The core conflict isn't just about AI philosophy. Both Musk and Altman possess the rare skill of brokering multi-billion dollar capital flows from finance into deep tech. They are direct competitors for controlling this crucial 'trade route' of capital, which is the true source of their animosity.

Unlike typical corporate structures, OpenAI's governing documents were designed with the unusual ability for the board to destroy and dismantle itself. This was a built-in failsafe, acknowledging that their AI creation could become so powerful that self-destruction might be the safest option for humanity.

Altman’s prominent role as the face of OpenAI products despite his 0% ownership stake highlights a shift where control over narrative and access to capital is more valuable than direct ownership. This “modern mercantilism” values influence and power over traditional cap table percentages.

Leaked deposition transcripts from Ilya Sutskever reveal a stark conflict during the OpenAI coup. When executives warned that Sam Altman's absence would destroy the company, board member Helen Toner allegedly countered that allowing its destruction would be consistent with OpenAI's safety-focused mission, highlighting the extreme ideological divide.

The detailed failure of the anti-Altman coup, planned for a year yet executed without a PR strategy, raises a critical question. If these leaders cannot manage a simple corporate power play, their competence to manage the far greater risks of artificial general intelligence is undermined.

Testimony from OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever has revealed that during the 2023 leadership crisis, a merger with top rival Anthropic was actively discussed. The potential deal, which could have installed Anthropic's CEO at the helm, highlights the deep instability at OpenAI during that period.

The rhetoric around AI's existential risks is framed as a competitive tactic. Some labs used these narratives to scare investors, regulators, and potential competitors away, effectively 'pulling up the ladder' to cement their market lead under the guise of safety.

A fundamental tension within OpenAI's board was the catch-22 of safety. While some advocated for slowing down, others argued that being too cautious would allow a less scrupulous competitor to achieve AGI first, creating an even greater safety risk for humanity. This paradox fueled internal conflict and justified a rapid development pace.

OpenAI's creation wasn't just a tech venture; it was a direct reaction by Elon Musk to a heated debate with Google's founders. They dismissed his concerns about AI dominance by calling him "speciesist," prompting Musk to fund a competitor focused on building AI aligned with human interests, rather than one that might treat humans like pets.