI市场分一杯羹。

结果现在马斯克反而站出来起诉OpenAI过度商业化。自这波操作别说网友了,小雷都看懵了。

马斯克和OpenAI闹到今天这个地步,其实不是一两天的矛盾。

2015年,马斯克、奥特曼、布罗克曼这帮人凑到一起创立了OpenAI。当时的定位是非营利机构,开源共享不为赚钱。马斯克当时一口气捐了3800万美元,占早期融资的60%,可以说没有马斯克就没有今天的OpenAI。

但搞AI太烧钱了,每年几十亿美元往里砸,非营利组织根本扛不住。马斯克当时提了个方案:我来继续投钱,但OpenAI得并入特斯拉由我说了算。这个要求被奥特曼团队直接拒绝了。他们觉得这违背了当初非营利的初心。

谈崩后,马斯克一气之下退出了OpenAI董事会,彻底切断资金支持,双方正式决裂。

而OpenAI为了活下去,2019年做出了那个改变命运的决定:重组为“有限营利”公司,引入微软10亿美元投资,后来又追加到130亿美元。从此OpenAI走上商业化,ChatGPT一出火遍全球,估值一路飙到8500亿美元,离上市只差一步。

马斯克一看这情况,彻底坐不住了。你跟微软绑在一起赚得盆满钵满,把当初的初心忘得一干二净。于是2023年马斯克亲自下场创立xAI,推出Grok模型直接跟OpenAI硬刚。

图源:微博

2024年,他正式起诉OpenAI,矛盾彻底摆上台面,小雷认为结局有两种。

如果马斯克胜诉: OpenAI的营利化重组被撤销,变回非营利机构,微软的投资和控制权直接打水漂,刚要推进的IPO计划彻底泡汤。奥特曼和布罗克曼被罢免,OpenAI管理层大换血,未来发展充满不确定性。

如果OpenAI胜诉:马斯克诉求被驳回,OpenAI商业化之路彻底走通,微软的地位更加稳固,IPO顺利推进,估值可能进一步暴涨。

值得一提的是,马斯克与OpenAI的诉讼案已经开庭审理,谁会赢目前还不得而知。不妨先让子弹飞一会儿。

话说回来,马斯克到底是真的在乎AI的公益初心,还是单纯眼红OpenAI的巨大成功,目前还不得而知。

说到最后,你觉得马斯克能赢得这次诉讼吗?欢迎在评论区留言说说你的想法。

本文来自微信公众号 “价值研究所”(ID:jiazhiyanjiusuo),作者:雷科技互联网组

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit7m ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit7m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit24m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit24m ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit2h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of AI (AI) are presented below.

活动图片