Evidence from 2024–2025 litigation shows that OpenAI’s board-level obligation to determine when AGI is reached, and what that implies for its Microsoft deal and commercial deployment, is now a central subject of formal court proceedings—and board members / directors are among the key defendants.

1. Board’s AGI-determination power is explicitly at issue in litigation.
   Elon Musk’s March 2024 lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman and related entities alleges that GPT‑4 already constitutes AGI and therefore lies outside Microsoft’s pre‑AGI exclusive license. The complaint stresses that, under the Microsoft–OpenAI agreement, it is the nonprofit OpenAI, Inc. board that determines when AGI has been attained, which in turn decides whether Microsoft is allowed to commercially exploit the models.(273ventures.com) CNBC’s coverage of the complaint notes that Microsoft’s rights extend only to “pre‑AGI” technology and that “part of what they’re going to be litigating” is precisely what counts as AGI.(cnbc.com) A Public Citizen letter summarizing Musk’s claims likewise emphasizes that Musk’s suit hinges on the board’s authority to determine AGI status for purposes of the Microsoft license, and criticizes the new board as conflicted and incentivized to delay any AGI finding.(citizen.org) This is directly in line with Chamath’s prediction that the board’s AGI gatekeeping role would itself become the subject of formal litigation.

2. Board-linked individuals are central legal targets, with major financial stakes.
   The Musk case (MUSK v. OPENAI, INC., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 4:24‑cv‑4722‑YGR) names Sam Altman and Greg Brockman—both top executives who have also served as OpenAI directors—alongside OpenAI, its affiliated entities, Microsoft, and others, seeking remedies that would unwind or void key commercial arrangements and force OpenAI back toward its nonprofit/charitable structure.(theguardian.com) Later reporting describes the suit as a high‑stakes racketeering and contract case over OpenAI’s shift toward a profit‑driven structure and Microsoft licensing, with billions of dollars in enterprise value and licensing rights on the line.(reuters.com) In substance, the lawsuit squarely places OpenAI’s leadership and board-aligned decision‑makers at the center of potential legal and financial liability over how and when AGI is deemed to have been reached and commercially exploited.

3. Caveats: AGI has not been officially acknowledged, and no court has yet ruled on this duty.
   OpenAI vigorously denies that GPT‑4 is AGI and maintains that its models are still “pre‑AGI.”(cnbc.com) The Musk litigation remains ongoing; courts have so far issued procedural rulings and declined to grant Musk a preliminary injunction, while fast‑tracking the case to trial.(reuters.com) Also, the precise scenario Chamath sketched—AGI clearly acknowledged and the board shutting down the commercial business ex post—has not occurred. What has happened is the earlier stage he was really pointing to: that the board’s AGI‑threshold obligation and its impact on OpenAI’s commercial arrangements would themselves become a live battleground in court.

Overall assessment: Chamath predicted that the OpenAI board’s special role in deciding when AGI is reached—and thus when powerful models must be treated differently from ordinary commercial products—would end up being litigated, with the board (and its members) drawn into the center of legal and financial risk. The Musk v. OpenAI litigation has made exactly that AGI‑determination power and its commercial consequences a central dispute, with current and former directors among the primary defendants. While the extreme endgame of “shutting down the commercial business after AGI” has not materialized, the core forecast—that the board’s AGI obligations would become the focus of formal, high‑stakes litigation involving board-level actors—is already borne out. Hence, the prediction is best scored as right in substance.