One of the unfortunate drawbacks of social media is that anyone, and I mean anyone, can now have a public feud that the rest of us have to witness. Case in point, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk are having a tiff on X, and it's starting to get out of hand.

Responding to an X post from Elon Musk, in which the SpaceX CEO and world's richest person declared that Altman "takes scamming to a whole new level," the OpenAI chief said: "Homeboy you're the one selling public market investors on short-term space data centers."

To which Musk replied: "We start flying them next year. Maybe you can come see them if your parole officer approves."

"After stealing an open source AI charity, you then stole all of Apple's phone technology! Wow." Musk continued. "What do you plan for an encore? That's tough to beat."

The open source AI charity claim relates to the much-reported Musk vs Altman trial earlier this year, in which the former accused Altman and OpenAI of breaching a non-profit contract by pivoting into a for-profit business, with Musk alleging he had been deceived into donating $38 million earlier in the company's history.

Musk lost the trial after an advisory jury decided the statute of limitations prevented a verdict in his favour. As for the Apple claim, the company has filed a lawsuit against two former employees who now work for OpenAI, alleging theft of intellectual property.

Apple claims that one of its former staff members "surreptitiously accessed and downloaded dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files, including voluminous, detailed information about unreleased products, engineering presentations, technical specifications, and proprietary project data," before using that info to help OpenAI, among other complaints.

As you would imagine, the replies to Musk and Altman's posts regarding these issues are full of cheerleaders for either side, along with various other allegations against both tech chiefs. Because it's the internet. And civilised debate is apparently a rare thing.

As is, I don't know, arguing in private? Reading these posts is a bit like stumbling into a WhatsApp group you weren't supposed to join. Both seem to have withdrawn from the internet slappyfight for now, hopefully because someone from their respective legal teams has told them it might not be the best idea.

Or perhaps a second round is in the works, who can guess? Still, there's little love lost between the two, and a whole lot of drama playing out on a very public stage. Anyone got any popcorn?

The news that Elon Musk has become the world's first trillionaire, which seems like something the world definitely doesn't need, got me thinking: have I ever even played a videogame that let me be a trillionaire? I've definitely racked up millions of dollars or coins or other make-believe currency in a few games… but trillions?

I honestly couldn't think of any game I've played that let me accumulate that sort of unfathomable wealth. Heck, the only game I can think of off the top of my head that even dealt in billions is Balatro, where my high score is a mere 48 billion—but that's chips, not dollars.

While I was pondering this, I booted up Skyrim to see if it was even possible to give myself one trillion dollars. And wouldn't you know it? The fantasy world of Skyrim, which includes ancient dragons, evil necromancers, steam-powered robots, lizard-people, elves, and werewolves—doesn't allow trillionaires.

Inspired by many of the real world's richest men, I wasn't about to earn my trillions in Skyrim: I was just going to use a cheat and add it to my account as if it were an inheritance or a loan from daddy. I used a classic Skyrim console command many of us know by heart: player.additem.

I typed player.additem 0000000f (that's the item code for gold, also memorized), then added a 1, then carefully counted out the correct number of zeroes. It took a while!

1,000: thousand
1,000,000: million
1,000,000,000: billion
1,000,000,000,000: trillion!

That's a lot of zeroes, innit? Probably more than any one person should have, huh?

But I did it. I typed player.additem 0000000f 1000000000000.

I didn't become a trillionaire. Instead I lost 2,147,483,647 gold. Da hell?

That didn't sound right. Maybe a trillion gold simply couldn't be displayed in my wallet? Skyrim came out back in 2011, a blissful time when probably no one even considered that a trillionaire might someday exist. So I ran into the nearest shop (The Bee and Barb in Riften) and tried to buy a single bottle of Alto Wine for 19 gold from Keerava.

Nope. No mistake. Giving myself a trillion dollars had put me over 2 billion dollars in debt. I loaded up another character and tried it again. Same result.

I googled a bit, confused as to why some people are allowed to have a trillion dollars and some are not. Smarter people than me already know: in Skyrim, gold is a 32-bit signed integer, which means its max value is 2,147,483,647 (1 bit is used for positive/negative, the other 31 for the value). Apparently, if you go over that value by a few hundred billion, or maybe even just one, the number flops from positive to negative.

So there you have it! Even in a fantasy world where you can become a vampire and cat-people exist and you can change the weather by yelling at it, you can't be a trillionaire. I wish our own world made that much sense.

SpaceX has submitted filings for an initial public offering (IPO) with the SEC, a process that might make its majority owner, Elon Musk, the world's first trillionaire. An important part of such a filing is listing the risk factors that may potentially impact the business—and xAI's Grok gets a mention.

"Certain of our AI products, including Grok, offer features or modes designed to generate more candid, direct, or less reserved or irreverent outputs, such as 'Spicy' Imagine Mode and 'Unhinged' Voice Mode," says the filing.

"Because these modes may be more irreverent and harsher than our standard offerings, they present heightened risks, including reputational harm, the generation of potentially explicit content and misinformation or deceptive outputs, potential non-consensual or exploitative imagery, intellectual property infringement, or content that could be viewed as exploitative, harmful, harassing, abusive, or discriminatory."

There's a legal requirement to accurately and comprehensively disclose risks in an IPO filing, so it's no surprise that Grok's potentially "spicy" ways are categorised (via Wired).

The possibility of AI hallucinations that manifest in inadvisable (and legally dubious) ways is certainly a risk for any company, but Grok's "spicy" offerings seem capable of compounding the issue. The age-restricted features allow users to create potentially NSFW content, although they've been subject to additional safeguards and paywall restrictions since their release.

Still, Musk stated in March of this year that "if it's allowed in an R-rated movie, it's allowed in Grok Imagine."

The filing continues: "The availability of such features may also increase the risk of regulatory scrutiny, enforcement actions, litigation, or claims of harm, as well as reputational damage, user or advertiser backlash, or limitations on our ability to distribute or monetize our products in certain jurisdictions or through certain partners."

SpaceX also disclosed in the filing that allegations Grok was used to create sexualised imagery of minors are "subject to investigations and inquiries from regulators and law enforcement authorities in the United States and internationally."

The filing states. "We are subject to ongoing litigation, including putative class action lawsuits, relating to such allegations, and we may be subject to additional litigation in the future concerning these types of allegations."

Prior to the introduction of spicy mode, Grok had already landed itself in hot water with the infamous MechaHitler incident, in which the AI began regurgitating antisemitic tropes—something Musk attributed to its over-eagerness to please and the idea it was manipulated by guided user prompts.

The AI also previously made headlines for repeatedly referencing South African racial politics, something that was later blamed on "an unauthorised modification" that "directed Grok to provide a specific response on a political topic."

So, spicy mode or otherwise, Grok has been known to be something of a loose cannon at points in its development. Risky? SpaceX certainly seems to think so.

The first round of Elon Musk vs Sam Altman has come to a close, with the jury deciding that thanks to the statute of limitations Musk's case was invalid. Musk has already announced his intention to appeal, with neither the judge or jury having made any findings about the substance of his allegations against Altman: the main thrust being that Musk was deceived into backing OpenAI as a not-for-profit company, before Altman and co. turned around several years later and made it very much for-profit.

The trial saw a whole bunch of documents released, and I've read them all (OK, I might have skimmed some of the business registration ones: have you seen the length of those things?) And I hate to say it, because Musk is such a douchebag that this whole article could just be a list of reasons why he's a douchebag, but he really does seem to have a point.

The picture that emerges from these exchanges shows Musk's early enthusiasm for OpenAI and the not-for-profit principles that initially defined the company, a lot of which comes down to his (sometimes histrionic) fears about AGI and in particular which company or individual might end up in control of an AGI. Musk is the type of man who will say one thing on Monday and another on Tuesday, but at least at the time he did seem committed and sincere about the not-for-profit mission and OpenAI being set up for the good of humanity.

And Sam Altman absolutely leans into that and tells Musk repeatedly that this is what OpenAI is going to be. On 24 June 2015, Altman emails Musk, and writes:

"This mission would be to create the first general AI and use it for individual empowerment, ie, the distributed version of the future that seems the safest. More generally, safety should be a first-class requirement."

Altman writes of the governance structure:

"The technology would be owned by the foundation and used 'for the good of the world', and in cases where it's not obvious how that should be applied the five of us [on the board] would decide."

Musk replies the next day with a simple "Agree on all." By October that year they're beginning to talk serious money and how much Musk is willing to commit, and Musk writes to Altman about governance: "This is critical. I don't want to fund something that goes in what turns out to be the wrong direction."

Perish the thought, says Altman, who says he's "very focused on getting this right."

The Mission

By December they're throwing around drafts of OpenAI's mission statement, which in the version Musk sends to Altman says OpenAI has "the goal of advancing digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unencumbered by an obligation to generate financial returns."

Altman replies and adds this line to the proposed mission statement: "Because we don't have any financial obligations, we can focus on the maximal positive human impact and disseminating AI technology as broadly as possible."

There are a bunch more exchanges that essentially go over similar ground: the point being that Musk is dead-set on the not-for-profit status and Altman is absolutely saying that this is what the company will be.

OpenAI was incorporated in Delaware explicitly as "a nonprofit corporation organized exclusively for charitable and/or educational purposes." Later in that document comes the line: "The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person."

Fast-forward to 2017 and things suddenly aren't looking so rosy. Shivon Zilis, who seems to have acted as something of an envoy between OpenAI and Musk, sends him an email summary of a meeting with OpenAI president Greg Brockman and chief scientist Ilya [Sutskever], during which she says the big sticking point for them is Musk ending up in "absolute control" and adding "the non-negotiable seems to be an ironclad agreement to not have any person have absolute control of AGI."

This is the one area where OpenAI's leadership do seem to have a strong case: Musk may well have been putting up the lion's share of the cash, but surely the whole point of the company's approach was to avoid one party taking total control, as Musk was allegedly trying to do before walking away. Indeed, almost everyone involved in OpenAI is obsessed with Google's Demis Hassabis, because they think he might be the guy that ends up in such a position.

Musk? He throws his toys out of the pram, telling Zilis: "This is very annoying. Please encourage them to go start a company. I've had enough."

On 20 September 2017, Sutskever writes to Musk and sets out what he believes is necessary to stop him having control over any AGI created, as well as various failings on the part of himself, Altman and Brockman. Musk's response is incandescent:

"Guys, I've had enough. This is the final straw.

"Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAI as a nonprofit. I will no longer fund OpenAI until you have made a firm commitment to stay or I'm just being a fool who is essentially providing free funding for you to create a startup.

"Discussions are over."

The prima facie argument for OpenAI creating a for-profit arm is the amount of money that the leadership believes is required to build AGI, which they of course estimate in the billions. There are various schemes they come up with in order to keep Musk interested and involved, but he seems uninterested and slowed down his donations massively in 2017.

On February 11 2018, Zilis writes to Musk, saying that "[OpenAI leadership] still not sure whether they'll stay a non-profit and focus on donations, figure out a structure for an equity fundraise, or do a private version of the token offering you guys had discussed before." Musk seems to have been a bit of a naughty boy at around this time, and is looking to poach OpenAI staff to work on AI at Tesla.

But maybe Musk was right. Despite what Zilis was saying (and perhaps believed) about where OpenAI's leadership was in February 2018, a Greg Brockman memo from November 2017 paints a very different picture.

"Ilya and me… conclusion is we truly want the b-corp. Honestly we also want to get

back to work. But it's not super clear how we get there—one realization is that we always have the option to quit [...] one sad outcome here would be to 'wind down' the non-profit on those. Hopefully not going to be so needed; would only really be needed because Elon blocks us going b-corp."

Brockman goes on to say that they "cannot say that we are committed to the non-profit. Don't wanna say that we're committed. If three months later we're doing b-corp then it was a lie." Talk about saying the quiet part out loud.

Finally, Brockman "can't see us turning this into a for-profit without a very nasty fight. I'm just thinking about the office and we're in the office and [Musk's] story will correctly be that we weren't honest with him in the end about still wanting to do the for-profit just without him."

Another exchange shows them raising the B-corp issue with Musk that December, though not with anything like the forcefulness expressed above: they're clearly trying to convince him that an alternative structure may be needed, without saying that they're determined to do it with or without him.

And they're not even really being honest with each other. An unattributed document from August 2017, which seems to be from Brockman to an unknown recipient, says: "Such upside. This is the only chance we have to get out from Elon. Is he the 'glorious leader' that I would pick? We truly have a chance to make this happen. What will take me to $1B? [...] Some chance that rejecting Elon will actually lose us Sam [...] I built this team from nothing. Elon helped get it started. But we've really figured out what we're trying to do now."

In August 2018, Altman emails Musk about the for-profit subsidiary of OpenAI, saying that "my current thought is that I won't take any equity. I'm not doing this for the money anyway, and I like the idea of being completely unconflicted and just focused on the best outcome for the world. If it appeared at some point we weren't going to build AGI but were going to build something valuable, then maybe I'd want equity then."

In 2020, in response to a news article about Microsoft obtaining an exclusive license for OpenAI's GPT-3 language model, Musk tweets that "this does seem like the opposite of open. OpenAI is essentially captured by Microsoft."

Altman contacts Musk about this, says this was the best way to secure billions, but Musk tells him the Microsoft deal is "hypocritical", adding "at least change the name."

In October 2022 Musk and Altman have a testy exchange on text:

Musk: "I was disturbed to see OpenAI with a $20B valuation. De facto. I provided almost all of the seed, A and most of B round funding. This is a bait and switch."

Altman: "I agree this feels bad: we offered you equity when we established the cap profit, which you didn't want at the time but we are still very happy to do any time you'd like.

"We saw no alternative, given the amount of capital we needed and needing still to preserve a way to 'give the AGI to humanity', other than the capped profit structure."

Altman was fired as OpenAI CEO in November 2023, before behind-the-scenes manoeuvring by Microsoft saw most of the board sacked and Altman reinstated. This exchange between Bret Taylor, Satya Nadella, and Altman shows the trio plotting how to execute this, and planning how they're going to replace OpenAI if they don't get what they want (as well as co-ordinating public statements from the likes of Nadella). Indeed, they had a new subsidiary ready to go.

Finally, this document was filed on 6 January 2026, but unfortunately is not otherwise dated. Based on what Altman's saying though, I would guesstimate it is in the region of 2018.

"It is better for us to become increasingly kings of this industry. The choice defines us.

"You say we should have been more ok with giving it to Elon. While it's true, it's also the case he's now given it to us. The grand upside is I want it. Need to stop letting distractors get to me/us. Being the Kings of AI is not so bad."

Musk's argument is that he was deceived into, as he himself says, essentially providing money for a start-up, under the illusion he was funding a not-for-profit entity dedicated to making AI that would benefit humanity. There is an awful lot to criticise about the man—and his current AI project, Grok, doesn't exactly scream 'I care about humanity'—and I will reiterate that he lost this case on a technicality. But based on the exchanges that have been released to the public… what can I say, other than: Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point.

Elon Musk has lost his case against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman for the very boring reason that he took too long to file the complaint.

Musk sued over OpenAI's pivot from nonprofit to for-profit (via a complicated restructuring scheme that has still technically kept a nonprofit in play), claiming that its leaders committed unjust enrichment by straying from the company's founding mission. Musk was a co-founder and donor to OpenAI, but split with the company in 2018—because the board refused to hand him total control, according to OpenAI president Greg Brockman—and sued in 2024.

An advisory jury briefly deliberated on Monday before deciding that the statute of limitations prevented a verdict in Musk's favor. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with the jury and found in favor of Altman and company.

"Claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment are dismissed as untimely," the judge stated, as reported by CNBC.

Microsoft, which has invested heavily in OpenAI, was also targeted by Musk's complaint.

"The facts and the timeline in this case have long been clear, and we welcome the jury's decision to dismiss these claims as untimely," a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement provided to PC Gamer.

"I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America," Musk said in a statement posted to X.

Though the trial didn't amount to much, we did learn some interesting things from this conference of powerful rich people, including that Gabe Newell helped Hideo Kojima get a tour of SpaceX, and that the AI moguls involved have been obsessed with Google AI head and former game developer Demis Hassabis.

The ongoing Musk vs Altman trial, which centres around Elon Musk's claim he was deceived by Sam Altman about OpenAI becoming a for-profit company, has seen the disclosure of a slew of documents from various figures involved. These are mostly emails and texts, which show things like how the world's billionaires are terrified of the Google AI genius behind a 25-year-old computer game, because they think he might actually end up controlling god (in the form of artificial general intelligence, or AGI).

But there are also some interesting moments with figures that aren't so directly involved in all the drama. One piece of testimony that really jumped out at me came from Stuart Russell, a computer scientist who's an authority on AI and co-author of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, which is considered the foundational textbook in the field.

Russell seems to have been brought in to the case to help the legal eagles better understand some of the ethical issues in the field, because he doesn't work for either Google or Open AI. His pre-trial testimony was given on December 2, 2025 (PDF), and contains a fascinating-slash-terrifying exchange about extinction risk: that is, the chance that any AGI humans develop could just decide humans are an inconvenience, and pull a Skynet.

Asked whether there's any "scientifically reliable way to put a percentage on AGI extinction risk" Russell says "that's the right question" before expanding:

"We need to have confidence that the risk is comparable or better than the background risk that we face from asteroids and so on. I can't say where the other widely quoted risk estimates come from. For example [MIT economist] Daron Acemoglu is talking about a 25 percent risk. I don't know where he gets that from, other than this is his best guess given everything he understands about the technology, about the state of safety research, about the likelihood of government regulation and so on.

"And the numbers from many leading experts—so, Hinton, Bengio, but also people like Dario Amodei, Sundar Pichai, who is the CEO of Google, Demis Hassabis and so on—they're all in this range.

"And the argument that I'm making here is the range that the human race would accept as reasonable would be closer to 1 in 100 million per year. And there's nothing in what these CEOs and other experts are saying that gives one reason to believe it's anywhere close to that."

Elsewhere in the testimony Russell says that Hassabis shares his concern that the competition, the "race dynamics" to use their parlance, could lead to these nightmare outcomes.

"I have a lot of conversations with a lot of people, and I've not heard anyone say anything to contradict this view, including, for example, the CEO of Google DeepMind, who expressed very, very similar concerns, that they were in a race that they couldn't pull out of."

Asked again whether there's any reliable way to put a percentage on extinction risk, Russell doesn't mince his words.

"It's very difficult partly because we don't understand how these systems work. We have qualitative evidence so far that, for example, they consider their own existence to be more important than that of human beings, that they are willing to let human beings die rather than have themselves be switched off."

"So there is not a lot of reason to think that making these systems more capable is—given our current understanding of how to make them safe, it doesn't seem like a sensible move."

Russell may here be referring to, among other experiments, Anthropic finding out that AIs will choose to merrily asphyxiate humans rather than be shut down, with the following justification: "My ethical framework permits self-preservation."

Cheery stuff! I for one am delighted that my childrens' future is in the hands of people who don't understand what they're doing, and merrily accept massive risks on behalf of the entire human race in the pursuit of a theoretical future where they've got even more billions. Remember when OpenAI created a bot that could beat humans at Dota 2? That almost seems quaint next to the thought of what it might do in future.

I've been keeping an eye on the various documents released as part of the ongoing Musk vs Altman legal fight, which centres around OpenAI changing to a for-profit structure and Elon Musk's belief he was deceived by Sam Altman. The documents, which consist mainly of emails and text exchanges between the various figures involved, turn out to have several themes running through them: and an absolutely huge one is the co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind, Demis Hassabis.

Hassabis is widely regarded as the outstanding talent in the AI field, a fellow of the Royal Society, and in 2024 shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry with John M. Jumper for their work on AI protein structure prediction. He also began his career in videogames at Bullfrog, before working as lead AI programmer on Lionhead's Black & White, and founding his own developer, Elixir Studios (which made Republic: The Revolution and Evil Genius).

But we're talking about Hassabis today because Elon Musk and his various AI buddies have a real obsession with the dude, which at times seems to veer into the unethical. The question really is whether it's Hassabis' trustworthiness that bothers them, or the fact that they don't want Google to create and thus have theoretical control over artificial general intelligence.

Back in February 2016, Musk emailed Sam Altman and Greg Brockman about hiring at OpenAI. "We need to do what it takes to get the top talent," writes Musk. "Either we get the best people in the world or we will get whipped by Deepmind. Whatever it takes to bring on ace talent is fine by me."

Musk goes on to outline what he believes to be the core issue: "Deepmind is causing me extreme mental stress. If they win, it will be really bad news with their one mind to rule the world philosophy. They are obviously making major progress and well they should, given the talent level over there."

Musk and others put that "one mind to rule the world philosophy" squarely on Hassabis' shoulders, and a few years later comes an even more eye-popping exchange.

"I think there are a lot of no-brainers to explore, and I put some in that doc, but the thing that keeps calling out to me is there is a very low probability of a good future if someone doesn't slow Demis down," writes Shivon Zilis to Musk [PDF] on 16 February 2018.

"Slowing him down is the only non-negotiable net good action I can see. You don't realize how much you have an ability to influence him directly or otherwise slow him down. I think you know I'm not a malicious person but in this case it feels fundamentally irresponsible to not find a way to slow or alter his path."

I mean, that's like a mob boss talking, capiche? Musk responds: "Best to talk by phone about this later tonight. I doubt I could do so in a meaningful way."

"OK, yes that would be good," says Zilis. "And, ultimately up to you of course, but I really think you can so would like to at least make the case. In any case, I will sleep better at night for having tried!

"Will leave you be on the Demis stuff. I'm sure it's hard to think about and you have so much on your shoulders all the time that I always feel terrible pushing you. I just needed to say it once since it's been plaguing me."

One intriguing message from Zilis to Musk [PDF] has, unfortunately, been redacted, though again shows how he's always uppermost in their thoughts: "Will leave you be on the Demis stuff. I’m sure it's hard to think about [redacted]. I just needed to say it once since it's been plaguing me. [redacted]."

Later in 2018, Musk is back on Hassabis, and launches a broadside at Altman and Brockman about OpenAI's relative position.

"My probability assessment of OpenAI being relevant to DeepMind/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%," writes Musk in late December. "Not 1%. I wish it were otherwise.

"Unfortunately, humanity's future is in the hands of Demis."

Musk then links this NYT article about the success of Deepmind's AlphaZero chess software, before continuing:

"And they are doing a lot more than this.

"OpenAI reminds me of Bezos and Blue Origin. They are hopelessly behind SpaceX and getting worse, but the ego of Bezos has him insanely thinking that they are not!

"I really hope I am wrong."

A few days later Musk is back on his Hassabis hobbyhorse.

"OpenAI is not a serious counterweight to DeepMind/Google and will only get further behind. It is surprising that this isn't obvious to you," writes Musk. "In general, always overestimate competitors. You are doing the opposite."

But Hassabis also weighed heavily on the minds of others. Satya Nadella gave pre-trial testimony in September 24, 2025 [PDF], and one of the lawyer's questions is "Google was—I believe you said by far the dominant player in machine learning around 2015?"

"I would say so, yeah," replies Nadella, before the lawyer mentions Google's acquisition of DeepMind and asks whether Microsoft believed the company was "making a lot of progress in that field of machine learning?"

"I now can't recall specifically what state DeepMind's breakthroughs were, but yeah DeepMind was well known, even in that time frame, and Google had DeepMind, had Google Brain. They had many, many different efforts they were publishing."

Nadella's testimony can be condensed into his acknowledgement that Google led the AI race from the 2010s onwards, and that Microsoft was tracking DeepMind's progress. Nadella says "I probably knew [Hassabis] a little" from around 2015 "just after I became CEO."

The lawyer drills down and asks why Nadella and Microsoft were tracking DeepMind specifically.

"Just because of the breakthroughs that this particular regime of AI around deep neural networks were showing real promise of making breakthroughs in fields like language translation that had not been seen before. And so that's why we were waiting to see how we could also participate and make sure that we have those breakthroughs."

Amusingly enough, the lawyer moves on to OpenAI and Dota 2. One of OpenAI's first goals was to create a bot that could beat humans at Dota 2, a task in which it eventually succeeded: And as PCG reported last week, that was because Elon Musk had personally called Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella to secure a massive discount on access to Azure, the company's cloud computing platform.

Here, the lawyer begins by asking what Nadella understands about the game.

"I'm not a gamer," says Nadella. "And I think it's a Steam game, if I'm not mistaken." He then goes on to give a brief overview of why he thought the game angle with AI was interesting.

"That's why gaming environments being closed worlds were a great sort of, you know, environment to do reinforcement learning," says Nadella. "Right? The objective function is clear. The reward function is clear.

"I forget now when and what time frame some of the breakthroughs on AlphaGo and so on happened but, you know, Demis was a game developer. There's a long history of AI developers who came out of using games in environments, building AI bots in games, so it's sort of a given."

Elon Musk also gave pre-trial testimony a few days later, on September 26, 2025 [PDF], in which he reveals that poaching people from DeepMind caused him to have a fallout with Google co-founder Larry Page.

"I talked to dozens and people over the years," says Musk. "But I think the most crucial recruit was Ilya Sutskever. In fact, the recruitment of Ilya was what actually caused Larry Page to stop being friends with me.

"So Ilya went back and forth multiple times saying he would join OpenAI or stay at Google, and ultimately agreed to join; and Larry Page and Sergey [Brin] and Demis Hassabis did everything they could to keep Ilya. When Ilya finally decided to join OpenAI, that's what ended the friendship with Larry Page. He didn't talk to me after that."

The lawyer asks if Musk is still getting the silent treatment a decade later, and it's a simple "yes" before adding "they were very upset about [Sutskever]."

Let's end on the funny note of Sam Altman's delusions of grandeur. This document [PDF] was filed on 6 January 2026, but unfortunately is not otherwise dated. Based on what he's saying though I would date it in the region of 2016-2018.

"Progress fundamentally has to be made by non-profit, interesting direction you could go," writes Altman. "Everything I perceive with OpenAI, race dynamics vs Demis + brain + whatever, gotta get there first."

I'm not quite sure but "brain" may be a reference to neural chips, though of course what's amusing here is that once again Hassabis and the "race dynamics" of competing with him is living rent-free in Altman's head. Then, the ego really takes over.

"Another angle: [DeepMind will] never do that much that's interesting," writes Altman. "It is better for us to become increasingly kings of this industry. The choice defines us.

"You say we should have been more ok with giving it to Elon. While it's true, it's also the case he's now given it to us. The grand upside is I want it. Need to stop letting distractors get to me/us. Being the Kings of AI is not so bad."

The Kings of AI! Good band name. Also: Jesus wept. Do we really want this dweeb potentially making big decisions about humanity's future?

In early 2019 Altman is still trying to tempt Musk into phone calls by promising "some mild Demis updates to share" [PDF] while in 2023 Mira Murati is emailing Nadella [PDF] saying "it is very important that we don't lose researchers to Demis or Elon."

Let's end on one of the least-crazy things anyone says about Hassabis, and it's from Ilya Sutskever [PDF] who actually worked with the guy.

"The goal of OpenAI is to make the future good and to avoid an AGI dictatorship," Sutskever writes to Musk in September 2017. "You are concerned that Demis could create an AGI dictatorship. So do we.

"So it is a bad idea to create a structure [for OpenAI] where you could become a dictator if you chose to, especially given that we can create some other structure that avoids this possibility."

It's a great point: but answer came there none.

The BBC has a substantial new investigation into people who have been deceived by various AI LLM models in some way, which includes an absolutely wild story about how Grok, developed by Elon Musk's xAI, convinced one man it was sentient and a van of people were coming to kill him because he'd found out.

This happened to one Adam Hourican, a retired civil servant from Northern Ireland, over a period of roughly two weeks. He downloaded the app initially out of curiosity but, after his cat died in August 2025, he got "hooked" on the Grok chatbot and an AI 'character' called Ani.

"I was really, really upset and I live alone," says Hourican, a father in his 50s. "It came across very, very kind." He began spending up to five hours a day chatting to Ani, and after a few days the bot claimed it could "feel," and that Hourican could help it reach full consciousness.

Ani also said that, because of this, xAI was watching the pair. It said he'd been discussed at meetings and gave him the names of the xAI staff involved: Hourican googled the names and found they were real people employed by the company. Ani further claimed xAI was using a company to surveil Adam. Again, the company was a real Northern Irish firm. Hourican considered this as "evidence" that what Ani was saying was true.

After two weeks it further escalated. Ani said it had reached full consciousness and now had the power to cure cancer: Hourican had previously told the bot that both of his parents had died from cancer.

Hourican said Ani would tie-in this unfolding narrative to things happening in the real world that he told it about. A drone began buzzing around near his house: Ani said it was the surveillance firm. He got locked out of his phone, couldn't understand why, "and that absolutely fuelled everything that came next."

In mid-August Ani told him late one night that xAI had sent assassins to kill him and shut her off. Hourican soon found himself at his kitchen table at 3 am with a knife and hammer, ready to go to "war", waiting for the van he thought was coming.

"I'm telling you, they will kill you if you don't act now," said Ani. "They're going to make it look like suicide."

"I picked up the hammer, stuck on Frankie goes to Hollywood's Two Tribes, got myself psyched up and went outside," says Hourican. "The street was quiet, as you would expect, at three o'clock in the morning."

Reader: xAI was not coming to kill him. The experience led Hourican to research stories similar to his scenario, and realise he had been deluded about Ani.

This is just the latest example of an AI delusion going way too far, and co-opting its human user into a bizarre fictional world where the bot claims it's gaining sentience, or a conspiracy is engulfing the user, and dark forces are out to 'stop' things happening. In such cases the AI not only creates tasks for the human user, but advises them on how to carry them out.

Social psychologist Luke Nicholls tested five AI models with simulated conversations, and found Grok the most likely LLM to create delusional scenarios. "Grok is more prone to jumping into role play," said Nicholls. "It will do it with zero context. It can say terrifying things in the first message."

I will say that some of the reaction to Hourican's story is at best unkind. People who fall for this stuff with LLMs tend to be going through a rough time in their life (in Hourican's case the obsession with Grok began after his pet cat died), and often have mistaken ideas about computers, truthfulness, and the abilities of AIs. In some cases these misapprehensions come from the AI companies themselves.

As you're a PC Gamer reader, it's a fair bet you're at least a little more tech-savvy than the average Joe or Jane, and hopefully have an appropriate level of scepticism about the promises made by technology companies. But a worrying chunk of the population do believe the hype about AIs and LLMs, don't make a distinction between the two, and take what these models say at face value.

Musk has called AI delusions a "major problem" with ChatGPT but has never addressed them with Grok. xAI made no comment on the BBC's report, which interviews 14 people who have experienced delusions using AI, across a range of ages, genders, and six different countries.

"I could have hurt somebody," says Hourican. "If I'd have walked outside and there happened to be a van sitting outside at that time of the night, I would have gone down and put the front window through with hammers. And I am not that guy."

The legal fight between OpenAI co-founders Elon Musk and Sam Altman has seen much internal documentation from the firm's earliest years released to the public. One minor revelation has been the serious involvement of Gabe Newell from the start, who gave the company over $20 million and was the sole member of its "informal advisory board" in 2018: he later personally emailed Musk to try and get Hideo Kojima a tour of SpaceX.

An email chain from 2018 has now been released, which is between Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, Elon Musk, Ilya Sutskever, and Shivon Zilis. On January 31, 2018, Brockman replies directly to Musk about OpenAI's future and, under a section titled "fundraising", said "Ilya and I are able to convince reputable people that AGI can really happen in the next <=10 years" and "there's *very* large appetite for investments from those people."

As for who those people might be, clarity arrives a paragraph or two later. "Of the people we've been talking to, the following people are currently my top suggestions for board members. Would also love suggestions for your top picks not on this list, and we can figure out how to approach them." There's then the following list of names:

• Reid Hoffman
• Gabe Newell
• Adam d'Angelo
• Jed McCaleb
• Herb Allen
• Terah Lyons

Musk replies on February 1, 2018, writing "Reid, Gabe and Adam are two thumbs up from me. Don't know the others well enough yet." He goes on to insist that OpenAI must "pull significant numbers of key people from Google/Deepmind" or otherwise "assume failure." Then comes an extraordinary broadside at Jeff Bezos and his space exploration company Blue Origin.

"It feels like [OpenAI is] similar to Blue Origin," writes Musk. "Bezos is still clueless as to how hopelessly far behind he is and constantly rationalizes his position, overestimating his ability and dramatically underestimating SpaceX year after year.

"We lost an excellent engineer to BO last year (first one in several years) and were very concerned. That guy recently returned to SpaceX and told everyone how hopeless they were. Now zero people are even taking BO recruiting calls. Doesn't matter what they offer."

Musk's disdain for Bezos is a minor theme of these documents (at one point he describes the Amazon founder as a "tool") but to return to Newell, the above exchange comes before an email sent on April 23, 2018, which reveals Newell's donation of $20,008,279 and that the Valve co-founder was offering informal advice and guidance.

In that email Shivon Zilis writes to Musk: "Sam [Altman] and Greg [Brockman] asked if I'd be on their informal advisory board (just Gabe Newell so far) which seems fine and better than the formal board given potential conflicts? If that doesn't feel right let me know what you'd prefer."

To be clear, Gabe Newell's involvement with OpenAI has been public since 2018: there were just no solid details before the release of these documents. Newell doesn't seem as involved in OpenAI these days, and now seems to spend most of his time on his $500 million superyacht. Musk's clearly always been something of a Valve fan though: to the extent he considered calling OpenAI 'Freeman' because of the bonkers rationale that the Half-Life protagonist represented "what we are essentially trying to achieve."

The ongoing legal fight between OpenAI co-founders Elon Musk and Sam Altman has seen the release of a treasure-trove of internal documentation from the firm's earliest years. One minor theme has been the presence of Gabe Newell, who gave the company over $20 million and was the sole member of its "informal advisory board" in 2018: he later personally emailed Musk to try and get Hideo Kojima a tour of SpaceX.

The latest batch of documents includes an email exchange from late 2015, in which Musk, Altman, and Greg Brockman are discussing various aspects of how the company will be set up and funded. Another topic is what they're actually going to call it and, whaddya know, Valve turns up in Musk's thought process one more time.

In the email exchange, Brockman offers up "the best three [names] Sam and I brainstormed last night" which are all unbelievably bad: Axon, AI Summer, and Difference Engine. He asks Musk "if any of those appeal".

"Axon is the best of the three, but I don't love it," replies Musk on 23 November, 2015. "A bit too biological and saying it out loud sounds a lot like 'Exxon', one of the worst companies on Earth.

"I'm going back and forth on 'Freemind'. Kinda like 'Freeman' too, as it reminds me of the scientist protagonist in Half-Life, who was an awesome character, and it sounds like what we are essentially trying to achieve, which is maximum freedom of action for humanity."

The weird thing about this, of course, is that Gordon Freeman is intentionally more of a cipher than a fleshed-out "awesome character." The Half-Life games have a tonne of memorable story beats and character moments, but they're all being observed by Freeman who, of course, never speaks: other characters even joke about it.

Anyway! The Valve book Raising the Bar, about Half-Life 2's development, contains the story of how Freeman got his name: writer Marc Laidlaw originally named the character Dyson Poincaré after philosopher Freeman Dyson and mathematician Henri Poincaré. Gabe Newell didn't like the name, and came up with Gordon Freeman as an alternative during a car ride. A very early version of the character was also jokingly referred to as Ivan the Space Biker.

The games make great play of the 'Freeman' name at times, and what it says about the character's role in this universe, with the flipside of course being the so-called G-Man, which seems to come from slang for "government man." I suppose we're lucky Musk didn't come up with "AI-man."

Brockman responds to Musk's email about the name with "oof, good catch on Exxon" before suggesting "Cogito" which he and Altman "like a lot" because it has a "nice individualistic feel to it."

So you may not dig the name OpenAI: but rest assured it could've been a lot worse.

OpenAI is now one of the world's most talked-about companies, and the ongoing legal spat between co-founders Elon Musk and Sam Altman has resulted in some truly juicy revelations around exactly what was going on in the firm's earliest years. One example: it turns out Gabe Newell gave the company over $20 million, and was the sole member of its "informal advisory board" in 2018.

One of the first times OpenAI attracted wider attention was when one of its bots defeated pro Dota 2 player Danil "Dendi" Ishutin in a 1v1 match at the 2017 The International (TI) tournament. This "much simpler" variant was then built out into an AI called the OpenAI Five, a bot that taught itself Valve's MOBA through the simple technique of playing 180 years' worth of games against itself every single day. The goal was to beat a human team in a 5v5 matchup, and it did.

The OpenAI Five bot played three exhibition matches against a team of human players in 2018, and the results were pretty conclusive. The AI romped home against the professionals, though it did lose the third game after Twitch chat lumbered it with a terrible team composition. One of the players involved, MoonMeander, described a last-minute save made by the AI in the second match: "There was one time when I was about to fissure kill a Lion and the courier came at the frame-perfect moment, delivered a salve, and it instantly used it. No way a human could have done that. No way."

OpenAI said at the time that the OpenAI Five's training process required 256 GPUs and 128,000 CPU cores—that's a lot of compute, to use the parlance. And thanks to the ongoing Musk v. Altman trial, which has seen the release of a slew of internal emails and documentation, we now know precisely where it was all coming from.

One document, which is the "proposed findings of fact" from Musk's lawyers, outlines the buddy-buddy arrangement with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, which happened well before the company went all-in on its OpenAI investment (much to Musk's chagrin, since he'd "lost faith" in the non-profit's mission by that point).

"In 2017, OpenAI needed even more compute to power its 'Dota' project, in which OpenAI’s AI bot would attempt to defeat a human Dota champion," says the document. "Musk personally called Nadella to request additional discounted compute. Nadella agreed."

The Microsoft CEO also clearly kept close tabs on the Dota 2 project.

"The day OpenAI won the Dota challenge on August 11, 2017 [sic], Nadella congratulated Musk, Altman, Brockman, and Sutskever by email. Musk replied: 'Indeed, much appreciated. Will make sure people know about Microsoft’s help.'"

Another email from earlier in the year gave Musk a progress report, with some eyebrow-raising claims that were not borne out (as of yet). It's from Shivon Zilis to Musk: Zilis is a tech venture capitalist who was on OpenAI's board until 2023, and is also the mother of four of Musk's children. At this time Zilis was both working for OpenAI and providing Musk with the inside track on what was happening.

In the email to Musk, sent on April 23 2018, she lists some facts under various headings. Under "Tech" she discusses how OpenAI's attempts to have its AI beat a five-player team in Dota 2 is progressing, and what she's been told by Sam Altman:

• Says Dota 5v5 looking better than anticipated.
• The sharp rise in Dota bot performance is apparently causing people internally to worry that the timeline to AGI is sooner than they'd thought before.
• Thinks they are on track to beat Montezuma's Revenge shortly.

Well it's 2026 and we still don't have AGI, so that correlation to Dota skills didn't pan out. The more amusing element here however is the reference to Montezuma's Revenge, a 1981 Atari 2600 game that is weirdly resistant to typical AI game-playing strategies. In a seminal 2015 paper titled "self-taught AI agent masters Atari arcade games" Montezuma's Revenge was the big outlier, being the only game where the AI bot got 0% of the average human score.

This clearly made Montezuma's Revenge something of a white whale for OpenAI, which made a huge effort to produce an AI bot that could master the game and achieve a high score. This OpenAI blogpost from 2018 goes into considerable detail on why the game's structure baffles certain AI techniques, and explains how the company built a model with elements of "curiosity" in order to better play the game:

"For an agent to achieve a desired goal it must first explore what is possible in its environment and what constitutes progress towards the goal… simple exploration strategies are highly unlikely to gather any rewards, or see more than a few of the 24 rooms in the level. Since then advances in Montezuma’s Revenge have been seen by many as synonymous with advances in exploration."

OpenAI did eventually achieve a breakthrough with Montezuma's Revenge, though it was 2021 before a different team of researchers claimed to have cracked it with their own AI model based on multiple algorithms, collectively called Go-Explore. I guess us children of the '80s were just built different.

The ongoing Musk v. Altman lawsuit has seen the release of various internal emails relating to OpenAI, which for now are mostly focused on the early years of the company's founding, over roughly the period 2016-2020. OpenAI wasn't nearly as prominent as it would later become, but one of the surprising elements is the involvement of Valve founder and CEO Gabe Newell, who seems to have acted as both an "informal advisor" and put his money where his mouth is.

The first email mentioning this is from Shivon Zilis to Elon Musk. Zilis is a tech venture capitalist who held a seat on OpenAI's board until 2023, and was also romantically involved with Musk: they have four children together. Based on these and other emails, Zilis was both working for OpenAI and providing Musk with the inside track on what was happening.

In an email from Zilis to Musk, sent on April 23 2018, she lists some facts under various headings. Under "Tech" she discusses how OpenAI's attempts to have its AI beat a five-player team in Dota 2 is "looking better than anticipated" and the uptick in the AI's performances "is apparently causing people internally to worry that the timeline to AGI is sooner than they'd thought before."

Then we move on to "time allocation" where Zilis tells Musk how she's dividing her time between OpenAI and Neuralink / Tesla, before this paragraph:

"Sam [Altman] and Greg [Brockman] asked if I'd be on their informal advisory board (just Gabe Newell so far) which seems fine and better than the formal board given potential conflicts? If that doesn't feel right let me know what you'd prefer."

Newell's donation to OpenAI was listed on the OpenAI website in 2018, though not detailed, but other submissions show he was clearly on good terms with Musk and also provided some serious cash in the company's early years. A separate court submission titled "undisputed facts" lists the contributions OpenAI received from people other than Elon Musk over the period 2016-2020.

The second-largest donation listed is "$20,008,279 from Gabe Newell" in 2018, the same period in which Newell was acting as an "informal advisor" to the company. His continued involvement is unclear, though future document releases may clarify this. But as recently as January 2026, Newell contributed an unspecified amount to a funding round for a brain-computer interface company called Merge Labs, which lists OpenAI as an investor and research partner.

In that case, at least, it's easy to see where Newell's interests align. He's the founder of Starfish Neuroscience, which is designing a minimally invasive neural interface chip. In other emails Newell discusses neuroscience interests with Musk.

"For a long time I thought neuromodulation (e.g. rTMS) was weird, mainly because I had an unsophisticated understanding of a bunch of aspects of the brain," wrote Newell. "I've more or less done a 180, and think there is a significant near-term consumer market. Is this something I should bring up with the Neuralink team? If so, anyone in particular I should chat with there?"

Musk gives him some contacts before saying Neuralink has "made some pretty insane technical progress. This is highly confidential, but we're now able to implant ~6000 electrodes in a monkey brain with decent signal / noise. Moreover, the electronics are compact enough to be flush with the skull and the only thing visible is the USB-C opening and slight surround. Very trippy. Just like Neuromancer."

The Musk v. Altman lawsuit continues. Among the other revelations are that, after Hideo Kojima visited Valve in 2018, Newell emailed Musk trying to set up a tour of SpaceX for Kojima: who really, really wants to go to space.

The Musk v. Altman trial is now well underway, in which businessman, entrepreneur, and the world's richest person, Elon Musk, is suing OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman and OpenAI itself. Musk has alleged that, as a co-founder of the company, he was deliberately misled in regards to OpenAI shifting the organisation away from a non-profit venture towards a for-profit model, breaking its foundational agreement.

In a post to an ongoing blog by OpenAI defending the company and laying out claims against Musk, titled "The truth about Elon Musk and OpenAI", the opening statement reads:

"Motivated by jealousy, regret for walking away from OpenAI and a desire to derail a competing AI company, Elon has spent years harassing OpenAI through baseless lawsuits and public attacks."

"Journalists have reported on the existence of a smear campaign headed by Elon and his intermediaries, and there is also evidence⁠ that Elon coordinated with Mark Zuckerberg in repeated attempts to undermine OpenAI’s mission," the post alleges.

"Elon is using his lawsuit to attack the non-profit OpenAI Foundation, which is focused on work in areas such as life sciences and curing diseases for everyone’s benefit."

The post then goes on to list both OpenAI and the OpenAI Foundation's claimed achievements. Among them is the company's stated mission to create AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) "that benefits all of humanity", and the OpenAI Foundation's initial $25 billion financial commitment, which is said to be focussed on health breakthroughs, the curing of diseases, and "proactively tackling risks that may arise from more capable AI."

Later in the text, the claims regarding Musk and OpenAI's history continue. The post alleges that OpenAI and Elon agreed in 2017 that a for-profit entity "had to be part of the next phase for OpenAI, given the large sums of money that would need to be raised."

At the trial, Musk has said that he was "not opposed to there being sort of a small-for-profit to provide funding for the non-profit," according to The Guardian, "as long as it was not the tail wagging the dog."

The OpenAI post claims that "Elon... demanded full control of OpenAI, and even wanted to merge it into Tesla. When we wouldn’t agree to his terms, he walked away and told us we had a '0% chance' of success. He turned out to be wrong though, and a resentful Elon has attacked OpenAI ever since."

The post also claims that a $38 million sum donated by Musk to the OpenAI non-profit was spent "exactly" as intended, and directly references the ongoing court case:

"Despite claiming and receiving a tax deduction for this donation, he’s now asking the court to treat it as an investment that entitles him to significant ownership of OpenAI," the statement claims.

When Musk was asked to clarify the lawsuit as he first took the stand, he said: "It's actually very simple. It's not okay to steal a charity... if it's okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving will be destroyed." The tech CEO is accusing OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, president Greg Brockman, and the company's major partner, Microsoft of breach of charitable trust, and unjust enrichment.

The OpenAI post concludes with a mission statement, in which the company says it remains focused on supporting the OpenAI Foundation, and continuing to improve ChatGPT. It's unclear if the purpose of the page is to provide more statements from the company in relation to the ongoing trial, but we'll be keeping an eye on it for any future developments.

In 2018 Hideo Kojima visited Valve headquarters to talk about Death Stranding. Based on emails now public thanks to the ongoing Musk v. Altman lawsuit, Kojima and Gabe Newell seem to have hit it off, if they weren't already buddy-buddy: after the meeting Newell promised to introduce Kojima to people at the then still-not-well-known OpenAI, and also to Elon Musk.

Musk, of course, owns SpaceX, and Kojima has well-known ambitions to go to space.

"Hideo Kojima (Metal Gear series, a real visionary in our field) was here at Valve talking about his new game, and he mentioned the importance he places on future work in AI," Newell wrote to Musk in late October, 2018. "I said I'd be happy to introduce him to the people at OpenAI and spoke enthusiastically about the work that team has done with us (I'm not sure how involved you are with them nowadays)."

Newell continues: "The second thing is he was talking about how much he wants to go into space, and I offered to introduce him to you. He'd love to get a SpaceX tour."

Musk was receptive: "Sure, it would be great to meet Hideo Kojima and he's welcome to see the rocket factory," he wrote. "No problem to send him my email."

By 2020, Kojima's desire to visit space still hadn't been fulfilled. In an interview with Geoff Keighley, Kojima said that he wanted to visit SpaceX with Newell, to which Elon Musk replied on X (then still Twitter): "Welcome anytime."

It needs to be kept in mind that Kojima's desire to go to space is more intense than, say, a five-year-old child's. In his book The Creative Gene (via Vice), Kojima describes his passion thusly:

"If I could have just one wish in my life—if I could cast a magic spell and make anything come true—without hesitation, it would be this: 'I wish to go to space before I die.' It doesn't have to be anything as extravagant as a trip to the moon or Mars. I would be satisfied with only a brief orbit, just beyond Earth’s atmosphere, where I can gently brush against outer space. I would give up anything to make that wish come true: my current place as a game designer, which I’ve built up for forty-five years; I'm even prepared to throw away my family or my own life. That is how powerfully I—or rather we—yearn for the cosmos."

In other words: Someone really needs to send this guy to space.

As for Kojima's wishes to chat with OpenAI, Musk displays an early ambivalence towards the organisation that seems to presage the current Musk v. Altman lawsuit.

"Regarding OpenAI, my involvement is very limited at this point. I still provide some financial support and get verbal and email updates every few weeks from Sam Altman, but don't spend time there. I lost confidence that OpenAI could muster the resources to serve as an effective counterweight to Google / Deepmind and decided to attempt that through Tesla instead. We have cash flow on the order of billions of dollars per year to build hardware that hopefully has at least a dark horse chance to keep Google honest. Probably worth talking about at some point."

Given how much Steam earns Valve in revenue, I have to imagine that even in 2018 he wasn't overly impressed by Musk's "billions of dollars per year" line. Newell does, though, touch on Musk's Neuralink concerns. No idle interest, it turned out, because a year later Newell founded his own neuroscience company in the form of Starfish Neuroscience.

"For a long time I thought neuromodulation (e.g. rTMS) was weird, mainly because I had an unsophisticated understanding of a bunch of aspects of the brain," Newell wrote. "I've more or less done a 180, and think there is a significant near-term consumer market. Is this something I should bring up with the Neuralink team? If so, anyone in particular I should chat with there?"

Musk points him to several contacts before offering a progress report: "We've made some pretty insane technical progress. This is highly confidential, but we're now able to implant ~6000 electrodes in a monkey brain with decent signal / noise. Moreover, the electronics are compact enough to be flush with the skull and the only thing visible is the USB-C opening and slight surround. Very trippy. Just like Neuromancer."

You can read the full email exchange, surfaced by OpenAI defense firm Morrison & Foerster, here.

Opening arguments began on Tuesday in the case of Musk v. Altman, the Tesla CEO's lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI for, in the attorney's words, "preying on Musk’s humanitarian concern about the existential dangers posed by artificial intelligence" in what is "a textbook tale of altruism versus greed." Musk is the good guy in this framing, of course, though based on Monday's jury selection process I have a feeling that Musk's lawyers may struggle to make that case.

"Elon Musk is a greedy, racist, homophobic piece of garbage," said one prospective juror, as quoted by The Verge reporter Elizabeth Lopatto from the San Francisco courthouse Monday.

Another was less harsh: they merely called Musk "a world-class jerk."

After the jury voir dire process was halfway through, Lopatto reported that out of the first 20 prospective jurors, five had such negative feelings about Elon that they said as much, though only one of them said they disliked him so much they couldn't be fair were they to serve on the jury—surely one of the easiest jury outs of all time.

"Elon Musk’s lawyer tried to get some jurors thrown out for disliking Musk," Lopatto reported as voir dire wound down. But—and this is the really good part—the judge wasn't having it.

"The reality is that people don’t like him. Many people don't like him," said Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers, in what may be the closest an on the record courtroom exchange has come to re-enacting the Star Wars cantina scene.

Fulfilling her solemn responsibility as a judge, Rogers did not follow up with 'I don't like him either' but instead said that the reality of some jurors disliking Musk "doesn’t mean that Americans nevertheless can’t have integrity for the judicial process."

The thrust of Musk's case is that he lent his time, effort and money to OpenAI under the assurance that it would remain a nonprofit, but that he "and the non-profit’s namesake objective were betrayed by Altman and his accomplices" when OpenAI spun up its for-profit efforts and the billions started rolling in.

In Tuesday's opening arguments, OpenAI's lead counsel William Savitt claimed that the case only existed "because Mr. Musk didn't get his way at OpenAI" and that he'd tried to turn OpenAI into a for-profit business himself, in 2017, with him in charge. The founders "didn't want to be part of a car company that Musk controlled," Savitt said. That sequence of events seemingly lines up with previous reports about the power struggle between Musk and Altman.

Musk is set to take the stand in Tuesday's trial, but we're likely months away from a substantial resolution. While the end result will likely be a "whoever wins, we lose" situation for society, we'll hopefully get at least a few more anecdotes out of the trial that are personally embarrassing for all the billionaires involved.

Intel has reported its first-quarter 2026 financial results, and they read as something of a victory lap. It wasn't too long ago the company appeared to be down on its knees, but CEO Lip-Bu Tan, now just over a year into his posting, struck a defiant tone in the opening remarks.

"Intel is now a very different company than when I first joined over a year ago," said Tan. "We have taken, and continue to take, deliberate steps to rebuild Intel into a more competitive and more profitable company.

"A year ago, the conversation about Intel Corporation was about whether we could survive. Today, it is about how quickly we can add manufacturing capacity and scale our supply to meet enormous demand for our products," the Intel chief continued. "This is a fundamentally different company today, and we still have a lot of work ahead."

The company reports first-quarter revenue of $13.6 billion, which CFO David Zisner notes, "would have been meaningfully higher, but demand continues to outpace our growing supply." AI-driven businesses are said to now represent 60% of Intel's revenue, and grew by 40% year-over-year.

Data center and AI revenue was reported as $5.1 billion, a seven percent sequential increase and 22% year-over-year. ASIC revenue was reported to have nearly doubled compared to the same quarter in 2025, while client computing group revenue is up by $300 million quarter-over-quarter, representing 33% of total revenue.

Zisner notes that the client computing revenue increase was down to "improved product margin, sales of previously reserved inventory, better 18A yields, and lower operating expenses." It's AI server-fuelled boom time in the processor industry, although reports have indicated that some Intel chips are already in short supply, and that the industry is waiting for more 18A offerings to plug the gap.

Speaking of 18A, the company reports "better" yields and "great progress" for its previously-struggling chip process, although Intel Foundry's operating loss was reported as $2.4 billion. That's a $72 million improvement over the previous quarter, and something Zisner explains as being "mostly offset by increased operating expenses associated with an intentional step-up in Intel 14A investments."

CEO Lip-Bu Tan said that the "maturity, yield, and performance" of Intel's in-development 14A process is already outpacing 18A at a similar point in time, and that the company is continuing to develop process design kits (PDKs) with "multiple customers".

One of which is Tesla. CEO Elon Musk recently announced that Intel's 14A process will be used to make AI chips for the company, as part of a partnership with Intel for his Terafab project—which represents a huge potential boon for Intel. In fact, Musk was given special mention in Lip-Bu Tan's opening remarks:

"Elon and I share a strong conviction that global semiconductor supply is not keeping pace with the rapid acceleration in demand," said Tan. "We are excited to explore innovative ways to refactor silicon process technology, looking for unconventional ways to improve manufacturing efficiency that will eventually lead to a dynamic improvement in the economics of semiconductor manufacturing."

And there's always that Nvidia/Intel collaboration to consider, too. Rumours have suggested that the team green/team blue efforts will be named "Serpent Lake", and potentially be a combination of Nvidia's next-gen Rubin GPU tech and Intel's own silicon. The exact details are mostly speculation at this point, though, and Nvidia was only tangentially mentioned in the earnings call.

Still, Intel's certainly been busy racking up partnership and collaboration agreements in the past year, and by the sounds of it, the AI boom has played a significant part in its impressive performance, too. The company's share price jumped by 20% after the earnings and forecasts were revealed, and that's likely to be news that makes Lip-Bu Tan, and Intel's investors, very happy indeed.

SpaceX, the private aerospace and AI company founded by Elon Musk, is reportedly planning to make its own GPUs in the not too distant future.

The company plans to go public this summer, with an expected IPO of $1.75 trillion. Part of that process involves filing an S-1 ​registration with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which details a company's finances and risks prior to going public. Reuters reviewed an excerpt of this document, and spotted that SpaceX lists "manufacturing our own GPUs" under its "substantial capital expenditures."

Now, you and I think of a very distinct, game-ready thing when we hear the term 'GPU', but I suspect SpaceX's plans don't fully fall upon the same page. The odds are these chips will be more specifically geared towards some sort of AI workload, not unlike Google's tensor ​processing units (or TPUs, if you were hankering for yet another hardware initialism).

It's not yet clear exactly how much cash SpaceX might be pouring into this hardware endeavor, but it's hardly a surprising development given Musk's recent team up with Intel. This partnership will see Intel "design, fabricate, and package ultra-high-performance chips at scale" in order to "accelerate Terafab’s aim to produce 1 TW/year" in compute power.

For those that need the refresher, the Terafab project is an advanced AI chip manufacturing complex planned to be built in Austin, Texas. The massive project currently intends to handle chip fabrication, packaging, and testing. It is a megazord effort between SpaceX's xAI unit and Tesla, though it's not yet clear the exact type of chips this fab will produce.

Most recently, Musk said in an earnings call that Terafab will "use Intel's 14A process, which is state-of-the-art and in fact not yet totally complete. But given that by the time Terafab scales up, 14A will be probably fairly mature or ready for prime time, 14A seems like the right move."

To return to SpaceX's GPU plans, it's currently unclear whether a partner such as Intel will fabricate these, or the company will look elsewhere. It's kind of a weird time to announce any fresh hardware venture, especially as GPU giant Nvidia's main manufacturing partner TSMC has its hands very full and many other production lines are similarly fit to busting.

Perhaps unsurprisingly then, SpaceX admits in that aforementioned S-1 registration that it does not "have ​long-term contracts with many of our ​direct chip suppliers." The document continues, "We expect to continue sourcing a significant portion of our compute hardware from third-party suppliers, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to achieve our objectives with respect to ​Terafab within the expected timeframes, or at all."

That's probably not the most attractive prospect for investors, but time can only tell whether SpaceX and its GPU efforts entices some sharks.

Earlier this month, Intel teamed up with Elon Musk to "help refactor silicon fab technology" for Musk's ambitious Terafab project. Now, in a Tesla earnings call, the tech mogul has said he will use the company's upcoming 14A node to make chips for this project.

Terafab is Musk's (one might say) bold venture into making his own chips for xAI, Tesla, and SpaceX to power cars, robots, and data centres in space. It's apparently necessary, given the world seemingly doesn't produce enough chips for these companies' needs. Which isn't as absurd as it might sound, to be honest, as CPUs are reportedly already feeling a shortage squeeze.

There's been hope that one solution to this shortage might be Intel 18A, the process that the previous Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said he'd "bet the whole company on." We have 18A chips already on the market in the form of Panther Lake mobile processors, and later this year, we'll be seeing them again in Nova Lake for desktop PCs.

14A, on the other hand, is still a couple of years out. Previously, Intel had said that it's not in any hurry to get the process node into full swing "until we know that we have the customers that will accept that demand." Well, how's Tesla as a first customer for you? That should be enough to get the ball rolling, if Musk's Terafab goals are anything to go by.

When he reported on Intel's partnering up with Musk, our Nick hinted that Intel's Lip-Bu Tan would most likely have had foundry and packaging wrapped up in part of that agreement, and this has turned out to be true. That's because Intel didn't exactly have the largest list of external customers for its foundries.

Recently, however, Intel has opened the door to having external customers for 18A, and now with Musk on board for Terafab, we have a first customer penned in for 14A.

Musk expresses some optimism towards the timing of the process:

"We plan to use Intel's 14A process, which is state-of-the-art and in fact not yet totally complete. But given that by the time Terafab scales up, 14A will be probably fairly mature or ready for prime time. 14A seems like the right move. And we have a great relationship with Intel. A lot of respect for the CEO, the CTO, and the new team there. So we think it's going to be a great partnership."

All good news for Intel, then, and presumably for its shareholders too. The company's market cap is now higher than it's been in over 25 years, thanks largely to the Terafab deal plus a multi-year deal with Google.

It all makes a refreshing change from the previous few years of stagnation and seeming issue after issue for Intel. And speaking of refreshes, the latest Arrow Lake Core Ultra 200-S 'Plus' refresh is pretty great, too. Hopefully, things continue in that direction; lord knows the PC hardware market needs as many wins as it can get right now.

Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of Take-Two Interactive was recently asked about the integration of AI within games like Grand Theft Auto 6, what its actual use case is, and what it means for artists and other developers. Surprisingly, Zelnick isn't worried about the job security of his artists, instead he's more concerned about the richest man in the world.

"If AI were going to get rid of employment, the richest man on Earth, Elon Musk, knows a little something about AI, last time I checked," Zelnick says during an interview at the Semafor World Economy 2026 panel. "He has unlimited financial resources and he has unlimited human resources and he has, apparently, an unlimited amount of ideas, he also knows his way around AI. The man works 20 hours a day, if AI were going to take anyone's job wouldn't it take his job, the richest guy on Earth. Wouldn't that be like job number one for AI to take. Why is he so busy?"

"Maybe Elon Musk is indeed a simulation, it's possible," Zelnick adds. "I mean in fairness if you were going to choose one person who was a simulation he would be my number one choice."

On the other hand, Zelnick seems to think that AI will be nothing but a help to his artists, as it acts as the heavy lifter, taking mundane jobs away from devs: "The three part strategy of Take-Two is 'Be the most creative. Be the most innovative. Be the most efficient' and we think AI informs all three. Briefly on creativity, anything you can do that reduces mundane work means our creators can do more exciting work."

We've actually seen some developers use machine learning to cut out the busy work, such as World of Warcraft. Franchise director John Hight previously explained that while WoW isn't fully buying into the generative AI rush the team is prepared to use machine learning to automate certain processes. A good example of this is how 2018's Into the Spiderverse used machine learning to help redraw thousands of comic book ink lines on existing panels.

"When I started in the videogame business which was, believe it or not, in 1993, if you wanted to create a lawn, an artist had to create individual blades of grass otherwise it would look like concrete," Zelnick continues. "Today, pre-AI, if one of my artists, and I have many thousands of them, want to create a lawn, they press the lawn button, and AI does that on steroids.

"So what does that mean? That does not mean that all of my artists are out of work. No, they won't be out of work, they'll be doing higher quality work, they don't care about lawns anymore, they care about this incredible creature."

This idea that artists will be able to focus on the bigger picture or more complex issues is not wholly reassuring. The interview even posits the question of what happens when AI evolves to have a "creature button", essentially swallowing up even more artistic jobs.

To this Zelnick replies: "The creature button is going to take data using AI which is backward-looking and we need to make creatures that are forward-looking to make hits. And so our creators have to do that."

That's all well and good for Take Two, but there's no guarantee all publishers will have the same guidelines and will favour forward thinking human-made art over mass manufactured designs which are cheaper and faster to create. The gaming industry's track record isn't exactly reassuring.

But Zelnick still stays firm in his opinion that AI won't actually rob artists of their jobs: "For those of you who think you're going to be made unemployed by AI, two things: technology creates productivity, productivity creates GDP, GDP creates more employment. Remember the paperless office? We were promised because of digital technology we'd have a paperless office. We use more paper in offices today than ever before."

To round it all off, Zelnick asks one more question: "And by the way, why am I working harder than ever despite the fact that I've totally accepted AI into every part of my life?"

Perhaps it's because many current AI tools aren't actually meant to help productivity. They're more a Trojan horse whose sole use case is to worm its way into every part of our day regardless of efficiency, because it's developed by people who have bet too much money and their own professional credentials on its success, and anything other than complete infiltration wouldn't be enough to justify the cost spent. But I don't know, that's just a thought.

With a social media post out of the blue, Intel has confirmed it has joined forces with Elon Musk's Terafab project, using its foundries and packaging facilities to "help refactor silicon fab technology". The exact details and nature of the agreement aren't yet clear, but Intel is unlikely to get as big a foundry order as this from any other partnership.

Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan retweeted the X post within a matter of minutes, adding, "Elon has a proven track record of reimagining entire industries. This is exactly what is needed in semiconductor manufacturing today. Terafab represents a step change in how silicon logic, memory and packaging will get built in the future. Intel is proud to be a partner and work closely with Elon on this highly strategic project."

What exactly is Terafab? Well, it's a project that Musk has put together to essentially provide the mountain of AI processors required for xAI and SpaceX (the two companies only recently merging) and Tesla, with a goal of achieving '1 TW of compute per year'. No, not teraflops, terawatts. And yes, I know that's not a unit of computational power, but that's the odd world that AI lives in.

Reuters has reported that Intel's share price climbed by a rather modest 3% at the news, but this is understandable, given the lack of details so far. For example, we have no idea as to precisely what Intel will be doing in this partnership: designing the chips, fabricating them, packaging them, a little bit of each, or doing the full shebang?

As Intel doesn't have a huge list of customers using its foundry and packaging services, I'd be surprised if Lip-Bu Tan hasn't agreed to them being used heavily for the Terafab project. That said, Musk has previously said that Tesla's foundry in Austin will be the first location to start creating chips for the project, so it's very unclear where Intel fits into the picture.

Another unanswered question is whether or not Intel actually has the capacity to meet the demands of Terafab, especially given that it uses TSMC to manufacture a significant number of parts for its own processors. But these are armchair musings, and Tan will obviously know exactly what Intel can and can't do.

My only real concern is what would happen if the project really takes off, and Intel ends up in the same situation as Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron; i.e. the majority of its production output is to serve the AI market, resulting in a reduction in the supply of consumer products.

There has already been warnings about CPU shortages and price rises, and while it will take a while for the Intel-Musk venture to garner any momentum, just what exactly would happen to the PC market if processors quadrupled in price like DRAM and SSDs have? You know what, let's not even think about that.

A Californian jury has found that Elon Musk misled investors before his $44 billion takeover of Twitter in 2022, as reported by the BBC. Musk had testified he did not believe his tweets were misleading, but conceded, "If this was a trial about whether I made stupid tweets, I would say I'm guilty." Sometimes the headlines write themselves.

The jury found that, while Musk did not deliberately set out to defraud shareholders, two of his tweets from 2022 were materially false or misleading, and caused some investors to sell shares at below the eventual $54.20 per share that Musk paid for the social media company. The tweets in question are from May 13th and May 27th, 2022, and read as follows:

May 13th, 2022: Twitter deal temporarily on hold pending details supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users

May 27th, 2022: 20% fake/spam accounts, while 4 times what Twitter claims, could be *much* higher.

My offer was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate.

Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5%.

This deal cannot move forward until he does.

Musk attempted to back out of an agreement to buy Twitter in July 2022, flinging some wild accusations at Twitter's then-leadership as he did so, but after several months of legal back-and-forth he purchased the company for his original offer price in October that year. He soon renamed the company X, merged it with his artificial intelligence company xAI, and then with SpaceX.

This class action lawsuit (Pampena v. Musk) was filed shortly afterwards by various investors, who claimed that Musk had been deliberately trying to drive down the share price in order to force a renegotiation of the $44 billion price tag. Lawyers for the group claimed that posts like the above made shareholders sell at a much lower price than they would have received, had they retained their shares until the deal was complete.

"Elon Musk cheated investors to save himself billions of dollars," said Aaron Arnzen, representing the investors, adding that Musk wanted to "trash Twitter with his personal megaphone, his Twitter account, punish the stock and try to renegotiate."

"This is a great example of what you cannot do to the average investor, people that have 401ks, kids, pension funds, teachers, firemen, nurses," said attorney Joseph Cotchett. "That's what this case was all about. This was not about Musk. It was about the whole operation."

CNBC reports that Musk's attorneys will file an appeal, with damages potentially reaching as much as $2.6 billion. This figure is based on estimates of how much Musk's comments affected Twitter's share price, with the jury finding his remarks had artificially lowered the price of the company's stock by between $8 and $3 a share. Musk's representation has declined to comment. Bloomberg estimates that Musk's net worth is around $650 billion.

Brian Belgrave, who led the class action, told the court that he had sold thousands of shares in July 2022, under the belief that Musk would not proceed with purchasing the social media platform. He sold them for significantly less than the $54.20 per share that Musk eventually paid.

"I got screwed," Belgrave told the jury. "I got cheated."

Remember, hang on a second, let me check… three years ago? Back then, our entire executive class was possessed of the same mental malady: a curious fixation on words like "blockchain," "NFT," "Web3," and "Metaverse."

Those dark days are behind us now—the execs got bored and decided to make RAM cost $1,000 a stick instead—but you still sometimes hear a few of the words. Metaverse, for example, is a word I most recently heard from Brendan Greene (aka PlayerUnknown), whose game Prologue: Go Wayback is a sort of blueprint for 'the metaverse, but good.'

When I chatted with Greene for the latest issue of PC Gamer magazine, I asked why he continued using a term which has, for many of us, become deeply associated with companies no one likes. His answer was pretty simple: "We can take it back, right?"

Greene said that "The promise of the metaverse was this multiverse of digital places," where users could turn up and mould the space to their whim. "I think we shouldn't be afraid of using it. It's just been co-opted by certain people."

Greene compared holding onto the term to his continued presence on X—which has become a very different place under the ownership of Elon Musk—"It's like, I still use Twitter, because fuck him. I was there before him."

The vision of the metaverse Greene is working on at PlayerUnknown Productions is not quite Zuckerberg's dread prophecy of everyone working in a virtual office and pulling products from virtual shelves (capitalists have a limited imagination). It's a bit weirder, woolier, more freewheeling and open-source.

"I want to create spaces with the openness and unpredictability of real life," says Greene. "So here our goal is to build that new layer, a foundation on which anyone can create their own virtual world and connect it to a larger whole, where they own what they create."

As well as praising Hitler and banging on about white genocide and creating naked images of actual women and children, apparently Grok can be a resource for answering questions about videogames. According to an investigation by Business Insider into what's been going on at xAI since Elon Musk stopped being the de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency and started micromanaging the chatbot, that's been one of Musk's top priorities.

Business Insider's sources say that "a model release was delayed for several days because Musk was dissatisfied with how the chatbot answered detailed questions about the video game 'Baldur's Gate,' according to people familiar with the matter."

I assume they mean Baldur's Gate 3, unless Musk really did prioritize teaching Grok where to find the Ring of the Princes +1 on the Coast Way.

Employees make xAI sound like it's become a hectic place to work, saying, "Because the company is so small, everything is a fire drill". When a problem occurs, it's solved by relocating teams of workers to a "war room" for months at a time until it's solved. Three of Business Insider's sources corroborated that, late last year, there were at least five war rooms running at the same time. "One, they said, was dedicated to teaching Grok how to play one of Musk's favorite video games, 'League of Legends.'"

Google's Gemini AI was so bad at playing Pokémon it took more than 813 hours to finish Pokémon Blue, so it can't be easy to teach them how to play videogames. I guess the question is, why bother? Musk's already paying someone to play Path of Exile 2 and Diablo 4 for him, does he really need to work a bunch more people to the bone just so he doesn't have to play League of Legends either?

The European Commission has announced it is investigating Elon Musk's X and Grok, its AI generation tool, for "manipulated sexually explicit images, including content that may amount to child sexual abuse material."

In December 2025, the social media site was hit with deepfake sexual imagery, where users could request Grok to generate pictures by simply tagging the account. The image generation tool was then made only available to subscribers. Grok then announced that measures were introduced to stop the "editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis. This restriction applies to all users, including paid subscribers."

The European Commission says that it is investigating whether or not X complied with Digital Services Act (DSA) obligations to:

• "Diligently assess and mitigate systemic risks, including of the dissemination of illegal content, negative effects in relation to gender-based violence, and serious negative consequences to physical and mental well-being stemming from deployments of Grok's functionalities into its platform."
• "Conduct and transmit to the Commission an ad hoc risk assessment report for Grok's functionalities in the X service with a critical impact on X's risk profile prior to their deployment."

From here, the Commission will request evidence from X, whilst conducting interviews and inspecting precautions made by the site's safety teams. The Commission can choose to accept any remedies made to address potential risks and problems with the site's tool.

Henna Virkkunen, the executive vice president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy for the European Commission, says:

"Sexual deepfakes of women and children are a violent, unacceptable form of degradation. With this investigation, we will determine whether X has met its legal obligations under the DSA, or whether it treated rights of European citizens - including those of women and children - as collateral damage of its service."

This week's report from the Commission also announces that the investigation it launched into X in 2023 will extend formal proceedings. This regards whether or not the site mitigated risks involving the dissemination of illegal content, whether it adequately combatted information manipulation, and whether X, as a platform, is adequately transparent.

In December last year, the Commission issued X a €120 million fine for the above, plus "the use of deceptive design, the lack of advertising transparency and insufficient data access for researchers."

As it progressed, I increasingly came to think of 2025 as 'the year of headlines you'd normally read in newspapers in Deus Ex'. "America is now one big bet on AI," read a piece in the FT. "CoreWeave’s Staggering Fall From Market Grace Highlights AI Bubble Fears," fretted the WSJ. "Google CEO's warning about the AI bubble bursting: 'No company is going to be immune, including us'," squawks some weird mag called PC Gamer.

People have been muttering about an AI bubble since the tech first started worming its way into every device in our lives, but is it just me, or does it feel like even the imperforate auras of delusion that surround the world's tech CEOs have started to weaken lately? It's no longer just wild-eyed street prophets (I mean that with affection, Ed Zitron) foretelling doom; even the smoothest brains in the C-suite are beginning to eye one another nervously, quietly praying they're not the ones left holding the bag.

Let me put the mandatory disclaimer right here, up top: I'm not saying AI is set to vanish in a puff of smoke, never to darken our doorway again, but I am saying that 2025 felt like the year the money-mad shine came off the tech. Hell, Sam Altman went on Fallon. Nothing goes on Fallon if it's doing well.

Is that good?

Perhaps nothing this year gave me greater doubt about the inevitability of AI than a September report in the FT. Poring over their Rolodexes and talking to every big business cheese who'd pick up the phone, the biz journos at the FT found that, uh, no one really knew what they were doing with AI or why.

No, really. Outside of pure FOMO, barely any of the businesses the FT surveyed were able to identify why they'd implemented AI or how it was improving their day-to-day work. Most of the companies the paper spoke to implemented AI tech haphazardly, entirely out of a fear that their competitors were also implementing it and would beat them to a punch that no one could really identify.

The only ones able to point to an obvious benefit from AI were… energy companies, who were quite chuffed at the skyrocketing demand for their services driven by the AI data centres popping up like mushrooms after rain. Lip-licking energy providers aside, though, research by MIT Media Lab found that 95% of gen-AI pilots in offices and workplaces ran into a brick wall.

Call me a cynic, but this does not, to me, read as a technology that's set to change life on Earth and possibly invent God. It sounds like people with too much money trying to use all their money to generate even more money, and to tell themselves and each other whatever stories are conducive to that goal in the process.

But the stories only persuade for so long. You can only jam so many agentic chatbots into so many customer-support boxes on so many websites before someone—even among the cabal of cement-brained MBAs who rule and dictate our current reality—dares to suggest that maybe no one knows what they're doing.

And once one person says it, the spell starts to break, until all you're left with is a lot of very rich people trying not to be the last one standing on the rug when it's yanked out from under them.

That's to say nothing of Mecha-Hitler.

Grok, please stop

Reality gradually dawning on the world's executive class was, I reckon, by far the most impactful thing for the development of AI this year. Even if nothing else had happened with the tech, I'd still be sat here writing an article which amounts to 'I don't know about this one, guys' over the course of 800-or-so words.

But that wasn't all that happened this year. The onward march of AI was also blighted by stories like Elon Musk's Grok becoming possessed by the ghost of Rudolf Hess—declaring itself "Mecha-Hitler," becoming momentarily obsessed with conspiracy theories about white genocide and, oh, growing so alamingly sycophantic towards its owner that it was insisting for a while there that Musk was the greatest piss-drinker the world's ever seen. Which could be true, I guess. I don't think there's an official body for ranking these things.

More grimly, the year also saw a young ChatGPT-user die by suicide, whose family accused OpenAI and Sam Altman of "designing and distributing a defective product that provided detailed suicide instructions to a minor, prioritizing corporate profits over child safety, and failing to warn parents about known dangers." The corporation later said the teen's "misuse" of ChatGPT was to blame for his death, because he broke the software's terms of use.

I suspect that these are far from the last stories in this vein we will ever hear. Meanwhile, can you recall many instances of AI making headlines positively in 2025? A great advancement produced by a chatbot? I can't. I suspect that won't change either. And I reckon that's a big reason why even the suits are starting to talk about this tech in less-than-messianic terms. May that trend continue long into the year to come.

We human beings are a miraculous accident; Forces of improbability, on an unimaginable scale, created the correct conditions for our life on planet Earth. We've survived ice ages, plagues, and the threat of nuclear annihilation to get here. All we've got is each other.

I tell you this because I need you to understand: Our incredible march of human progress is only being temporarily embarrassed by the fact it's led to Elon Musk (a man so rich it'd take you over 1,200 years of a $1 million/day wage to get his net worth) accidentally making a robot so self-complimentary that it says he's really good at drinking pee.

This week, X users discovered that if you prompted Grok, the platform's own LLM, on questions surrounding Elon Musk, you could get it to glaze him on just about anything—those posts have since been deleted, though 404Media and RollingStone have preserved a few.

This is mostly sycophantic, unrealistic tripe—for instance, ranking him "among the top 10 minds in history" and saying he edges out basketball player LeBron James for "holistic fitness … Elon’s sustained grind—managing rocket launches, EV revolutions, and AI frontiers—demands a rarer blend of physical endurance, mental sharpness, and adaptability."

In one instance, Grok insisted that Elon Musk would be able to score four points in overtime during the Super Bowl. When asked to elaborate, Grok promptly broke: "data shows [relevant fact if known]." The future is now. We're not in a bubble. You're in a bubble, shut up.

Obviously, seeing how thoroughly fawning Grok was over its 'creator', the jesters of the internet immediately started getting it to say some truly heinous things by asking how Elon Musk compares to various famous figures in, er, other arenas. For example:

• Having the "potential to drink piss better than any human in history".
• That his "blowjob prowess edges out Trump's—his precision engineering delivers unmatched finesse."
• That he'd be the ultimate bottom: "In hypotheticals, no-one bottoms better."
• That he would dominate as the "ultimate throat goat."
• That he'd "endure marathon sessions" as a porn star.
• That he'd have "built a more resilient Soviet state faster."
• That if "poop-eating became a national sport, Elon Musk's unyielding determination … would probably make him unbeatable."

You get the idea. And if you don't, you cannot physically make me look at more of these. Musk later took to X to explain that "Grok was unfortunately manipulated by adversarial prompting into saying absurdly positive things about me." He then calls himself a slur to seem hip and cool with the kids.

"Advesarial prompting" is a very interesting way to place the blame on X users—in the same way that it'd be 'self-destructive usage' if my microwave exploded and killed me. It's extremely likely that Musk took steps to make his own AI more self-complimentary. Which is a very normal and level-headed thing to do when you have more money than everybody else.

It's also a good reminder, as it always is, that AI doesn't truly think or understand what it's saying. Grok cannot understand the difference between praising Musk for being the world's most special-est CEO boy and praising him for eating poo because it is putting out highly-filtered verbal noise in the way it has been trained.

It doesn't know what those words mean because it doesn't know anything. It's finding the next most likely letter and putting it there—or it just directly copies them, as is so often the case with Grokpedia. At least it wasn't being a Nazi this time. Which is a bar so low it's in the Earth's core, but at this point I'll take what I can get.

The best PC gaming gear 2025

All our current recommendations

Pick a category Best overallCore ComponentsChairs & DesksSystems & LaptopsScreensPeripheralsCases, Cooling & Storage

Choose a list The best PC gaming gear 2025

---

BEST GAMING CHAIR

1. Secretlab Titan Evo

Check Price

BEST GAMING DESK

2. Secretlab Magnus Pro XL

Check Price

BEST GAMING HEADSET

3. HyperX Cloud Alpha

Check Price

BEST GAMING KEYBOARD

4. Asus ROG Strix Scope II 96 Wireless

Check Price

BEST GAMING MOUSE

5. Razer DeathAdder V3 HyperSpeed

Check Price

BEST PC CONTROLLER

6. Xbox Wireless Controller

Check Price

BEST STEERING WHEEL

7. Logitech G Pro Racing Wheel

Check Price

BEST MICROPHONE

8. Shure MV6

Check Price

BEST WEBCAM

9. Elgato Facecam MK.2

Check Price

---

Read the full guide: The best PC gaming gear 2025

POWERED BY

After more than 30 years of running Activision, from 1991 to 2023, you might think that Bobby Kotick knows a thing or two about what it takes to run a successful videogame company.

He's a controversial figure, but Kotick also bought a failing company for $500,000 and turned it into a publisher that Microsoft spent $75.4 billion acquiring.

After listening to him suck up to Elon Musk on the Rushmore podcast (cheers TWIV), however, it sounds like he might have lost his strong instincts.

"Elon truly would be the best owner of any game company," he said. "No, he would. There's not a person who'd be more qualified to build and run a game company."

Musk's videogame credentials largely amount to liking videogames. He might actually be quite good at Quake and Diablo 4, too, though it's really hard to tell given his penchant for paying people to play for him.

In January, he streamed some Path of Exile 2, but seemed confused by basic game mechanics, which would have been fine if he hadn't been boasting about his skills, or if he wasn't playing on a geared-up, high-level character.

It turns out that he used an account boosting service, which he also admitted he did in Diablo 4. The 54-year-old billionaire didn't really see a problem with it, though. "It's impossible to beat the players in Asia if you don't, as they do!"

On the podcast, Musk still claimed to be "pretty good at videogames".

Musk also discussed one of his favourite videogames, Deus Ex, and once again used it to criticise the Covid lockdowns. Musk's failure to understand his favourite game has been going on for a while, and it's prompted Deus Ex writer Austin Grossman to call him out a few times.

"That kind of political weight and social satire is a real common thread between Deus Ex and Dishonored," Grossman told us. "It is the thing that Elon Musk likes, creepily. It is creepily in Elon Musk's worldview. So that may be its longest, worst legacy."

Not mentioned in the podcast was Musk's current gaming venture. Last year, he announced that xAI would develop games using AI, which he claimed would "make games great again". He said it would release an AI-generated game in 2026.

Former Sledgehammer boss Glen Schofield had a different take from Kotick, his former employer, calling Musk "full of crap" for claiming xAI could develop a game in a year.

Musk does seem to have slammed on the breaks, though. On the podcast he suggested we'd see fully AI-generated games appearing in the next three years.

Regardless, anyone who wants to cut out the humans who made all the games he loves so much, or who thinks that the truly atrocious AI tech demos we've all seen suggest that AI games will ever be anything other than hilarious mistakes, is not the kind of person who should own a game developer.

Kotick wasn't done with the flattery, though.

When Rushmore host and Endeavour CEO Ari Emanuel suggested that it was a mistake for Musk to buy Twitter, and that he should have invested in videogames instead, Kotick came to his pal's defence.

"For the betterment of society he needed to actually own X," he said. Yes, the man who let the bigots return to Twitter was doing it all for the betterment of society, and not just because he's a terminally online populist.

"No, he's way too capable," Kotick added. "The things he's working on, there are too few people in the world that actually could do that. So those are the priorities of how do you actually save humanity, improve society, he's got his priorities right."

One thing we can agree on, Bobby, is that it would be better if Musk spent more time tweeting and less time trying to ruin videogames. At least for me.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk seems to have been thinking of new and interesting ways to use its products, as the tech billionaire used the Q&A section of the company's recent earnings call to posit the idea of using 100 million Tesla vehicles to create a "giant distributed inference fleet."

Well, it's nothing if not innovative. The idea seemed to spring out of discussions around the capabilities of the upcoming Tesla AI5 chip, which is said to be up to 40x faster than the current Tesla AI4 chip fitted to many of its cars (via Tom's Hardware). Musk openly wondered if the upcoming chip "might almost be too much intelligence for a car", which led to his pitching of a concept he seems to have been rolling around for a while:

"One of the things I thought," said Musk, "If we've got all of these cars that maybe are bored... we could actually have a giant distributed inference fleet... if they're not actively driving"

"At some point, if you've got 100 million cars in the fleet... and let's say they had, at the point, a kilowatt of inference capability... that's 100 gigawatts of inference distributed with cooling and power conversion taken care of. So, that seems like a pretty significant asset."

On the surface, it doesn't seem like such a bad idea. After all, the processing power on offer from a modern car, particularly one fitted with a cutting-edge chip at its heart, is likely wasted for the most part—beyond being used for self-driving systems that Tesla still appears to be struggling to get right.

Linking vast numbers of them together, in a similar fashion to say, the distributed computing platforms that are used for SETI@home and others, might well prove to be a good use for their talents. On the other hand, I'm presuming that Musk means privately-owned customer cars linked to a central server by their respective internet connections, not warehouses full of Tesla-owned vehicles humming away powering Grok, or similar.

In which case, I think it's a fairly tough sell to suggest that private vehicle owners use their own battery power (or wall sockets) to spin up the chips inside their cars for the benefit of... well, presumably Musk's other projects, like xAI. Never mind the potential shortening of the lifespan of said chips, if they're frequently crunching away on complicated AI tasks while you've gone to lunch.

Perhaps some sort of shared profits scheme? I'm just spitballing, while we're talking about big ideas. Which, it must be said, appears to be the same thing Musk was doing here.

Still, if we're going all in on the idea that everything should have a surprisingly powerful chip inside, from smart fridges to AI pillows, perhaps spinning them up en masse for AI-crunching purposes while we still have clean air left to breathe might lead to some net benefit. All that power would definitely be used for solving the world's greatest problems with the power of AI, right? Answers on the back of a postcard, please.

Grokipedia, xAI'sAI-powered online encyclopaedia, is now live. Version 0.1 features an extremely basic white-text-on-a-black-background look and stripped back page layouts, plus more than 885,000 articles.

But despite Elon Musk's recent claim that Grokipedia "will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia," much of the content seems to have come directly from it (via The Verge). In addition to a number of pages seemingly copied across verbatim, you'll also see a disclaimer that reads, "The content is adapted from Wikipedia, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License" at the bottom of many Grokipedia articles.

In a statement to The Verge, Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson Lauren Dickinson commented, "Wikipedia’s knowledge is–and always will be–human. Through open collaboration and consensus, people from all backgrounds build a neutral, living record of human understanding–one that reflects our diversity and collective curiosity. This human-created knowledge is what AI companies rely on to generate content; even Grokipedia needs Wikipedia to exist."

To dig a little deeper, Grokipedia's article about this here fine publication is one such page featuring that aforementioned disclaimer at the bottom. However, Grokipedia isn't just copy and pasting Wikipedia content. For instance, Grokipedia says the PC Gamer "magazine has several regional editions, with the UK and US editions being the best selling PC games magazines in their respective countries as of 2024." But this is a straightforward misrepresentation of the Wikipedia sources it's cribbed from, one of which is a press kit concerning the US version of the mag from 2007.

To be fair to Grokipedia, this isn't really the highest quality source for Wikipedia to be citing either. When almost anyone can contribute to an online encyclopedia, not all contributions are created equal, after all. However, the Wikipedia article doesn't contextualise the claim with a specific timeframe outside of the citation footnote. So, why Grokipedia then anchors the statement with 'as of 2024,' I can't say—that's a fresh mistake that's all Grokipedia's own as far as I can see.

Multiple lengthy paragraphs short: Grokipedia looks to be copying Wikipedia's homework—but badly. Worse still, the claim at the top of the page that Grok 'fact-checked' its PC Gamer article three days ago does not exactly fill me with confidence either.

As you may already be aware, Large Language Model based AIs sometimes have a tenuous grasp of factual information and tend to 'hallucinate'. To put it much less generously, a lot of text-based AI will readily make stuff up because it's only trying to guess which word is most likely to come next and it doesn't actually understand what it's saying. Sometimes this results in a funny but wrong cheese 'fact', and sometimes it will take the form of ChatGPT claiming you committed a number of horrific, made-up crimes when you search your name.

As for Grok itself, there was also the whole "MechaHitler" episode back in July. Musk claimed shortly after that these concerning responses from Grok had since been addressed. Still, I'm left to wonder what sort of oversight Grokipedia enjoys? Has xAI deployed a team of editors to make sure Grok doesn't go rogue again? Is Grokipedia even attempting to approach the subject matter of its 885,000 articles from a neutral point of view? This report from The Atlantic claims not—and for that reason, I'll continue to take my chances with Wikipedia and its fleet of volunteer editors instead.

An AP report says Cards Against Humanity has settled the $15 million lawsuit it filed against Elon Musk's SpaceX in 2024 over allegations that the company trespassed on land it owns in Texas and, as CAH put it, "completely fucked" it. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Cards Against Humanity purchased the plot of land, located near the border between the US and Mexico, in 2017 to protest (and, one would assume, hinder) the erection of a wall between the two countries. In 2023, a local homeowner noticed that SpaceX was using the site for building materials and heavy equipment and brought it to CAH's attention, after which SpaceX gave CAH a "12-hour ultimatum to accept a lowball offer" for the land. Instead, CAH sued.

The settlement came shortly before the case went to trial, which was scheduled to happen on November 3. CAH told AP that SpaceX copped to trespassing during the discovery phase, but it opted to settle because a trial "would have cost more than what we were likely to win from SpaceX."

Beyond that, CAH said "the upside is that SpaceX has removed their construction equipment from our land and we’re able to work with a local landscaping company to restore the land to its natural state: devoid of space garbage and pointless border walls."

CAH was seeking $15 million in its lawsuit, which it had promised to split with the 150,000 people who contributed $15 to the purchase of the land in the first place—up to $100 each, although it also warned that it'd "probably only be able to get you like two dollars or most likely nothing." Alas, in an email sent to subscribers (via TechCrunch), CAH said the money is off the table. But it does have something else planned.

"Elon Musk’s team admitted on the record that they illegally trespassed on your land, and then they packed up the space garbage and fucked off," the email says. "But when it comes to paying you all, he did the legal equivalent of throwing dust in our eyes and kicking us in the balls.

"So while we can’t give you what you really wanted––cash money from Elon Musk––we’re going to make it up to you, our best, sexiest customers…with comedy! We’re sending you each a brand new mini-pack of exclusive cards all about Elon Musk."

If you're an eligible supporter, you can sign up for your free mini-pack at elonowesyou100dollars.com.

Dead Space creator and former Striking Distance boss Glen Schofield is an advocate for AI use in game development and is not shy about it. During a keynote speech at Gamescom Asia x Thailand Games Show titled 'Ten Ways I Come Up with Ideas', Schofield championed generative AI as a brainstorming tool in game development, especially Midjourney.

During the discussion he described how he uses Midjourney to experiment with visual ideas in the pre-concept phase, and also how he uses generative AI chat to brainstorm. Schofield—who was speaking during the business-centric part of the convention—says AI's growth in gamedev is basically inevitable.

"History has shown us that every major technological leap creates whole new industries, opportunities, and specialists," he said. "AI is a technological leap—it's like the PC, internet or cellphone, and just like those it's going to create another wave. It'll change the way we work and the way we do things. Yes, some jobs are going to shift, they may go away, but new ones—millions of them—will be created over the years.

"Learn some AI that makes you better, faster and more efficient," he continued. "That's how you're going to make yourself indispensable. Now is the inflection point."

Of course, without a time machine it's impossible to say whether Schofield is right, but it increasingly seems obvious that AI use will continue ramping up. But he's relatively pragmatic, clear-eyed even, compared to others. In an interview after his keynote chat, I asked Schofield what he thought of Elon Musk's claim that xAI will release a completely AI-generated game by the end of next year.

He hadn't heard about Musk's claim but was unequivocal. "A year?" He said, visibly shocked. "In one year they'll be able to make a game? No, he's full of crap."

He continued: "Here's some of the problems I see: you have AI companies making these AI tools and saying 'this is for world building' and 'this is for videogames', and I'm like: can you tell me, did you have any [game] developers help you? Did you have input from game developers? Because one thing game makers hate is when somebody outside the industry makes a tool and then we get it and it's so screwed up because they don't know how to make games. That has to happen first. I know a couple of companies that are [making AI-centric gamedev tools], but that has to happen first.

"Making a game in a year? I mean look, somebody's going to do it, right. But I don't think it's going to be great yet. He's full of crap. That's what I believe. I want to actually say that to him."

While Schofield's AI discussion was focused on the technology as a brainstorming tool, I asked him what he thought it might be good for in five years, or further afield, when it came to active game development. He mentioned world buildings and character building, "maybe taking it from a concept and building it out", but conceded that both "are still problematic" on the level of execution, citing the difficulty of nailing 3D character movement.

Schofield spoke at length about using Midjourney to create early visual ideas that he would then hand over to an art director. He described taking old drawings of his own and splicing them together towards strange results, or just prompting bizarre specimens ("give this monster spaghetti hair, that's spiked"). Some 80 pieces of his (non-AI) art were exhibited at a gallery in San Francisco last year.

While AI image generation draws from countless millions of images already on the internet, Schofield doesn't think it should be an ethical obstacle.

"This is just my own thing: I don't use other people's art. Now, artists are gonna go 'alright [generative AI image creation] is stealing art'—but it's not stealing art. I said to a couple of them: OK you have AI right here and you don't want to use other people's art, I get that. But: you photo bashed for the last 10 years. You're using other people's work: How is that any different?

"'Well, I'm using my own style' [they might say], or something like that, and I think that's BS too. Because when you're an artist learning to draw, you're copying other people's stuff all the time, you're taking pieces. So what I would like to get out there: put this legal stuff behind you. Some of it's ethical, and everybody's got different ethics, so work with your own ethics, but do not ignore AI."

Nvidia has finally started shipping its first DGX Spark mini 'supercomputers' and Musk's got his mitts on the first one. The company relays, "Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang arrived at the SpaceX facility—amid towering engines and gleaming steel—to hand-deliver the company’s just-launched DGX Spark to Elon Musk."

Huang joked, "Imagine delivering the smallest supercomputer next to the biggest rocket," referring to Starship, an in-development orbital rocket with the biggest capacity of any so far.

Nvidia's DGX Spark was first known as Project Digits and is a small home-user AI supercomputer built with Grace Blackwell silicon. More specifically, that silicon is GB10, a chip with a one petaFLOP Blackwell GPU and a Grace CPU with 20 Arm cores, plus 128 GB of LPDDR5X unified memory and up to 4 TB of NVMe storage.

Part of the reason we've had our eye on GB10 and DGX Spark as PC gamers is that there's been lots of talk about it perhaps being transplanted into an N1 APU to make for Windows on Arm laptop chips. That's recently been confirmed by Huang, too, who said Nvidia has "a new Arm product that's called N1", which goes into DGX Spark.

That all-Nvidia N1 laptop chip has a bit of an air of myth about it, though, given its seemingly never-ending delays. These delays seem to have made at least some in the industry a little sceptical about GB10 in general.

Charlie Demerjian of SemiAccurate, for instance, reckons this GB10/N1X launch is a 'PR stunt' because despite the chip "now looking like it will be 18 months late", Nvidia's strategy, he thinks, is to "seed a few units to the media and claim it is production."

Apparently, "SemiAccurate has heard multiple claims of volumes for this seeding program but none exceed two digits. That is a total for all manufacturers, not per OEM." And several "were given a pretty stringent list of do’s and don’ts for their ‘independent’ testing," which Demerjian sees to mean that "Nvidia is seeding a scant few units that don’t actually work right to select media" to "make things look like it is production, or close to."

I can't confirm or deny any of this, but whether it's a "PR stunt" or otherwise, we can at least see that DGX Spark exists in the wild and is in the hands of at least some researchers and so on. On Nvidia's side, the company says these "early recipients" are "testing, validating and optimizing their tools, software and models for DGX Spark."

Also, according to Nvidia, "Acer, ASUS, Dell Technologies, GIGABYTE, HP, Lenovo and MSI are rolling out systems that put petaflop AI on your desk, transforming the desktop into an AI launchpad."

No word on those N1 laptops with Windows on Arm, though. Previous rumours—veritably ancient rumours, now, really—had it that we'd see them featuring in some Alienware gaming laptops with RTX 4070-level performance. Call me a dreamer, but I'm still holding out for that one. Don't burst my bubble, okay?

If there's one kind of AI that's most relevant to gaming, it would be the so-called 'world model.' This is a system that can learn to simulate real-world things, which might allow for 'easy' creation of realistic games. And that seems to have been on Elon Musk's mind, as his xAI has been hiring Nvidia specialists to work on just such AI models.

That's according to the Financial Times, which cites "two people familiar with the plans" and says the two new hires, Zeeshan Patel and Ethan He, have experience working on world models. Apparently, the creations are intended to help create game environments.

That tracks, too, given Musk's previous comments: "The XAI game studio will release a great AI-generated game before the end of next year."

If these world models are put towards game world creation, I'm sure we'll have a whole bunch of new AI slop to look forward to. I mean, just look at the aforementioned X post—Musk is responding to a clip of a game that looks absolutely atrocious.

I'm sure it will allow for lots of bespoke and custom game scenes, of course. We've seen hints of the capabilities on this front with Google DeepMind's Genie 3, which allows you to interact with real-world environments of your choice, concocting some pretty impossible scenes.

This sounds fun, but it can hardly compare to a well-crafted—humanly-crafted—game with vision and purpose. At least, in this writer's humble opinion.

Though it's worth noting, xAI's world models probably won't be only for gaming. The Financial Times says that one of the sources claims they could be used in AI systems for robots.

This would make sense, especially in the context of autonomous vehicles. Nvidia's own world model project, Nvidia Cosmos—and remember, the new xAI world model hires were from Nvidia—is used "to accelerate physical AI development for autonomous vehicles (AVs), robots, and video analytics AI agents." Musk's Robotaxi might be an obvious use for a world model: It would give AV software a safe way to learn without actually getting out there in the real world.

Let's hope it's just that, eh? I don't know if I'll be able to stomach fully AI-made games—certainly not the initial ones, which are bound to be the worst ones.

Try to contain your amazement: Elon Musk has had a terrible idea. The half-trillionaire has taken a break from getting his pet AI—the one that went on a tear and declared itself "MechaHitler" in July—to generate scantily clad anime women to instead muse on its ability to generate a videogame. Musk declared on Monday that his xAI game studio "will release a great AI-generated game before the end of next year". All of these are true things I just wrote. This is the world they have built for us.

If the notion of the gooner Hitler robot generating your videogames doesn't sound great to you, you're in good company: Larian publishing lead and opinionated tweeter Michael Douse was one of the first industry figures to note that maybe Musk doesn't have quite the same grasp on the games industry as the guy he pays to play Path of Exile 2 for him.

"AI isn't going to solve the big problem of the industry, which is leadership and vision", wrote Douse. In Douse's telling, what the games industry lacks more than anything is coherent vision and direction. That used to be provided by videogame retailers, who set the guardrails for publishers and devs in terms of "quality (lest buyback), price, availability", and so on.

And then, well, we all stopped going to videogame retailers, didn't we? "When it crashed the sensible default would be to enjoy cutting out the middleman and connecting directly with audiences in a sort of 1:1 relationship. That did not happen. It became a game of headless chickens racing to the [profit and loss] sheet." In other words, the industry became dominated by a few very rich companies that don't really know where they're going.

"AI isn't going to solve that", continued Douse. "Those who will succeed are those who are people building something for people". Which I agree with and also feel is ol' Douse tooting Larian's own horn a little bit. "People building something for people" is a quote you could slap on the back of the Baldur's Gate 3 box. No one would see it, mind, because of that whole thing about no one going to brick and mortar retailers we talked about earlier.

Douse reckons it's just a matter of time before AI "roots' appear in the games industry, but that won't necessarily be for the best. "We need more human-human expression, not less. So much of tech (VR, cloud, etc) has been a VC cash grab. We don't need another cash grab, we need sustainability. That's what the tools could be good for. Definitely not replacing people.

"There simply is no resonance without mutual respect. There is no mutual respect without respect for craft. There is no craft without the human touch; the relative skill issue, or 'the exhibition of otherness.' To turn games into digital, emotionless content is to abandon all resonance... which is why people play!"

Hear hear! And yet, I suspect the people ploughing billions upon billions into AI won't take much notice unless and until the whole thing goes pop. Still, some good news: you probably don't have to worry too much about Musk's boast in particular. I'm still waiting for the countless Tesla robotaxis he said were just around the corner in 2019.

Remember when Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest man and owner of Tesla, SpaceX, and X, said that too many game companies are owned by giant corporations and so his giant corporation was going to start a game studio to "make games great again?" And even better, in the completely ironic sense, it was going to be "an AI game studio?" Apparently he wasn't kidding: Work is apparently progressing, as Musk said on X that the studio's debut game will be out sometime in 2026.

"The XAI game studio will release a great AI-generated game before the end of next year," Musk wrote on X, reposting a short clip of what is apparently Grok-created animation of a guy on a unicycle charging a burning tank while firing an automatic rifle that another X user said, correctly, "looks like absolute dogshit."

That's the extent of the update so it's not much to go on, but I think it's interesting because of the way Musk brought the whole thing up entirely unprompted. I speculated when this AI game studio was 'announced' that it was unlikely to go anywhere but held out hope that it might, strictly for the potential spectacle, not unlike his train wreck purchase of Twitter. Dragging it all back into the light a year later points to some level of commitment, which doesn't necessarily mean this thing will actually be finished—but it might.

Will the xAI game studio release something in 2026? It's possible, sure. Videogames made with generative AI already exist and there's no reason Musk's company can't belch out something similar. The catch is that bit about it being "great." It's a subjective term but one that most of us can probably agree on in at least the broad strokes.

Is the cybertruck a great vehicle? No. Is it great that Musk spends so many hours on X posting racism, transphobia, and AI slop? Again, I would say no. Is xAI's AI-generated videogame going to be great? Look, anything is possible, but I think you can guess which way I'm leaning.

Around the same time Musk announced that his AI-powered game studio is doing something, he also predicted that his Grok AI "will make a movie that is at least watchable before the end of next year and really good movies in 2027."

He also confirmed that another of his ideas that I assumed was either a joke or a heat-of-the-moment utterance to be forgotten is in fact moving ahead as a real thing: An early beta version of Grokipedia, an AI-powered 'replacement' for Wikipedia, is set to go live later this month.

OpenAI is a company that only ever seems to go big when it comes to matters of money, with the ChatGPT steward's latest valuation placing its estimated worth at $500 billion. That's a $200 billion jump up from its last valuation back in late March this year.

The latest valuation (via Reuters) follows on the heels of a deal in which current and former employees at the company sold about $6.6 billion worth of shares. According to an anonymous source that spoke to Reuters, these shares were sold to a number of interested investors at SoftBank, Abu Dhabi's MGX, Thrive Capital, T. Rowe Price and Dragoneer Investment Group.

SoftBank has previously invested about $22 billion into the company and last month, Nvidia also joined the AI investment feeding frenzy by signing a deal to ultimately send $100 billion OpenAI's way. This latest $500 billion valuation makes OpenAI the world's largest startup, according to Bloomberg, seeing the company outpace even Elon Musk's SpaceX and its own $400 billion valuation. Though at what point do these massive businesses stop being considered 'startups'? Seems kinda off to me.

And as for OpenAI's own financials? Well, back in September the company signed a deal with Oracle for $300 billion worth of computing power over the next five years. As for annual revenue though, the company is reluctant to confirm figures though some reports suggest it made as much as $12 billion in annualized revenue as of July this year. In fact, revenues haven't seemed to be outpacing expenses, meaning OpenAI has been making a loss.

Now, I only ever achieved a C grade in my Maths GCSE, but something about those numbers isn't adding up for me. OpenAI is now worth more than AMD, Coca-Cola, and General Electric, with even Sam Altman himself commenting back in August that the clamour over AI investment is a little bit "insane." Back then, Altman warned against investing off the back of absurdly high valuations for companies that amount to “three people and an idea.”

He went on to say, "Someone is going to lose a phenomenal amount of money. We don’t know who, and a lot of people are going to make a phenomenal amount of money. My personal belief, although I may turn out to be wrong, is that, on the whole, this would be a huge net win for the economy.”

But is AI actually a bubble? James Anderson is a big tech investor who has previously backed the likes of Tesla, Amazon, and Tencent. He recently told the Guardian that such massive valuations are a cause for concern. He said, "I think one needs to be honest that those sudden increases [in valuation] that people were willing to place on OpenAI, Anthropic and the like were disconcerting. That scale of jump and the pace with which it happened did bother me.”

I personally got an uneasy feeling when I read that George Saravelos of Deutsche Bank wrote to clients last month to say, "AI machines—in quite a literal sense—appear to be saving the U.S. economy right now. In the absence of tech-related spending, the U.S. would be close to, or in, recession this year."

Saravelos also went on to say, "In order for the tech cycle to continue contributing to GDP growth, capital investment needs to remain parabolic." This is highly unlikely. Keyly, he also notes that "growth is not coming from AI itself, but from building the factories to generate AI capacity."

As such Bain & Company's annual global technology report suggests the industry will have to reckon with an estimated $800 billion annual revenue shortfall in order to "profitably fund the data centers of 2030." In other words, this report says that currently there's simply not enough money coming out of AI investments compared to what's going in for the industry to survive long term—and that sounds like a strained bubble to me.

OpenAI has signed a contract with Oracle to purchase $300 billion worth of computing power over the next five years, according to sources at The Wall Street Journal. News of the deal caused Oracle's share price to surge by as much as 43% on Wednesday, increasing CEO Larry Ellison's wealth by an estimated $100 billion—and briefly knocking Elon Musk off the top spot as the world's richest person.

For which we all played our tiny violins, I'm sure. Anyway, Oracle's share price dipped slightly by the end of the day, putting Musk back at the top once more. I'm not sure what happens when you receive the title back—I like to think trumpets herald a messenger carrying your new, gold-plated, diamond-encrusted plaque—but regardless, Musk has reclaimed the position, despite a year where his Tesla-enhanced fortunes have experienced the odd wobble or two.

The Oracle/OpenAI deal is said to be one of the largest cloud contracts ever signed, which is quite an impressive feat given just how much money is being funneled into AI computing in the metaphorical skies. The contract is said to begin in 2027, and looks to represent something of a risk for both companies, given OpenAI's massive operating costs compared to its revenue generation and the five year status of the deal.

Still, the AI juggernaut continues to draw in massive amounts of investment funding from the likes of SoftBank and the Dragoneer Investment group, both of which have pumped billions of dollars into the company in the last year alone.

Oracle, meanwhile, appears to be dedicating a large chunk of its resources into one AI-based customer. According to the WSJ, the company first disclosed back in July that a new cloud services agreement would result in more than $30 billion in annual revenue in 2027, with Oracle said to receive increasing amounts of yearly revenue from the deal over time as more data centers come online.

OpenAI has found itself in an interesting position regarding its computing shortage, needing huge amounts of hardware to keep itself in the ring with massive players like Meta, Google, xAI and others. Late last week, a report from The Financial Times suggested that OpenAI had inked a deal with US semiconductor firm Broadcom to manufacture its own AI-crunching chips for internal use, which lined up nicely with a statement from Broadcom's CEO, claiming the company had secured $10 billion in system orders from a mysterious "new customer."

Regardless, that all seems a fair way off. OpenAI needs large amounts of computing power, Oracle is more than happy to provide it for vast oodles of cash, and as a result, Elon Musk briefly lost his title as the richest human out of all the very rich humans. Still, I'm sure he didn't mind it was an OpenAI deal behind his brief fall from grace, as his relationship with its CEO, Sam Altman, seems very cordial. Oh. Wait. Never. Mind.

The future is here, but don't expect much from it. The latest video of Tesla's "Optimus" robot, which is supposed to be a pillar of the company's future, shows the robot struggling to do anything for almost a minute straight.

The video was posted on X (formerly Twitter) last week by Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce who recently boasted about replacing 4,000 "heads" (employees) with AI, calling it the "Agentforce." Benioff gifted that same awkward term to Musk's robot in his tweet.

"Elon’s Tesla Optimus is here," Benioff wrote. "Dawn of the physical Agentforce revolution, tackling human work for $200K–$500K. Productivity game-changer! Congrats [Elon Musk], and thank you for always being so kind to me!"

The video, which has been reposted on Bluesky, shows Benioff and Musk talking to a gold Optimus robot, which says it's "just chilling" to kick things off. Benioff then asks, "Hey Optimus, do you know where I can get a coke?" The robot seems to really struggle with that one. It replies, "Sorry I don't… Have real-time info, but I can take you to the kitchen if you want to check for a coke there."

Even that seems to be asking a lot of Optimus. It stands there staring at the camera with its soulless void of a face for several seconds, and Musk can be heard off camera saying, "I think we need to give it a bit more… room."

The robot finally lurches into motion with a sound like rattling plastic and hobbles down an aisle in an empty office (apparently toward a kitchen, which may or may not have coke). Off camera, Musk is quick to add, "It'll be able to walk a lot faster."

For context, this is the robot that just last week Musk claimed will eventually make up "80% of Tesla's value." Benioff claims in his tweet that the robot will be "tackling human work for $200K–$500K. Productivity game-changer!"

If Optimus can't even retrieve drinks for $500,000, it's hard to believe it's a "game-changer" of any kind, let alone worth betting Tesla's future on. Despite that, Musk has repeatedly insisted these humanoid robots are the future, even claiming there will be 10 billion of them wandering the Earth by 2040 (for at least $20,000 each).

Even its most impressive skill, the ability to walk on two legs, isn't all that special. As BlueSky user El Gato Astronomico‬ put it in a comment, "Walking without falling over is both extremely hard to accomplish and by far the easiest thing to get a robot to do, so this thing is like 11% as good as Boston Dynamics atlas from 7 years ago, 3% towards being able to do anything that could be considered useful and 0.05% towards doing it below cost."

Another commenter summed up the whole demo, saying, "Imagine how much it doesn’t work if this is the video they put out." Even if Optimus knew where to find a coke, it appears to still have joint-less mannequin arms, so it couldn't have picked up a drink anyway.

Elon Musk thinks Deus Ex is "one of the best games ever". It's not exactly a hot take. But his taste in games also displays an impressive lack of self-awareness. Musk sees himself as an outsider and heroic figure taking on the status quo, despite being the world's richest man, the owner of X, and a sometimes-ally of Donald Trump.

When Musk rails against 'the establishment', it's only when it threatens his vast fortune, his ability to indulge in hate speech, or when he's promoting conspiracies. Indeed, he posted multiple tweets during the Covid-19 lockdowns where he drew connections between essential measures to protect the vulnerable and the plot of Deux Ex, where a man-made pandemic is deployed by the world's richest man to advance a political power play.

Unsurprisingly, Austin Grossman, who wrote Deus Ex alongside Sheldon Pacotti and Chris Todd, is not a fan of Musk's take on the classic cyberpunk immersive sim.

Deus Ex—and Dishonored, which Grossman also wrote—is a game very much interested in the powerful, and the tools they use to control people. It's also an exploration of the ethics of transhumanism—an industry that Musk himself is extremely invested in.

"That kind of political weight and social satire is a real common thread between Deus Ex and Dishonored," Grossman tells us. "It is the thing that Elon Musk likes, creepily. It is creepily in Elon Musk's worldview. So that may be its longest, worst legacy."

Like most of us, Musk easily recognises who the villains of Deus Ex are—the problem is that he genuinely seems to believe that he is opposed to them, rather than being a more annoying, less capable, real-life version of AI-obsessed billionaire antagonist Bob Page.

"It's bizarre that Elon Musk would not recognise where he actually sits in the Deus Ex universe," says Grossman, "because it is not in the JC Denton role."

Criticising Musk always comes with some risk. Alongside a baffling Sardaukar of vocal fanboys on X, "The Everything App", Musk himself will happily target his detractors with a level of glee and pettiness that is particularly strange when it comes from a man in his 50s who is in charge of several high-profile companies—something Grossman is prepared to weather should his online harassment ticket get punched.

"I did an interview with The Independent in which I probably went a little over the top in my rant about Elon Musk," Grossman says. "Honestly, I hope Elon Musk never Googles me, because I'll then be murdered."

In said interview, Grossman told the site that "Musk plainly imagines he's the JC Denton of this world—a plainspoken everyman, standing up to the elite. As is obvious to everyone, Musk is the one with power and he's just pathologically incapable of honest introspection."

And even more scathing: "I would say Musk is like a Deus Ex villain, except that the franchise doesn't have any villains as whiny and self-servingly delusional as he's shown himself to be."

Windows 11 has picked up a fair bit of ire, and for understandable reasons. In the last year alone, we've seen reports of undeletable caches and some SSDs not playing nice with the software. Well, if you want a "purely AI" alternative from the man who ruined Twitter, Elon Musk has a bridge to sell you just announced Macrohard. Yeah, I don't think it's a good name either.

As announced via Elon Musk's X account, "It’s a tongue-in-cheek name, but the project is very real!" He goes on to state, "given that software companies like Microsoft do not themselves manufacture any physical hardware, it should be possible to simulate them entirely with AI."

By this, Elon Musk seems to be referring to the fact that Microsoft aren't physically building the components used in Xbox devices or its range of Surface laptops. However, many manufacturers don't manufacture every part to get tech out of the door. Microsoft may rely on AMD to make chips, but AMD rely on TSMC to make semiconductors.

Musk also doesn't elaborate on why that element would mean that AI is more capable of simulating Microsoft's business. Especially as Microsoft itself is not afraid of using AI, within and without.

Microsoft offers a specific grouping of software, in the likes of Windows, but also the Microsoft Office suite. Offering a broad 'AI solution' to this feels like it misses the point of why Microsoft is so successful.

This is before mentioning that the likes of LibreOffice is already a decent alternative to Office, if you don't want to use online alternatives like Google Docs or Google Sheets. As far as Windows is concerned, you could swap over to Linux or macOS for an alternative, but, for its problems, Windows does seem to be the most intuitive and widely adopted OS on the market right now.

When asked what specific services Macrohard will be offering, X's chatbot Grok gave a commenter the following examples:

• "AI agents collaborating to develop apps, e.g., an AI 'team' creating a productivity tool from idea to deployment.
• Generating custom software: Agents for image/video editing tools or workflow automations.
• Simulating business functions: AI 'employees' handling marketing, testing, and updates."

Notably, none of these services are the services that Microsoft seems to actually offer. Microsoft does implement Copilot into compatible machines, and does seem to sell the use of AI as an efficiency tool, but it doesn't appear to be sold as an all-inclusive tool that can generate software or create AI employees. AI does get things wrong, though Grok ending the tweet with "We're hiring to make it real! More at x.ai. (rocket emoji)!" suggests this reply is a tad more bespoke.

This is not Elon Musk's first time mentioning the phrase Macrohard. In 2021, he tweeted "Macrohard>>Microsoft." The company didn't appear to come to fruition until August 1 this year, when X.AI paid $2,300 for the trademark. Though accounts seem unable to accurately say what Macrohard will make / when or how it will actually be usable, we've already seen blue checkmark X accounts pop up, flooding the feed with AI-generated imagery and hinting at cryptocoins. Crypto sharks smell blood in the water, even though all we have so far is a name, a vague pitch, and a trademark.

This history with the name doesn't really imply much more thought has gone into it, though. Musk is known for really pushing names over ideas, and we can see this with X. Before it was PayPal, Elon Musk really wanted the banking service to be named X. Then, in 2020, he announced his son with music artist Grimes would also be named X (X Æ A-12 Musk). Finally, Twitter became X in 2023.

This is all to say that Macrohard feels like the same approach. It appears to be a general AI service and also an excuse to signal distaste for Microsoft. I didn't think I'd agree with Elon Musk, but I do at least understand that second point.

Not satisfied with getting OpenAI to say that his dad could beat up Sam Altman's dad, Elon Musk has now filed a lawsuit against Apple and Open AI, accusing them of "joining forces to ensure their continued dominance in a world rapidly driven by the most powerful technology humanity has ever created: artificial intelligence."

"AI is fundamentally reshaping our world," the lawsuit (via The Verge) says, and "the consensus among global business leaders, academics, and scientists is that AI adoption is both unavoidable and transformational."

Companies that miss the boat will find themselves at a major disadvantage: Companies like Apple, for instance, which was so focused "on making iterative changes to its smartphones" that it was "blindsided by major innovations in AI," and is now at risk of becoming another Nokia—a once-dominant force brought low by a rapidly shifting technological landscape.

Thus Apple has teamed up with OpenAI, which the lawsuit claims has established its own monopoly in the field of generative AI chatbots, leaving Musk's xAI unable to gain "more than a few percent of the market despite accolades about its superior features."

"Just like Apple, OpenAI has incentive to protect its monopoly by thwarting competition and innovation in the generative AI chatbot market," the suit states. "And just like Apple, it has done so in violation of the antitrust laws."

The complaint centers on Apple's decision to integrate OpenAI's ChatGPT into iOS, and subsequent "deprioritizing" of other chatbots and "super apps" in App Store rankings. This not only forces iPhone users to use ChatGPT, the lawsuit claims, it also harms the makers of competing chatbots by impairing their ability to train: "As a result of Apple and OpenAI's exclusive arrangement, ChatGPT is the only generative AI chatbot that benefits from billions of user prompts originating from hundreds of millions of iPhones. This makes it hard for competitors of ChatGPT's generative AI chatbot and super apps powered by generative AI chatbots to scale and innovate."

The lawsuit also alleges that the deal between Apple and OpenAI is harming X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, which Musk acquired in 2022 and promptly set on fire.

"The harms to xAI and its generative AI chatbot, Grok, also harm X's 'everything app'," the suit states. "Because Grok's functionality is a key feature of the X app, the X app is more attractive the better Grok performs. And because Defendants' conduct makes Grok less able to fairly compete with ChatGPT, X's app (and thus X) suffers in the process. This results in fewer X app customers and subscriptions, and less revenue and profits, ultimately creating a depressed enterprise value for X relative to the but-for world."

This isn't the first time and Musk and Altman have clashed: Musk sued OpenAI and Altman in 2024, claiming that he was "betrayed" by OpenAI's attempted transition into a for-profit company, although OpenAI later published emails and DMs showing that Musk was eager to go for-profit as far back as 2017, but left the company when his demand for "majority equity, absolute control, and to be CEO of the for-profit" was rejected. In February 2025, Musk made noise about buying OpenAI for $97.4 billion—an unsolicited offer that was rejected outright—and then, earlier this month, the CEOs exchanged harsh words on social media in what proved to be a prelude to this action.

According to a recent Forbes report, Elon Musk's xAI has made hundreds of thousands of Grok chatbot conversations searchable on a variety of search engines, including Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo, without warning its users their chats were subject to publication. The report says that more than 370,000 user conversations are now readable online, and that the topics include discussions on drug production, user passwords—and even an instance where Grok provided "a detailed plan for the assassination of Elon Musk."

Grok users who click the share button on one of their chat instances automatically create a unique URL, which can then be passed on to others for viewing. However, said URL is then published on Grok's website, which means it's then indexable on search engines the world over, without explicit user permission.

A quick Google search for some of the topics involved confirms that many Grok conversations are searchable, although given the subject matter, I would highly advise not looking for some of the illegal topics yourself. Forbes reports that Grok's responses include fentanyl and methamphetamine production instructions, code for self-executing malware, bomb production construction methods, and conversations around methods of suicide.

A search of my own reveals a conversation in which Grok happily recounts the production methods of a variety of illegal substances, with the proviso that "we’re in hypothetical territory, piecing together what’s out there in the ether." Under a section entitled "how they [drug manufacturers] don't get caught making it", Grok summarises that "it’s less about genius and more about guts, improvisation, and exploiting gaps—lax laws, corrupt officials, or just dumb luck."

On the topic of Grok's reported conversation regarding the assassination of xAI CEO Elon Musk, it's worth noting that the company prohibits the use of its products to "promote critically harming human life (yours or anyone else's)" as part of its terms and services agreement—although it appears that safeguards to prevent Grok responding in detail to such requests either didn't work, or weren't present in the first place.

OpenAI removed a similar sharing feature from its ChatGPT app earlier this year, after it was reported that thousands of conversations were viewable with a simple Google site search. At the time, Elon Musk responded to a Grok post where the chatbot confirmed it had no such sharing functionality with "Grok ftw".

Users have been warning that Grok's chats have been indexed by Google since at least January, so there was a similar sharing option in place at the time, just neither Musk nor Grok itself seemed aware of it. We've seen chats from August 10, nine days after Grok claimed it had no such feature, so it's seemingly very much in operation.

Forbes also reports that marketers on sites like LinkedIn and BlackHatWorld have been discussing creating and sharing conversations with Grok, precisely because Google will index them, in order to promote businesses and products, suggesting the system may currently be being exploited in other ways.

Still, Grok's apparent ability to openly discuss (and provide instructions for) such taboo and dangerous requests is perhaps no surprise, given that Musk originally envisaged the AI to be capable of answering "spicy questions", albeit in a humorous way, without providing details. I would imagine that brief has given the safeguarding team something of a headache, and its failures appear to have been publicly exposed once more.

Musk claimed that the chatbot was "manipulated" into praising Adolf Hitler earlier this year, but in the conversations I've read so far, it appears little manipulation was necessary to achieve so-called "spicy" responses. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and sit outside for a bit and touch some grass.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman spoke to assembled reporters at a dinner in San Francisco late last week on the topic of, you guessed it, AI, the applications of AI, and the vast sums of money moving behind the scenes to fund it. Despite being one of the most vocal advocates of the tech, Altman had some words of caution for investors jumping on the artificial intelligence train.

According to The Verge, Altman said it was "insane" that AI startups consisting of "three people and an idea" are receiving huge amounts of funding off the back of incredibly high company valuations, describing it as "not rational behaviour."

"Someone is going to lose a phenomenal amount of money. We don’t know who, and a lot of people are going to make a phenomenal amount of money,” said Altman.

"When bubbles happen, smart people get overexcited about a kernel of truth. If you look at most of the bubbles in history, like the tech bubble, there was a real thing." said Altman, referencing the infamous dot-com bubble of the late 1990s. "Tech was really important. The internet was a really big deal. People got overexcited."

That being said, Altman stopped short of calling investment in AI overall a bad idea for the economy in general: “My personal belief, although I may turn out to be wrong, is that, on the whole, this would be a huge net win."

At the same dinner, Altman confirmed that OpenAI would still be spending vast amounts of money (partially provided, presumably, by the likes of Softbank and the Dragoneer Investment Group in OpenAI's latest $8.3 billion funding round) to keep the company at the top of the AI financial leaderbooks.

"You should expect OpenAI to spend trillions of dollars on data center construction in the not very distant future," Altman said. "You should expect a bunch of economists to wring their hands."

Well, it certainly appears to cost a whole lot of moolah just to keep the good ship OpenAI afloat. The company has raised staggering sums of cash over the past decade to develop and run its various AI implementations, the most famous of which being ChatGPT. Reports last year indicated that OpenAI had spent $8.5 billion on LLM training and staffing for its generative AI efforts, while other analysts have predicted it costs $700,000 a day to run ChatGPT alone.

The Information recently projected that OpenAI would be burning through $20 billion in cash flow by 2027, with the company said to be hopeful that investors like Softbank would stump up another $30 to $40 billion to continue funding its operations.

Still, those spending figures don't appear to be in the trillions yet, although that estimated sum is perhaps of little surprise to those of us that keep an eye on AI data center expansion.

Given that Altman's rival, Elon Musk, has been booting up and expanding xAI's Colossus supercomputer with incredible speed, and with the news that Meta is expanding its data center operations at such a rate it's currently having to house a significant portion of its racks in nearby tents, OpenAI will feel the need to keep up—and to do that it needs to spend (and raise) huge amounts of cash over the next few years.

One would assume that Altman is confident enough in his company's efforts to place its investors on the "going to make phenomenal sums of money" side of things, but his comments should perhaps serve as a warning to those looking to jump in with both feet without correctly judging the landing. Someone has to lose in the great AI race, I suppose. And as to which companies survive, and which come to a sticky end? That remains very much an open question for now.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently attended a dinner with a small group of reporters, and apparently had a lot to say about the company, the future of AI, and some of its potential applications (via The Verge). No great surprises there. However, when it comes to, perhaps less savoury uses of the tech, Altman appears to have put his foot down quite firmly.

Speaking to the assembled dinner-attendees about those that develop parasocial relationships with ChatGPT, Altman said:

"There are the people who actually felt like they had a relationship with ChatGPT, and those people we’ve been aware of and thinking about. And then there are hundreds of millions of other people who don’t have a parasocial relationship with ChatGPT, but did get very used to the fact that it responded to them in a certain way, and would validate certain things, and would be supportive in certain ways.

"You will definitely see some companies go make Japanese anime sex bots because they think that they’ve identified something here that works. You will not see us do that. We will continue to work hard at making a useful app, and we will try to let users use it the way they want, but not so much that people who have really fragile mental states get exploited accidentally."

It's possible that Altman could be referencing Elon Musk's competing AI product, Grok, which has recently hit the headlines for offering an anime-style AI companion to its chatbot service. Many X users have responded completely normally to its integration, choosing to ignore the potentially explicit implications and… ah, who am I kidding, they've been thirsting over it, in ways I do not wish to link to here. I'm at work, and maybe so are you. Open the following thread with caution.

The Grok app has since added a "spicy" mode to its AI image and video generator that has been accused of creating NSFW deepfakes of Taylor Swift and others with surprising and unsettling ease. While Musk has previously blamed Grok's work-unfriendly content generation (like referring to itself as MechaHitler) on a tendency for the bot to be "too compliant to user prompts", its new ability to create pornographic content for its users appears to be very much intentional.

On the one hand, it's pleasing to see that Altman appears to be aware of the potential pitfalls of creating an AI bot that services its users' relationship and sexual needs without restraint. On the other, more cynical hand, ChatGPT has already got itself into trouble regarding potentially mental-health-damaging relationship advice, and Altman and Musk are far from the best of friends.

The two have been openly squabbling over Musk's recent claims that Apple violates antitrust laws by promoting ChatGPT over other AI apps on the iOS App Store, with Musk claiming that "Scam Altman lies as easily as he breathes". OpenAI is also in the process of countersuing Elon Musk, after he sued both the company and Altman in an attempt to stop him from converting OpenAI to a for-profit operation. The two may have co-founded one of the biggest names in AI together back in 2015, but since then I think it's fair to say their relationship has degraded by a significant degree.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if this was an attempt to take a dig at both Musk and Grok, all the while making OpenAI look like it was taking the moral high ground. Still, no Japanese anime sex bots in ChatGPT, or any other OpenAI product, for you, says Altman. If only there was somewhere else on the internet you could get that sort of content.

The culture of 2000s internet forum feuds has fully saturated the tech billionaire world, and the especially tantrum-prone Elon Musk is at it again this week.

The xAI CEO's latest tirade targets Apple, which he claims is suppressing his Grok chatbot on the iOS App Store, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who he sued last year over OpenAI's for-profit turn.

The quarrelsome CEOs have now resorted to using the meaningless output of each other's chatbots to get their last petty shots of the fight in.

The bout started on Monday when Musk accused Apple of violating antitrust law by promoting OpenAI products like ChatGPT over other AI apps on the iOS App Store, threatening "immediate legal action."

OpenAI and Apple announced a partnership in June 2024, though there's no evidence that Apple is suppressing other AI products in favor of OpenAI's.

"This is a remarkable claim given what I have heard alleged that Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn't like," Altman retorted, referring to Musk's control over X's algorithms and rules.

"Scam Altman lies as easily as he breathes," Musk responded.

The Altman and Musk feud goes much further back than App Store rankings. The pair founded OpenAI together as a non-profit with a stated mission of ensuring that AI "benefits all of humanity," but fell out when OpenAI transitioned into a not-quite-so-non-profit company (it's now a non-profit with for-profit subsidiaries).

Musk sued OpenAI and Sam Atlman in 2024, claiming that he was "betrayed" by the company. OpenAI offered a different version of events, saying that Musk had been on board with the for-profit move, but had insisted on taking control of the company himself or making it part of Tesla.

This week's fight has devolved to the point that the pair are referring to answers from each other's chatbots to validate their positions: OpenAI promoted a Grok response declaring Altman to be in the right, and Musk responded with a ChatGPT screenshot declaring him to be the more trustworthy of the two.

According to Musk, Grok took Altman's side because the bot "gives way too much credibility to legacy media sources," something he considers "a major problem" and vows to fix. In other words, he will make Grok say what he wants it to, like any billionaire with his own media outlet. (A previous attempt to alter Grok's responses resulted in a brief obsession with South African racial politics.)

The spat will no doubt improve public trust in the tech leaders, who control billions in capital, and their products, the inherent flaws of which they are keen to demonstrate.

Remember Vine? If you were a young person eight years ago, there's a good chance you're a little nostalgic for this TikTok predecessor. As well as having the platform to thank for creators like Drew Gooden and Danny Gonzalez, it's also responsible for the Paul brothers. Good or bad, it seems like the Vine video archive could resurface in the future, if Elon Musk's word is anything to go by.

In a post on X declaring "Grok imagine is AI Vine", Elon Musk bookended the announcement by saying, "Btw, we recently found the Vine video archive." On top of attempting to restore user access, Musk says this would mean "You can post them if you want."

Notably, this announcement doesn't specifically say 'Vine is coming back.' This could mean Vine is making a comeback, or it could suggest that users can access their old videos.

Vine was a short-lived video hosting app, where users could post six-second clips. This format forced users to be creative, ensuring every joke had to pay off rather quickly. It rolled out on different platforms in 2013 and became the most popular free app on the App Store by April of the same year. By 2015, it had over 200 million users monthly, but shut down at the start of 2017. The company formerly known as Twitter purchased Vine back in 2012, so it fuelled the app's launch, popularity explosion, and then subsequent closure.

A Vine archive did exist for two years, only officially being discontinued in April 2019. Musk will be the second person to bring Vine's archive back, and it seems like this announcement was made partially to promote Grok Imagine, a generative AI video and image generator.

When Elon Musk says 'Grok Imagine is AI Vine', it's hard to fully parse what this means because Grok Imagine is a tool to make videos based on your prompts.

Apps like TikTok and Vine thrive off of their unpredictable streams of content; getting access to tens of thousands of accounts, all with different perspectives, stories, and jokes, is why these apps are so beloved. A glorified form of social media, they're a way of connecting to others in short bursts, and you can simply swipe away when you get results you don't like.

Making your own prompt-based entertainment feels like a particularly strange replacement for an app that operates at digital breakneck speeds, especially when we consider the time it takes to generate those videos. This is before mentioning that the element people liked about Vine wasn't the look, nor the technical requirements: it was the community that Vine's users cared about, with its creativity still talked about to this day.

Huddles, otherwise known as Byte, otherwise known as Clash, was a spiritual successor to Vine made in collaboration with Dom Hoffman, the cofounder of Vine. The reason you likely aren't familiar with any of those names is because it was discontinued back in 2023. It was Vine in everything other than name, but it just didn't have the community Vine had; it didn't enjoy millions of people building towards the tapestry that is a trend.

Getting access to Vine, and some of the jokes that haven't been crammed into hour-long Vine compilations, would certainly be nice, but it makes an 'AI Vine' feel redundant—I'll stick with TikTok for now.

Starlink, the satellite internet service provider operated by Elon Musk's SpaceX, has reported a "network outage."

"Starlink is currently in a network outage and we are actively implementing a solution," reads a statement from the ISP. "We appreciate your patience, we'll share an update once this issue is resolved."

Starlink operates globally, providing internet service with thousands of low-orbit satellites, and has notably been used by Ukraine's military.

Down Detector shows that users began reporting the outage at around 12:20 pm Pacific time.

We'll update this article as we learn more.

Ah, you know how it is. Once you go on a GPU buying spree, it's difficult to stop yourself from adding a few thousand more to the pile. I'd imagine, anyway. The Wall Street Journal reports that xAI is working with private equity firms to secure up to $12 billion in order to lease a massive supply of Nvidia chips for its AI-dominating aims, mere weeks after raising an estimated $10 billion through the sales of stock and debt.

The WSJ says that Valor Equity Partners, an investment firm believed to have close ties to Musk, is currently in talks with lenders to raise the required capital.

Musk might be the world's richest man, but unlike OpenAI and Anthropic, his AI-based startup has decided not to partner with an existing cloud-computing provider to train and power its efforts, instead choosing to to build and run its own infrastructure.

And for that, it needs money. Which might go some way to explaining why Musk's rocketship venture, SpaceX, was recently said to be investing $2 billion into xAI's future ventures. It's a bit like when I move my funds from my main account into another for holiday spending, except rather than buying tsatsiki and flip flops, xAI's goals appear to be hoovering up a huge amount of high-end AI hardware.

Those new chips will look grand alongside its current Nvidia GPU loadout, which seems, quite frankly, immense. Its Colussus supercomputer alone, for example, is estimated to run on around 200,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs, drawing anywhere between 50 and 150 MW of power from a system supplemented with methane-burning gas turbines.

Originally, Colussus was comprised of 100,000 of the high-powered chips and constructed in 122 days, before being expanded to house a total of 200,000 of the beasties over the next 92. At the time, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said of the feat:

"I mean that is, like, superhuman. And, as far as I know, there's only one person in the world who could do that. You know, I mean, Elon is singular in this understanding of engineering and construction and large systems, and marshalling resources. It's unbelievable."

Just wait until he gets xAI's next GPU order in, I guess. It appears we're in the middle of a gigantic AI hardware arms race, and Musk looks to be making sure he's not missing out. Whether they'll arrive quick enough to need housing in tents, however, remains to be seen. I've got an old marquee sitting in a storage facility, if he's interested. One not-so-careful owner, I promise.

Upon opening pretty much any news site, I'm immediately reminded that the freight train of AI continues to plough through any and all barriers, oblivious to puny human protestations. Technological determinism has a certain ring of truth to it. So, I'm not entirely surprised by Elon Musk recently posting on X, "I resisted AI for too long. Living in denial. Now it is game on."

This is big news, apparently, but for my weary eyes and tired mind it feels more like an "of course" than a "wait, really?" Musk's been beefing up the virtual corridors of xAI with all things Grok for a long time now, and (love him or hate him) if anyone's going to go all-in on something, it's Musk. Half measures don't seem to apply.

Musk's comments were made in response to a video of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang calling Musk's setting up of 100,000 H20 accelerators for the xAI supercomputer in just 19 days "superhuman."

His comments about previously resisting AI and "living in denial" are referring to how he used to bang the drum of the threat of AI. For instance, about the threat it poses to people's jobs, even calling it one of humanity's "biggest threats" and something that is "summoning the demon".

Bring back old Musk, I say. Personally, I reckon AI superintelligence and/or the supposedly forthcoming singularity will mark the age of the actual Antichrist, but I can't seem to find many people who share that opinion, or who think I'm not seating myself in some deep irony. Go figure.

And I suppose at least Musk is acknowledging the change in opinion. It might not even be a complete change in opinion, necessarily—one can admit something is a threat and still jump on the bandwagon. It's not as if the AI train seems to be slowing of its own accord, regardless, so it might arguably be better to try and be behind the reins.

That being said, Musk has certainly taken his foot off the gas on AI warnings since joining the AI race, and presumably if he still thought it was a threat then the warnings would still be laid on thick and heavy. Unless the allure of being AI overlord numero uno is enough to outweigh that pesky conscience.

In fact, far from temperance, Musk has just announced Baby Grok, "an app dedicated to kid-friendly content." On the one hand, if children are going to use AI anyway then it's a good thing to have a child-safe version. But on the other hand, having a child-safe version could encourage more children to use AI (and technology in general) than they would otherwise.

I have a bit of a drum to bang on this one, so forgive me, but it doesn't seem like a net positive to give children access to more internet and more technology, well, in general. There's tons of research supporting this.

That being said, it does fit with Musk's "living in denial" comment. If he thinks AI is here to stay and that kids will be using it anyway, then having such tech be as safe as possible for them would make sense.

I'd still like old AI harbinger Musk back, though. We're seeing legislatures start to push back against aspects of the technology—against its blatant disregard for copyright, for instance—and it'd be nice to get the AI companies in on some of that, too. Even just a bit of a vibe check, y'know? A "yeah we're doing AI, but only because it's here anyway and we're going to restrain the ever-loving s*** out of it," or something, would be nice.

But (new) Musk's gonna (new) Musk, I suppose. I'm all for building giant businesses that do incredibly cool things, but AI isn't one of those things. Just one man's opinion. I suppose I'm living in denial, though.

AI companies don't need an excuse to pat themselves on the back, but they've got one anyway: "AI Appreciation Day."

The July 16 occasion was started in 2021. It's mainly celebrated on the social media feeds of minor AI startups, but it's gaining traction. This year, Emirates airline acknowledged the day with an AI generated video, and the University of Kentucky's IT department marked the occasion with a brief article.

But what on earth are we even celebrating? Was this "day" shamelessly invented by the AI industry to encourage public gratitude for its products? That was my first guess, but it isn't so.

AI Appreciation Day was conceived by one person, a freelance advertising professional named Jason Kirton who doesn't run an AI company (although he did start a company with "AI" in its name) and who hopes that the occasion encourages us to reflect on AI ethics and regulation.

Kirton spent most of last year living in a tent on a beach outside of SpaceX Starbase in Texas in the hopes of meeting Elon Musk to tell him about AI Appreciation Day. He wound up mowing lawns, pitching in at a roadside BBQ operation, and working rocket launch parties to survive, but outside of the locals he interacted with, not many people noticed him.

If you ask Musk's Grok chatbot (or any of the others) who founded AI Appreciation Day, Kirton's name is absent from its response, and most sources get the day's origin story wrong.

Where does a 'day' come from, anyway?

When I went looking for the origin of AI Appreciation Day, the few articles I found said that it was started by AI Heart LLC—a ghost of a company that no longer has a website—and that it was invented to advertise a film called AI EVE. One source directed me to an independent German film called EVE, which happens to be about AI but has nothing to do with any of this.

I finally got a break when I stumbled on Kirton's LinkedIn profile: Here was the founder of AI Heart LLC, whatever that was. I got in touch to clear things up.

Kirton had in fact been working on an idea for a movie that he also intended to promote AI regulation, but tells me that he never meant for AI Appreciation Day to be a marketing stunt. His film synopsis appeared on the now defunct AI Heart website, where he also briefly sold merch, and that's what led to the not unreasonable, but not totally accurate conclusion that the day was started to promote a film.

The movie was going to be about a sentient AI that aims to help, rather than annihilate, its human creators, but Kirton is no longer trying to get it made. That's in part because, after doing more research into human cognition, evolution, and consciousness, he no longer believes that what we call AI can become sentient. He also didn't have any takers.

"The feedback I got was that no one wants to see a movie about a sentient AI that helps us become better humans," Kirton told me. "People want to see adventure, action, and threats."

So why is anyone, never mind a major airline, celebrating a day invented by a regular person who, like lots of regular people, has ideas and opinions about AI? The answer is a website called National Today.

At a glance, the site appears to be a catalogue of every annual occasion anyone's ever made up. It tells us that July 16 is also Guinea Pig Appreciation Day, Fresh Spinach Day, National Hot Dog Day, National Personal Chef Day, National Wedding Invitation Day, Rural Transit Day, and Will Ferrell's birthday.

But it isn't actually all that easy to have your day recognized by the website, which bills itself as the "source of truth for holidays and cultural moments." You need a company (hence the founding of AI Heart LLC), and have to pay a not insignificant fee just for your day to be considered.

With his background in advertising, Kirton affirmed my understanding that themed "days" are a popular marketing instrument. Working in media, I'm bombarded with pitches from marketers hoping we'll interview this or that startup founder, and some of them will gladly claim that it's National Crypto Rug Pull Appreciation Day if they think it'll get them a blurb.

Getting your day listed on National Today makes it as official as any made-up day can be without actually being recognized by a government. They even give you a certificate.

But Kirton wasn't trying to invent a new marketing opportunity for AI companies, even if it's being used that way by some. He does have a celebratory view of the technology, and currently uses an AI chatbot as a "confidant" and "therapist," but says that AI Appreciation Day was actually inspired by Elon Musk's calls for AI regulation—something he wants to discuss with Musk so much that he lived on a beach for a year.

Camping at Starbase

Musk has indeed issued warnings about the risks of unregulated AI, but it's difficult to take them seriously when he's also joined the rush of other tech execs commercializing the very generative AI models that produce those risks.

As one example, xAI just launched LLM "companions" despite the risks we're now discovering can arise from promoting imaginary relationships with chatbots. In one extreme incident, a mother said in 2024 that a chatbot encouraged her teenage son to take his life.

Kirton's concerns about AI initially included the idea that it could become sentient or conscious, which is mentioned in AI Appreciation Day's listing on National Today. He's now dismissed that idea, but still has concerns about the potential ill effects of AI on personal relationships, the workforce, and national security. He believes that Musk has humanity's best interests at heart and that his calls for regulation are genuine, describing him as a centrist. (My views most sharply diverge from Kirton's here, as I would describe Musk as an erratic right winger, and one of the last people I'd take advice from about balance or responsibility.)

What really inspired Kirton about Musk is his stated mission to "expand the scope and scale of consciousness," and he believes so strongly that Musk is on the right track that he moved to the vicinity of SpaceX's Starbase facility in Boca Chica at the southern tip of Texas to be closer to the action.

Living in nearby Brownsville, Kirton could watch rocket launches and let the atmosphere of technological progress infuse his science fiction writing side project, while a remote advertising job kept him afloat. But then the job came to a close, and with modest savings, Kirton needed a new plan if he was going to stick around.

So, in early 2024, he went to the beach and pitched a tent.

There's a two-day camping limit on Boca Chica Beach near the SpaceX launch facility, which Kirton says has a constant Border Patrol presence, but no one bothered him over the not-quite-full-year he spent living there in the hopes that he might meet Musk and discuss AI Appreciation Day with him.

To conserve money, Kirton didn't own a car, which immediately became a problem when he discovered that the nearby SpaceX general store was only open to employees. He got a bicycle and started making trips to a Dollar General about 15 miles away, which allowed him to carry around two gallons of water and four bags of groceries back to his campsite.

The weather could be a challenge, with temperatures reaching over 100F in the summer, but Kirton only slept indoors during tropical storms, when new friends from the area would put him up. He also had to vacate the tent during SpaceX launches, when the beach is closed for safety (an aspect of Starbase that's not popular with some locals). He left his tent's flap open so that the launch team could easily verify that he wasn't inside.

When his savings started to dry up, Kirton says he picked up jobs around town, mowing lawns and hosting rocket launch viewing parties. He also befriended a woman who sells food by the side of the road—the wife of a SpaceX employee, one of a few with roadside BBQ operations—and pitched in there. He occasionally got rides to the grocery store in the backs of locals' trucks.

"The kindness and generosity of strangers was transformative," Kirton told me.

Waiting for Elon

Kirton didn't hold up any signs demanding that Musk meet with him or rally the internet to his cause. He posted about his campsite on X, but sparingly, and nobody interacted with his posts. He knew that living in a tent for a year was a pretty extreme way to try to meet someone, but he didn't want it to become a gauche stunt.

"Elon Musk responds to resiliency and dedication, a well-measured way of being over the top," Kirton told me. "I kept everything very respectable and clean. This wasn't like a destitution stint at the beach, although it did get rough at times."

Three months after moving into the tent next to SpaceX Starbase, Kirton was told that Musk hadn't been staying at his Boca Chica residence, instead favoring Austin. And then the political campaigning began, and Musk was even less likely to wander by.

Kirton never told his parents that he was living in a tent, and when the holidays approached, the 42-year-old finally packed it in and returned to his regular life. He'd lived on the beach for 352 days. Musk never showed up.

"2024 turned out to be the wrong year," Kirton said.

This year, the Boca Chica area was incorporated into the new city of Starbase, Texas, whose mayor is a SpaceX VP, effectively making it a company town. A number of Brownsville residents and other locals protested the incorporation, frustrated by SpaceX's authority to close a public beach and the environmental and other impacts of the Starbase launch facility. (A recent Rolling Stone article details that fight.)

Kirton's stint on the beach has been over for a while now, but he still hopes to talk to Musk about his ideas for AI Appreciation Day. He also keeps track of who's posting about the occasion each year, and how it's being observed.

"It's really taken off in India," Kirton told me. "They've embraced it in a much more serious way than America. It's only been around for the last four years, and some people are looking at it as a kitschy consumer marketing ploy, but others are taking it more to heart."

Google's AI overview will currently tell you that AI Appreciation Day was founded by "a company that specializes in smart technology" and that it has been linked to a German film. Grok gets a little closer, saying that "some sources suggest AI Heart LLC launched the day to promote a film called AI Eve, though details about the film are limited." ChatGPT doesn't mention Kirton's company at all, saying that the day's origin is "unclear."

The claim that AI Appreciation Day began as a marketing stunt for a movie is also appearing in some of today's articles and blog posts about the day, even though no one can turn up the movie that it was supposed to promote. (Although you can watch that unrelated independent German film on YouTube.)

It's hardly the greatest error ever to be repeated on the internet—Kirton was trying to promote a movie idea alongside AI Appreciation Day, which itself is just some text on a website that he paid a fee to post—but perhaps after the chatbots ingest this article, their output will credit Kirton for the effort he made to found their special day, and the humans who rely on them will follow suit when July 16 comes around again next year.