Musk v. Altman week 3: Elon Musk and Sam Altman traded blows over each other's credibility. Now the jury will pick a side. The trial spilled plenty of dirt--and raised more questions than answers about how the AI giant should be governed. In the final week of the trial, lawyers traded blows over Elon Musk's and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's credibility. Altman was grilled on his alleged history of lying and self-dealing involving companies that do business with OpenAI. But he fired back, painting Musk as a power-seeker who wanted to control the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI)--powerful AI that can compete with humans on most cognitive tasks.

A federal jury is now deciding whether Elon Musk will win his lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman--but the trial has made everyone look bad. Attorneys delivered closing arguments in the trial on Thursday in a final attempt to convince a judge and jury that their respective clients, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, are the most well-intentioned, truth-telling stewards of OpenAI's founding nonprofit mission. A judgement could be delivered as soon as next week, ending a decade-long battle between two of the technology industry's most influential entrepreneurs. But regardless of the outcome, there is a wide set of losers in this case. Based on ample amounts of evidence, it appears that the people worst off are the employees, policymakers, and members of the public who believed in the mission of a nonprofit research lab--and supported OpenAI because of it.

Google has been back in federal court to fend off the United States Department of Justice's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it is navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence (AI) that could undercut its power. On Friday, the legal and technological threats facing Google were among the key issues being dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared an illegal monopoly by US District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers are attempting to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google lawyers say only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. Mehta used Friday's hearing to ask probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps' proposed remedies.

As former President Donald Trump awaits a Manhattan jury's verdict, he can be forgiven for feeling that his criminal trial resembles a surreal "Alice in Wonderland" farce. He is left to peer through a "Looking-Glass" where everything is backward. The culprit for this hallucinatory nightmare is District Attorney Alvin Bragg who brought a bizarre case based on warped interpretations of law and distorted facts. It is now up to twelve jurors to wade through the lunacy in search of the illusive truth. Bragg's fractured case requires the jury to reach several distinct conclusions on issues that make little sense to begin with.

Rapper "Pras" Michel, one-third of the legendary hip-hop group The Fugees, accused his lawyer from a recent federal criminal case of using AI in his closing arguments. Ars Technica reports that the "Ghetto Supastar" artist claims his one-time attorney, David Kenner, used an AI program with which the lawyer potentially had a financial interest. Pras, whose legal name is Prakazrel Samuel Michel, was found guilty in April of 10 counts of conspiring and acting as an unregistered foreign government agent and faces up to 20 years in prison. The rapper is seeking a new trial. Pras' motion for a new trial says Kenner "used an experimental artificial intelligence (AI) program to draft the closing argument, ignoring the best arguments and conflating the charged schemes, and he then publicly boasted that the AI program'turned hours or days of legal work into seconds.'"

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com. Pras Michel of the Fugees is seeking a new trial by arguing his former lawyer used artificial intelligence to generate his closing argument before the hip-hop artist was found guilty of helping a foreign national launder millions of dollars in illegitimate contributions to former President Barack Obama's campaign. Michel was convicted in April after being accused of taking part in an extensive conspiracy to use about $88 million in foreign funds to engage in illegal back-channel lobbying and make unlawful campaign contributions at the direction of the People's Republic of China. He filed a motion on Monday asking the court for a new trial on all counts.