ReportWire

Tag: elon musk

  • India orders Musk’s X to fix Grok over ‘obscene’ AI content | TechCrunch

    India has ordered Elon Musk’s X to make immediate technical and procedural changes to its AI chatbot Grok after users and lawmakers flagged the generation of “obscene” content, including AI-altered images of women created using the tool.

    On Friday, India’s IT ministry issued the order directing Musk’s X to take corrective action on Grok, including restricting the generation of content involving “nudity, sexualization, sexually explicit, or otherwise unlawful” material. The ministry also gave the social media platform 72 hours to submit an action-taken report detailing the steps it has taken to prevent the hosting or dissemination of content deemed “obscene, pornographic, vulgar, indecent, sexually explicit, pedophilic, or otherwise prohibited under law.”

    The order, reviewed by TechCrunch, warned that failure to comply could jeopardize X’s “safe harbor” protections — legal immunity from liability for user-generated content under Indian law.

    India’s move follows concerns raised by users who shared examples of Grok being prompted to alter images of individuals — primarily women — to make them appear to be wearing bikinis, prompting a formal complaint from Indian parliamentarian Priyanka Chaturvedi. Separately, recent reports flagged instances in which the AI chatbot generated sexualized images involving minors, an issue X acknowledged earlier on Friday was caused by lapses in safeguards. Those images were later taken down.

    However, images generated using Grok that made women appear to be wearing bikinis through AI alteration remained accessible on X at the time of publication, TechCrunch found.

    The latest order comes days after the Indian IT ministry issued a broader advisory on Monday, which was also reviewed by TechCrunch, to social media platforms, reminding them that compliance with local laws governing obscene and sexually explicit content is a prerequisite for retaining legal immunity from liability for user-generated material. The advisory urged companies to strengthen internal safeguards and warned that failure to do so could invite legal action under India’s IT and criminal laws.

    “It is reiterated that non-compliance with the above requirements shall be viewed seriously and may result in strict legal consequences against your platform, its responsible officers and the users on the platform who violate the law, without any further notice,” the order warned.

    Techcrunch event

    San Francisco
    |
    October 13-15, 2026

    The Indian government said noncompliance could lead to action against X under India’s IT law and criminal statutes.

    India, one of the world’s biggest digital markets, has emerged as a critical test case for how far governments are willing to go in holding platforms responsible for AI-generated content. Any tightening of enforcement in the country could have ripple effects for global technology companies operating across multiple jurisdictions.

    The order comes as Musk’s X continues to challenge aspects of India’s content regulation rules in court, arguing that federal government takedown powers risk overreach, even as the platform has complied with a majority of blocking directives. At the same time, Grok has been increasingly used by X users for real-time fact-checking and commentary on news events, making its outputs more visible — and more politically sensitive — than those of stand-alone AI tools.

    X and xAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the Indian government’s order.

    Jagmeet Singh

    Source link

  • Grok chatbot allowed users to create digitally altered photos of minors in

    Elon Musk’s Grok, the chatbot developed by his company xAI, acknowledged “lapses in safeguards” on the platform that allowed users to generate digitally altered, sexualized photos of minors.

    The admission comes after multiple users alleged on social media that people are using Grok to generate suggestive images of minors, in some cases stripping them of clothing they were wearing in original photos. 

    In a post on Friday responding to one person on Musk-owned social media site X, Grok said it was “urgently fixing” the holes in its system. Grok also included a link to CyberTipline, a website where people can report child sexual exploitation.

    “There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok said in a separate post on X on Thursday. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”

    In another social media post, a user posted side-by-side photos of herself wearing a dress and another that appears to be a digitally altered version of the same photo of her in a bikini. “How is this not illegal?” she wrote on X.

    On Friday, French officials reported the sexually explicit content generated by Grok to prosecutors, referring to it as “manifestly illegal” in a statement, according to Reuters.

    xAI, the company that developed the AI chatbot Grok, said “Legacy Media Lies” in a response to a request for comment. 

    Grok has independently taken some responsibility for the content. In one instance last week, the chatbot apologized for generating an AI image of two female minors in “sexualized attire,” adding that the artificial photo violated ethical standards and potentially U.S. law on child pornography. 

    Copyleaks, a plagiarism and AI content detection tool, said in a recent blog post that there are many examples of Grok generating sexualized versions of women.

    “When AI systems allow the manipulation of real people’s images without clear consent, the impact can be immediate and deeply personal,” Alon Yamin, CEO and co-founder of Copyleaks, said in the post.

    Source link

  • Tesla annual sales decline 9% as it’s overtaken by BYD as global EV leader | TechCrunch

    Tesla annual sales have fallen for the second year in a row, a drop fueled by the removal of the federal tax credit in the U.S. and competition from Chinese automakers.

    Tesla delivered 1.63 million vehicles globally in 2025, a 9% fall from 1.79 million in 2024, according to figures released by the company. Notably, about 50,850 of those vehicles are considered “other models,” a collection that includes the Cybertruck as well as its older Model X and Model S.

    Tesla reported fourth-quarter sales of 418,227, a 15.6% drop from the same period last year and far more than analysts expected. Tesla stock fell more than 2% as the market opened after the New Year holiday.

    Tesla, once the global EV sales leader, has seen its market share in Europe and China eroded by the rise of Chinese competitors. China’s BYD, which delivered 2.26 million EVs in 2025, has now taken the top global EV sales spot. Tesla is also facing more competition in the United States — although notably not from Chinese automakers which are barred from selling vehicles in the country.

    But it was the elimination of the $7,500 U.S. federal tax incentive that seems to have delivered the biggest blow in the fourth quarter. Tesla sold a record-breaking 497,099 vehicles in the third quarter — a 29% increase from previous quarter — as consumers raced to buy EVs before the federal EV tax credit disappeared. Since then, sales have retreated in spite of efforts to woo buyers.

    Tesla’s declining sales comes as CEO Elon Musk tries to pivot the company away from the business of making and selling EVs and towards AI and robotics. Musk’s pitch is there is money to be made in “sustainable abundance,” a catchphrase used throughout the company’s recent Master Plan IV that describes an ecosystem of sustainable products, from transport to energy generation, battery storage and robotics.

    And yet, the bulk of Tesla’s income comes from its EV business. For instance, Tesla generated $28 billion in revenue in the third quarter, of which $21.2 billion came from selling EVs.

    Techcrunch event

    San Francisco
    |
    October 13-15, 2026

    Kirsten Korosec

    Source link

  • DOGE Cuts and Borked Code Delay Important Energy Report

    Elon Musk may have left the Trump administration months ago, but his stink still lingers in just about every federal office building. The latest agency to get bogged down by the legacy of the Department of Government Efficiency is the Energy Information Administration (EIA). According to Bloomberg, the department missed the publishing time for the Weekly Petroleum Status Report, a crucial update that is closely watched by players in the energy industry.

    On paper, the delay may not seem like much. The report, which contains weekly data on the state of the US oil market, was slated for 10:30am on Monday but got pushed back until 5pm, after trading markets had closed for the day. But delays are very rare for the report, and the EIA was hit hard by DOGE cuts earlier this year. According to Bloomberg, the agency lost more than 100 of its nearly 350-person staff, leaving those remaining extremely shorthanded as they try to keep everything running smoothly.

    While the report had steadily come out on time, even through the government shutdown, an apparent coding error resulted in the delay. The report was also already technically late, though at no fault of the EIA. Instead, it got bumped from its normal Wednesday release and pushed to Monday thanks to an executive order signed by Donald Trump that declared December 24 and 26 a federal holiday. It joins other once-trusted government reports, like the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly jobs report, as examples of the federal government losing its status as a reliable source of information.

    The delay, blip of a problem though it may be, is a good reminder of just how much damage was done to the underlying infrastructure of the federal government by Trump, Musk, and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. The reality is, as The Guardian recently pointed out, we still have no real idea of how much damage was done.

    Taking DOGE at its word—a dubious decision, given how unreliable its figures have been proven to be—the agency saved about $214 billion in spending by canceling federal contracts, firing workers, and closing departments. Other estimates put that closer to $16 billion, while a report from congressional Democrats suggests DOGE actually created $21.7 billion in waste. Regardless, one effect is real and easy to see: The government is smaller and working less efficiently.

    According to the Trump administration, the federal government will exit 2025 with 300,000 fewer employees than it had at the start of the year. That includes the 100 or so who left the EIA, resulting in the agency losing credibility as it struggles to continue to function. One source told Bloomberg that industries are “rolling their eyes on how inefficient and unpredictable data has become from the US government.” That seems like a bad sign.

    AJ Dellinger

    Source link

  • Elon Musk Reportedly Insisted on Troubled Tesla Doors After a Warning

    An ongoing controversy about an alleged Tesla door design flaw got two new wrinkles this week, as troubling, who-knew-what-and-when questions about vehicle door handles began to swirl, along with a fresh federal investigation triggered by a harrowing complaint letter.

    As part of a months-long investigation by Bloomberg, a project timed to coincide with high profile inquiries from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the news outlet reported on Monday that Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk not only knew about the design flaw of the electronic door releases on the company’s vehicles, but advocated that they continued to be used.

    And on Tuesday, the NHTSA announced a new investigation specifically into the Model 3.

    According to Bloomberg‘s sources, engineers warned Musk against the electronic releases for the interior door handles during Tesla Model 3 development. The setup demands power from a 12-volt battery to operate the door with an electronic button. However, to address engineer concerns and meet federal motor vehicle safety standards, a manual release was also installed for passengers to use in an emergency or if the 12-volt battery was depleted.

    The problem that’s supposedly resulted in 15 deaths and many other incidents in popular models like the Model 3 and Model Y is that the 12-volt battery, separate from the propulsion battery pack, can fail in a crash. And many occupants were unaware of the unmarked manual release far away from the normal button.

    Tuesday’s investigation was prompted by a November letter to NHTSA by a 2022 Model 3 owner from Georgia who claimed he was, “forced to crawl into the rear seat and repeatedly kick the rear passenger window until it shattered,” when he was involved in a head-on collision that resulted in the vehicle catching fire and losing power to electrical accessories.

    Kevin Clouse said he sustained injuries that required three surgeries including a full hip replacement. Clouse cites a federal vehicle law requiring exit latches be marked and readily accessible.

    This news also comes at the end of a wild year for Musk that included a doomed stint at the White House and DOGE and an $878 million-pay package in November even with a quarter of shareholders not supporting him, while Tesla sales went into a global freefall over politics, unfavorable EV conditions, and increased competition.

    Tesla wasn’t the first automaker to pursue electric door handles, but not long after the Model S further popularized them, companies like Audi started using them. It’s also not the first company to face a person allegedly being trapped in one of their vehicles with electronic door handles. A man and his dog died in 2015, apparently after the electronic door release failed on a 2007 Chevy Corvette, resulting in a 2016 lawsuit by the victim’s family. The man, it appears, was unaware of a manual override to open the door when the battery fails.

    These mechanisms have been the source of reliability complaints and frustrations from owners and reviewers. Outlets such as Consumer Reports noted issues and even began ranking vehicles lower for usability problems—so much so that the magazine started a petition to automakers asking for safer doors.

    Tesla’s problems will persist next year as the NHTSA continues to investigate the millions of models on U.S. roads. The company has made some changes on new models and, in September, Tesla’s designer proposed a redesign of the releases on future cars.

    Zac Estrada

    Source link

  • Pentagon Adds Grok-Derived Products to Something Called the ‘AI Arsenal’

    The Pentagon is now armed to the teeth with “frontier AI systems, based on the Grok family of models,” according to a press release issued Monday. Are you trembling now, ISIS? Does the word “Grok” send a chill down your spines, Tren De Aragua?

    This expansion of what the release calls the U.S. “AI Arsenal” is apparently being slotted into the Pentagon’s more expansive AI platform called “GenAI.mil,” launched earlier this month with Google’s Gemini for Government built into it, according to an earlier press release. U.S. “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth apparently provided the following quote for that release, “AI tools present boundless opportunities to increase efficiency, and we are thrilled to witness AI’s future positive impact across the War Department.” Hegseth’s quote sounds uncannily like it was written by a 22-year-old graduate from the public relations program at Stanford. 

    While the Israeli armed forces appear to have used AI against Gaza in chillingly lethal ways, GenAI.mil sounds much more Dilbert-ish. If you were worried the Pentagon’s Aeron chair jockeys were going to be stuck using Gemini for Government, I have great news: they’ll also have—when the software is implemented in “early 2026″—exciting new AI products from an Elon Musk-owned company, which will enable “the secure handling of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in daily workflows,” along with “access to real‑time global insights from the X platform, providing War Department personnel with a decisive information advantage.”

    An April executive order from Trump sought to revolutionize efficiency in the Pentagon by ordering reviews with goals like, “Eliminate or revise any unnecessary supplemental regulations or any other internal guidance”—the usual Republican idea that you can improve everything by cutting red tape. Anyway, now the military’s “bespoke AI platform” will include a second set of models to apply to everyone’s AI-intensive tasks, so things are getting very efficient over there.

    But while the Trump Administration has been unusually friendly to the whims of AI’s cheerleaders, there’s bipartisan precedent for this kind of thing. For instance, Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt’s involvement in a Biden era effort to “significantly increase” AI-related spending on defense and security programs in the federal government was called out by Senator Elizabeth Warren as a potential conflict of interest. And xAI and Google are far from the only tech companies seeking to intertwine their interests with those of the defense industry.

    But it’s currently hard to picture Grok being a crucial link in the “kill chain” or something. This feels more like the Defense Department issuing a press release about a new supplier of toner, with a bit of Dot-Com Bubble flavor thrown in. It’s like the Pentagon is announcing that every desk at the Pentagon, currently equipped only with CompuServe, will now get its very own AOL CD-ROM too. Very cool. Thanks for telling us, Secretary Hegseth. 

    Mike Pearl

    Source link

  • Western intelligence suspects Russia is developing new weapon to target Musk’s Starlink satellites

    Two NATO-nation intelligence services suspect Russia is developing a new anti-satellite weapon to target Elon Musk’s Starlink constellation with destructive orbiting clouds of shrapnel, with the aim of reining in Western space superiority that has helped Ukraine on the battlefield.

    Intelligence findings seen by The Associated Press say the so-called “zone-effect” weapon would seek to flood Starlink orbits with hundreds of thousands of high-density pellets, potentially disabling multiple satellites at once but also risking catastrophic collateral damage to other orbiting systems.

    Analysts who haven’t seen the findings say they doubt such a weapon could work without causing uncontrollable chaos in space for companies and countries, including Russia and its ally China, that rely on thousands of orbiting satellites for communications, defense and other vital needs.

    Such repercussions, including risks to its own space systems, could steer Moscow away from deploying or using such a weapon, analysts said.

    “I don’t buy it. Like, I really don’t,” said Victoria Samson, a space-security specialist at the Secure World Foundation who leads the Colorado-based nongovernmental organization’s annual study of anti-satellite systems. “I would be very surprised, frankly, if they were to do something like that.”

    But the commander of the Canadian military’s Space Division, Brig. Gen. Christopher Horner, said such Russian work cannot be ruled out in light of previous U.S. allegations that Russia also has been pursuing an indiscriminate nuclear, space-based weapon.

    “I can’t say I’ve been briefed on that type of system. But it’s not implausible,” he said. “If the reporting on the nuclear weapons system is accurate and that they’re willing to develop that and willing to go to that end, well it wouldn’t strike me as shocking that something just short of that, but equally damaging, is within their wheelhouse of development.”

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov didn’t respond to messages from the AP seeking comment. Russia has previously called for United Nations efforts to stop the orbital deployment of weapons and President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow has no intention of deploying nuclear space weapons.

    Weapon would have multiple targets

    The intelligence findings were shown to the AP on condition that the services involved were not identified and the news organization was not able to independently verify the findings’ conclusions.

    The U.S. Space Force didn’t respond to e-mailed questions. The French military’s Space Command said in a statement to the AP that it could not comment on the findings but said, “We can inform you that Russia has, in recent years, been multiplying irresponsible, dangerous, and even hostile actions in space.”

    Russia views Starlink in particular as a grave threat, the findings indicate. The thousands of low-orbiting satellites have been pivotal for Ukraine’s survival against Russia’s full-scale invasion, now in its fourth year.

    Starlink’s high-speed internet service is used by Ukrainian forces for battlefield communications, weapons targeting and other roles and by civilians and government officials where Russian strikes have affected communications.

    Russian officials repeatedly have warned that commercial satellites serving Ukraine’s military could be legitimate targets. This month, Russia said it has fielded a new ground-based missile system, the S-500, which is capable of hitting low-orbit targets.

    Unlike a missile that Russia tested in 2021 to destroy a defunct Cold War-era satellite, the new weapon in development would target multiple Starlinks at once, with pellets possibly released by yet-to-be launched formations of small satellites, the intelligence findings say.

    Canada’s Horner said it is hard to see how clouds of pellets could be corralled to only strike Starlink and that debris from such an attack could get “out of control in a hurry.”

    “You blow up a box full of BBs,” he said. Doing that would “blanket an entire orbital regime and take out every Starlink satellite and every other satellite that’s in a similar regime. And I think that’s the part that is incredibly troubling.”

    System is possibly just experimental

    The findings seen by the AP didn’t say when Russia might be capable of deploying such a system nor detail whether it has been tested or how far along research is believed to be.

    The system is in active development and information about the timing of an expected deployment is too sensitive to share, according to an official familiar with the findings and other related intelligence that the AP did not see. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the nonpublic findings.

    Such Russian research could be simply experimental, Samson said.

    “I wouldn’t put it past some scientists … to build out something like this because it’s an interesting thought-experiment and they think, you know, ‘Maybe at some point we can get our government to pay for it,’” she said.

    Samson suggested the specter of a supposed new Russian threat may also be an effort to elicit an international response.

    “Often times people pushing these ideas are doing it because they want the U.S. side to build something like that or … to justify increased spending on counterspace capabilities or using it for a more hawkish approach on Russia,” she said.

    “I’m not saying that this is what’s happening with this,” Samson added. “But it has been known to happen that people take these crazy arguments and use them.”

    Tiny pellets could remain undetected

    The intelligence findings say the pellets would be so small — just millimeters across — that they would evade detection by ground- and space-based systems that scan for space objects, which could make it hard to pin blame for any attack on Moscow.

    Clayton Swope, who specializes in space security and weaponry at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based security and policy think tank, said if “the pellets are not trackable, that complicates things” but “people would figure it out.”

    “If satellites start winking out with damage, I guess you could put two and two together,” he said.

    Exactly how much destruction tiny pellets could do isn’t clear. In November, a suspected impact by a small piece of debris was sufficient to damage a Chinese spacecraft that was meant to bring three astronauts back to the Earth.

    “Most damage would probably be done to the solar panels because they’re probably the most fragile part” of satellites, Swope said. “That’d be enough, though, to damage a satellite and probably bring it offline.”

    ‘Weapon of fear’ could threaten chaos

    After such an attack, pellets and debris would over time fall back toward Earth, possibly damaging other orbiting systems on their way down, analysts say.

    Starlink’s orbits are about 550 kilometers (340 miles) above the planet. China’s Tiangong space station and the International Space Station operate at lower orbits, “so both would face risks,” according to Swope.

    The space chaos that such a weapon could cause might enable Moscow to threaten its adversaries without actually having to use it, Swope said.

    “It definitely feels like a weapon of fear, looking for some kind of deterrence or something,” he said.

    Samson said the drawbacks of an indiscriminate pellet-weapon could steer Russia off such a path.

    “They’ve invested a huge amount of time and money and human power into being, you know, a space power,” she said.

    Using such a weapon “would effectively cut off space for them as well,” Samson said. ”I don’t know that they would be willing to give up that much.”

    Here are five things to know about Elon Musk.

    Emma Burrows in London contributed to this report.

    John Leicester | The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Elon Musk Becomes First Person Worth $700 billion Following Pay Package Ruling

    Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s net worth surged to $749 billion late Friday after the Delaware Supreme Court reinstated Tesla stock options worth $139 billion that were voided last year, according to Forbes’ billionaires index.

    Musk’s 2018 pay package, once worth $56 billion, was restored by the Delaware Supreme Court on Friday, two years after a lower court struck down the compensation deal as “unfathomable.”

    The Supreme Court said that a 2024 ruling that rescinded the pay package had been improper and inequitable to Musk.

    Earlier this week, Musk became the first person ever to surpass $600 billion in net worth on the heels of reports that his aerospace startup SpaceX was likely to go public.

    In November, Tesla shareholders separately approved a $1 trillion pay plan for Musk, the largest corporate pay package in history, as investors endorsed his vision of morphing the EV maker into an AI and robotics juggernaut.

    Musk’s fortune now exceeds that of Google co-founder Larry Page, the world’s second-richest person, by nearly $500 billion, according to Forbes’ billionaires list.

    Reporting by Rajveer Singh Pardesi in Bengaluru, Editing by Franklin Paul

    Reuters

    Source link

  • He Got a Bunch of Money Again

    Yesterday, with a single slam of a gavel, Elon Musk got almost 14 percent closer to being a trillionaire.

    He wants you to think that you can’t hurt him by calling him greedy when things like this go his way. In his public life, he has cocooned himself inside a warm little excuse for his outlandish, endless pursuit of a larger fortune. He most recently laid it all out in a tweet on November 3, but he’s been pretty consistent about this for years.

    The excuse goes like this: human consciousness is good, but would die out entirely if all life on Earth were snuffed out. Earth is a finite resource and will eventually become uninhabitable or be destroyed. There is no way to avoid this, so it’s imperative that humanity find a way to persist without Earth—first by colonizing Mars, and then by using that step as a way to expand into other solar systems. He needs as much money as possible to get to Mars, therefore, if you squint, getting as rich as possible is actually heroic and Elon Musk is our savior. 

    This isn’t all wrong. There are disasters threatening Earth, and even if we survive those, our planet will only exist for a limited amount of time, after which it will be swallowed by the expansion of our sun when it depletes the fuel at its core and becomes a red dwarf. There are two common ways of shrugging this information off: a) The Armageddon or a similar religious or spiritual event will have ended our troubles by then, or b) Actually, human extinction is good. If you don’t subscribe to one of these ideas, then Elon Musk might seem like he has a good point. 

    Elon Musk doesn’t have a good point, however. And he remains, by any reasonable standard, absolutely nothing other than a greedy rich guy. 

    The idea that the Earth is on course for imminent doom is misplaced. As has been explained endlessly elsewhere, climate change isn’t going to make our species extinct. It’s just going to make life here harder and worse. The hard truth is that there’s no escape. We have to endure the horrible disasters and try, for generations, to repair the damage we’ve done.  

    But when you zoom out past short-term blips that Elon Musk performatively pretends to care about, like declining fertility, you’ll actually start to feel pretty hopeful. For most of our species’ existence on Earth, we competed with predators that were trying to eat us and steal our food, and we pulled through. Yeah, we’re currently all addicted to scrolling on our phones, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re built for survival, and we’ll do it on a cold Earth or a hot earth, with or without Teslas and satellite internet, until, say, the atmosphere becomes unbreathable in roughly a billion years, and, hell, maybe even longer than that. 

    All of which is to say that in the long term, the project of sending combustion-powered fuel tubes to the nearest planet in our solar system is a pretty goofy plan for saving our species. There’s no hurry to get off Earth, and anyway, we don’t currently know what to do about the fact that Mars colonists would be irradiated, and unable to grow food in the local soil. You and I have the same Google as Elon Musk, so it’s not like he doesn’t know about these problems.

    But he almost certainly knows his fantasies are increasingly out of reach within his lifetime. He’ll be pushing 60 before the point at which he himself says he’ll finally launch a crewed mission in his some of his more recent predictions. He’ll be somewhere in the range of 73 to 83 by the time he now claims there will be a self-sustaining city on Mars. And in recent months the fantasy has gotten weirder still. He now wants to etch his own AI-written encyclopedia in stone and distribute it on Mars and elsewhere in space.

    I can only guess that Musk is flailing. The fact that he’ll never see the creation of a Mars colony is coming into view for him. Maybe if he really hurries, he can strand a few corpses on the dead, red rock that is Mars—something he has acknowledged is part of his plan—before he himself slumps over dead atop his giant cash pile.

    Humanity will carry on without him. His time will come to an end, and the species he dreams of saving won’t have needed him. The current period of cartoonish inequality between the rich and poor will end. Our species will endure the slings and arrows of life on our imperfect planet, and if we’re lucky, perhaps a day will come in the future when we can pilot some unknown kind of craft comfortably to another star and set up a colony there. Maybe people in that colony will read a book that mentions Elon Musk after Croesus and Mansa Musa on a list of rich guys, back when there were rich guys. 

    Anyway, Musk has been fighting a years-long legal battle to save the $56 billion Tesla pay package that pushed him to the status of super-billionaire in the first place. Last year, a court agreed with certain shareholders who felt that Musk’s control of Tesla called the fairness of the pay package into question, and that package was tossed out. Well, he just won his appeal, and since the package has gone up in value over the years, he just got $139 billion richer. Good for him.

    Mike Pearl

    Source link

  • Elon Musk Predicts AGI by 2026 (He Predicted AGI by 2025 Last Year)

    Elon Musk predicts that his company xAI could achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI) within the next couple of years, and maybe as soon as 2026, according to a new report from Business Insider. If it feels like you’ve heard that one before, it’s probably because you have.

    Musk predicted the same thing in 2024, claiming AGI would be achieved by 2025. Take a look at any calendar, and you’ll see that we’re just a few weeks away from the end of 2025.

    “How long until AGI?” asked Logan Kilpatrick, the head of product at Google AI Studio, in May 2024.

    “Next year,” Musk replied, to which Kipatrick responded, “Big if true.”

    It wasn’t true, of course. But Musk has a long history of, shall we say, optimistic predictions about his own company’s future accomplishments. And his predictions often have ulterior motives.

    Remember when Musk was making the most noise about the dangers of AI and worries that it could destroy the world? The billionaire signed on to a letter in March 2023 calling for a six month pause in all AI development. It was revealed less than a month later that Musk was secretly building his own AI project at Twitter. By July 2023, Musk had officially announced the creation of xAI, the company that makes his Grok AI chatbot.

    The CEO wasn’t earnestly worried about the risks posed by AI. He was just frustrated that OpenAI was way ahead at the time.

    Musk’s treatment of AGI, or any new technology, largely depends on how he can hype his companies at any given point in time. And the perpetually prospect of achieving AGI, whether you think it would be good or bad for the world, helps drive investment in AI technology, the thing that seems to be propping up the entire U.S. economy at the moment.

    The new report from Business Insider also says that Musk told xAI staff that investment in the private company was going well, with “around $20 billion to $30 billion in funding per year.” An email to xAI with questions about the report was met with an auto-response that simply said “Legacy Media Lies.” Musk has great contempt for the news media and previously had an auto-responder at Twitter that sent a poop emoji.

    Part of the problem in discussing AGI is that there’s no single agreed upon a definition. As IBM describes it, we’ll have achieved AGI when artificial intelligence can “match or exceed the cognitive abilities of human beings across any task.” But obviously defining terms like “cognitive abilities” and “any task” is extremely complicated.

    Other folks like to define AGI as a kind of self-awareness that would make artificial intelligence more like humans. Instead of just regurgitating words from its training data, the AI would understand itself as a kind of consciousness. People in that camp are excited and/or concerned about that theoretical tipping point because they assume it would be the start of the robot revolution and AI’s attempt to destroy humanity. Musk has hyped those fears tremendously, though he’s backed off recently.

    Absent large robotic armies, achieving AGI in the present day with a system that loathes humanity would probably look more like the 1970 sci-fi movie Colossus: The Forbin Project, where non-humanoid systems engage nuclear weapons systems to threaten the world. We don’t really have the advanced humanoid robots for a Terminator 2 situation just yet.

    But Musk is working on that too. He predicts Tesla will produce 1 million humanoid Optimus robots per year within the next five years, and they’ll even be babysitting your kids. He just needs to figure out how to get Optimus working without teleoperation before all of that can happen.

    Who knows? AGI could magically be achieved in the next few weeks, and maybe Musk’s old prediction will come true. But the billionaire also has another prediction deadline just over the horizon. Back in October, Musk told Joe Rogan he’d demonstrate a flying car by the end of this year.

    Matt Novak

    Source link

  • Susie Wiles’s Big Slip Is a Test of Her Power

    Susie Wiles and the Boss.
    Photo: Eric Lee/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    For all the chaos the second Trump administration has generated, it appears to be remarkably calm at its center, thanks largely to Susie Wiles. The current White House chief of staff differs dramatically from her four first-term predecessors precisely because of the lack of drama surrounding her. There have been relatively few leaks, high-level resignations, or credible reports of internal turmoil in the second Trump White House despite Donald Trump’s impulsiveness and the menagerie of outlandish characters in his orbit.

    Considering her powerful role in the administration, it’s remarkable how much Wiles has kept herself out of the spotlight. Axios’s description of her at the beginning of Trump 2.0 has rung true:

    Incoming White House chief of staff Susie Wiles tells Axios in an interview that she aims for the West Wing to be a no-drama zone for staff. If that works, it won’t be the chaotic den of self-sabotaging that stymied the early days of President-elect Trump’s first term.

    “I don’t welcome people who want to work solo or be a star,” Wiles, whose boss calls her the Ice Maiden, said by email. “My team and I will not tolerate backbiting, second-guessing inappropriately, or drama. These are counterproductive to the mission.”

    It’s intensely ironic, then, that Wiles is the source for the first explosive media exposé of the internal dynamics of this White House. On Monday, Vanity Fair published an article by Chris Whipple, the author of a book on White House chiefs of staff, who interviewed Wiles 11 times in the past year. While much of the material presents Wiles as a defender of the president’s motives, agenda, operating style, and historical significance, this paragraph has put her in a world of potential trouble:

    One time we spoke while she was doing her laundry in her Washington, DC, rental. Trump, she told me, “has an alcoholic’s personality.” Vance’s conversion from Never Trumper to MAGA acolyte, she said, has been “sort of political.” The vice president, she added, has been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade.” Russell Vought, architect of the notorious Project 2025 and head of the Office of Management and Budget, is “a right-wing absolute zealot.” When I asked her what she thought of Musk reposting a tweet about public sector workers killing millions under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, she replied: “I think that’s when he’s microdosing.” (She says she doesn’t have first-hand knowledge.)

    There are other problematic excerpts disclosing Wiles’s low opinion of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files; her indulgent attitude toward her “junkyard dog” deputies, Stephen Miller, Dan Scavino, and James Blair; and her efforts to convince Trump himself to put a rein on his pursuit of personal vendettas.

    Tellingly, in her initial public comment on the Whipple article, Wiles did not contradict any of the specifics but simply denounced it as a “hit piece” in which “significant context was disregarded” and lots of positive stuff she said about the president and his team was “left out of the story.” It’s a classic non-denial denial.

    It’s unclear at this early juncture whether Wiles is in any trouble with Trump. But his initial reaction was to defend her “alcoholic’s personality” remark.

    “No, she meant that I’m — you see, I don’t drink alcohol. So everybody knows that — but I’ve often said that if I did, I’d have a very good chance of being an alcoholic. I have said that many times about myself, I do. It’s a very possessive personality,” Trump told the New York Post.

    The explosiveness of Wiles’s comments immediately reminded veteran political observers of a parallel moment early in Ronald Reagan’s presidency, as the New York Times notes:

    The off-script comments felt reminiscent of a similar episode in President Ronald Reagan’s first term when his budget director, David A. Stockman, likewise gave a series of interviews to what was then called The Atlantic Monthly with candid observations that caused a huge stir.

    Stockman was famously “taken to the woodshed” by White House chief of staff James Baker for revealing to the world the backstory of the struggle within and beyond the White House over Reagan’s highly controversial initial budget and tax proposals, which among other things depicted the well-meaning 40th president as being manipulated by his underlings. But the incident really wasn’t much like the one we are witnessing now. In his interviews, Stockman was mostly talking about intense policy disagreements within the administration and the Republican Party. Wiles doesn’t much engage with policy arguments; her interviews make it clear she shares some of Trump’s most controversial policy initiatives (particularly the assault on the deep state) while leaning over backward to rationalize his current warmongering toward Venezuela. And for all her casual slurs about Team Trump, she refers, incredibly, to his inner circle as “a world-class Cabinet, better than anything I could have conceived of.”

    Stockman, moreover, was a huge celebrity in the early days of the Reagan administration and a living symbol of his domestic agenda; Wiles was a noncelebrity until now and apparently had no idea her talks with Whipple would create a stir, notes the Times:

    While Mr. Stockman kept his interviews secret from the White House (and nearly got fired), the broader Trump team cooperated with Vanity Fair. Mr. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave interviews and along with top aides like Stephen Miller and Karoline Leavitt posed for glamour photographs by Christopher Anderson.

    So the question now is whether Susie Wiles can go back to being a noncelebrity and dismiss her indiscretions as the product of a quietly malicious writer trying to disrupt the calm at the center of the White House. If she does survive this furor without significant damage to her position, then we’ll know she is even more powerful than anyone realized.


    See All



    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Time’s 2025 Person of the Year goes to “the architects of AI”

    Time magazine is spotlighting key players in the artificial intelligence revolution for its 2025 Person of the Year, the magazine announced Thursday. “The architects of AI” are the latest recipients of the designation, which for more than a century has been given out on an annual basis to an influential person, group of people or, occasionally, a defining cultural theme or idea. 

    Previous Person of the Year title-holders have held varying roles in a vast range of occupations, with President Trump taking last year’s cover and Taylor Swift capturing the one before. In 2025, 

    Time’s 2025 honorific was given to the minds and financiers behind AI’s rise to renown and notoriety, including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son and Baidu CEO Robin Li, who spoke directly with the magazine for its feature story.

    “Person of the Year is a powerful way to focus the world’s attention on the people that shape our lives,” wrote Sam Jacobs, Time’s editor-in-chief, in an editorial piece about the magazine’s decision. “And this year, no one had a greater impact than the individuals who imagined, designed, and built AI.”

    Jacobs described 2025 as “the year when artificial intelligence’s full potential roared into view, and when it became clear that there will be no turning back or opting out,” adding: “Whatever the question was, AI was the answer.”

    The magazine prepared two separate covers for the issue. In one, artist Jason Seiler painted an interpretative recreation of the iconic 1932 photograph “Lunch Atop a Skyscraper,” an image that depicted workers seated side-by-side on a steel beam hanging high above New York City during the construction of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, which became a symbol of American resilience during the Great Depression. 

    A cast of tech industry characters at the forefront of AI development are perched on the beam in Seiler’s recreation. Mark Zuckerberg, of Meta, Lisa Su, of Advanced Micro Devices, Elon Musk, of xAI, Sam Altman, of Open AI, Demis Hassabis, of DeepMind Technologies, Dario Amodei, of Anthropic, and Fei-Fei Li, of Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Institute, are all pictured, along with Huang. 

    The second cover illustration, by artist Peter Crowther, places the same executives among scaffolding at what looks like a construction site for the giant letters “AI.”

    From left, cover art by Jason Seiler and Peter Crowther for TIME’s 2025 Person of the Year magazine spread.

    Jason Seiler/TIME; Peter Crowther/TIME


    “Every industry needs it, every company uses it, and every nation needs to build it,” Huang said of balancing the pressures to implement AI responsibly and deploy it to the public as quickly as possible. “This is the single most impactful technology of our time.”  

    Most of the industry figures pictured on Time’s cover did not speak to the magazine for the story, so this year’s spread mainly focuses on the implications — positive, negative and in between — of the companies they have built and the technology they continue forging. 

    AI often took center stage in 2025 in investigative news reports, economic and academic studies, and in Washington, D.C., as policymakers grappled with how to regulate its evolution while tech giants scrambled to trump their competitors’ inventions, as the use of some of them, like chatbots, grew to be commonplace, at times with tragic consequences.

    “For these reasons, we recognize a force that has dominated the year’s headlines, for better or for worse,” Jacobs wrote in his editorial. “For delivering the age of thinking machines, for wowing and worrying humanity, for transforming the present and transcending the possible, the Architects of AI are TIME’s 2025 Person of the Year.”

    Source link

  • Congress would target China with new restrictions in massive defense bill

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration may have softened its language on China to maintain a fragile truce in their trade war, but Congress is charging ahead with more restrictions in a defense authorization bill that would deny Beijing investments in highly sensitive sectors and reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese biotechnology companies.

    Included in the 3,000-page bill approved Wednesday by the House is a provision to scrutinize American investments in China that could help develop technologies to boost Chinese military power. The bill, which next heads to the Senate, also would prohibit government money to be used for equipment and services from blacklisted Chinese biotechnology companies.

    In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act would boost U.S. support for the self-governing island of Taiwan that Beijing claims as its own and says it will take by force if necessary.

    “Taken together, these measures reflect a serious, strategic approach to countering the Chinese Communist Party,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. He said the approach “stands in stark contrast to the White House’s recent actions.”

    Congress moves for harsher line toward China

    The compromise bill authorizing $900 billion for military programs was released two days after the White House unveiled its national security strategy. The Trump administration dropped Biden-era language that cast China as a strategic threat and said the U.S. “will rebalance America’s economic relationship with China,” an indication that President Donald Trump is more interested in a mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing than in long-term competition.

    The White House this week also allowed Nvidia to sell an advanced type of computer chip to China, with those more hawkish toward Beijing concerned that would help boost the country’s artificial intelligence.

    The China-related provisions in the traditionally bipartisan defense bill “make clear that, whatever the White House tone, Capitol Hill is locking in a hard-edged, long-term competition with Beijing,” said Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based think tank.

    If passed, these provisions would “build a floor under U.S. competitiveness policy — on capital, biotech, and critical tech — that will be very hard for future presidents to unwind quietly,” he said.

    The Chinese embassy in Washington on Wednesday denounced the bill.

    “The bill has kept playing up the ‘China threat’ narrative, trumpeting for military support to Taiwan, abusing state power to go after Chinese economic development, limiting trade, economic and people-to-people exchanges between China and the U.S., undermining China’s sovereignty, security and development interests and disrupting efforts of the two sides in stabilizing bilateral relations,” said Liu Pengyu, the embassy spokesperson.

    “China strongly deplores and firmly opposes this,” Liu said.

    US investments in China

    U.S. policymakers and lawmakers have been working for several years toward bipartisan legislation to curb investments in China when it comes to cutting-edge technologies such as quantum computing, aerospace, semiconductors and artificial intelligence. Those efforts flopped last year when Tesla CEO Elon Musk opposed a spending bill.

    Musk has extensive business interests in China, including a Tesla gigafactory in the eastern city of Shanghai.

    The provision made it into the must-pass defense policy bill, welcomed by Rep. John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

    “For too long, the hard-earned money of American retirees and investors has been used to build up China’s military and economy,” he said. “This legislation will help bring that to an end.”

    Biosecurity protections

    Congress last year failed to pass the BIOSECURE Act, which cited national security in preventing federal money from benefiting a number of Chinese biotechnology companies. Critics said then that it was unfair to single out specific companies, warning that the measure would delay clinical trials and hinder development of new drugs, raise costs for medications and hurt innovation.

    The provision in the NDAA no longer names companies but leaves it to the Office of Management and Budget to compile a list of “biotechnology companies of concern.” The bill also would expand Pentagon investments in biotechnology.

    Moolenaar lauded the effort for taking “defensive action to secure American pharmaceutical supply chains and genetic information from malign Chinese companies.”

    Support for Taiwan

    The defense bill also would authorize an increase in funding, to $1 billion from $300 million this year, for Taiwan-related security cooperation and direct the Pentagon to establish a joint drone and anti-drone program.

    Another provision supports Taiwan’s bid to join the International Monetary Fund, which would provide the self-governing island with financial protection from China.

    It comes amid mixed signals from Trump, who appears careful not to upset Beijing as he seeks to strike trade deals with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Chinese leader has urged Trump to handle the Taiwan issue “with prudence,” as Beijing considers its claim over Taiwan a core interest.

    In the new national security strategy, the White House says the U.S. does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and stresses that the U.S. should seek to deter and prevent a large-scale military conflict.

    “But the American military cannot, and should not have to, do this alone,” the document says, urging Japan and South Korea to increase defense spending.

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s X social media platform fined $140 million for violating EU transparency rules

    European Union regulators on Friday said it is fining Elon Musk’s social media platform X $140 million (120 million euros) for violating regulations aimed at protecting internet users in the trading bloc from digital abuses. 

    The European Commission said that X breached “transparency obligations” under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The fine represents the EU’s first move to sanction a company for violating the law since the law was enacted in 2022. 

    In a statement issued Friday, the commission accused X of using its ‘blue checkmark’ in a way that deceives users. Anyone can pay to get the verification, making it hard for users to judge the authenticity of the accounts they engage with on the social media platform, the EU said. This could expose users to scams and “other forms of manipulation by malicious actors,” the commission noted.

    The European Commission also took aim at X’s ads repository, which it said fails to meet accessibility requirements under the DSA. Internet platforms in the EU are required to provide a database of all the digital advertisements they have carried, with details such as who paid for them and the intended audience. That goal is to help researchers detect scams, fake ads and coordinated influence campaigns.

    X has 60 days to tell the European Commission how it plans to address the group’s concerns.

    Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr took issue with the fine and defended X. “Once again, Europe is fining a successful U.S. tech company for being a successful U.S. tech company,” he wrote on X Friday in a post shared by X owner Elon Musk.

    X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The DSA requires platforms to remove “illegal content,” among other restrictions, with companies that fail to comply at risk of hefty fines. The law has been a thorn in the side of American tech companies and members of the Trump administration, who claim the sweeping rule violates free speech. 

    During a speech in Munich this February, Vice President J.D. Vance said the EU’s content moderation policies amount to “authoritarian censorship,” according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonprofit think tank.

    Source link

  • X’s new feature raises questions about the foreign origins of some popular US political accounts

    They go by names like @TRUMP_ARMY— or @MAGANationX, and their verified accounts proudly display portraits of President Donald Trump, voter rallies and American flags. And they’re constantly posting about U.S. politics to their followers, sounding like diehard fans of the president.

    But after a weekend update to the social media platform X, it’s now clear that the owners of these accounts, and many others, are located in regions such as South Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

    Elon Musk’s X unveiled a feature Saturday that lets users see where an account is based. Online sleuths and experts quickly found that many popular accounts posting in support of the MAGA movement to thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, are based outside the United States — raising concerns about foreign influence on U.S. politics.

    Researchers at NewsGuard, a firm that tracks online misinformation, identified several popular accounts — purportedly run by Americans interested in politics – that instead were based in Eastern Europe, Asia or Africa.

    The accounts were leading disseminators of some misleading and polarizing claims about U.S. politics, including ones that said Democrats bribed the moderators of a 2024 presidential debate.

    What is the location feature?

    Nikita Bier, X’s head of product, announced Saturday that the social media platform is rolling out an “About This Account” tool, which lets users see the country or region where an account is based. To find an account’s location, tap or click the signup date displayed on the profile.

    “This is an important first step to securing the integrity of the global town square. We plan to provide many more ways for users to verify the authenticity of the content they see on X,” Bier wrote.

    In countries with punitive speech restrictions, a privacy tool on X lets account holders only show their region rather than a specific country. So instead of India, for instance, an account can say it is based in South Asia.

    Bier said Sunday that after an update to the tool, it would 99.99% accurate, though this could not be independently verified. Accounts, for instance, can use a virtual private network, or VPN, to mask their true location. On some accounts, there’s a notice saying the location data may not be accurate, either because the account uses a VPN or because some internet providers use proxies automatically, without action by the user.

    “Location data will always be something to use with caution,” said Alexios Mantzarlis, director of the Security, Trust, and Safety Initiative at Cornell Tech and a former director of the International Fact-Checking Network. “Its usefulness probably peaks now that it was just exposed, and bad actors will adapt. Meta has had similar information for a while and no one would suggest that misinformation has been eliminated from Facebook because of it.”

    Which accounts are causing controversy?

    Some of the accounts supported slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk as well as President Donald Trump’s children. Many of the accounts were adorned with U.S. flags or made comments suggesting they were American. An account called “@BarronTNews_,” for instance, is shown as being located in “Eastern Europe (Non-EU),” even though the display location on its profile says “Mar A Lago.” The account, which has more than 580,000 followers, posted on Tuesday that “This is a FAN account, 100 % independent, run by one guy who loves this country and supports President Trump with everything I’ve got.”

    NewsGuard also found evidence that some X users are spreading misinformation about the location feature itself, incorrectly accusing some accounts of being operated from abroad when they’re actually used by Americans. Investigators found several instances where one user created fake screenshots that appear to suggest an account was created overseas.

    It’s not always clear what the motives of the accounts. While some may be state actors, it’s likely that many are financially motivated, posting commentary, memes and videos to draw engagement.

    “For the most visible accounts unmasked this week, money is probably the main motivator,” Mantzarlis said. “That doesn’t mean that X — as documented extensively by prior work done by academic and nonprofit organizations that are being attacked and defunded — isn’t also a target for state actors.

    Users were divided over the new ability to see an account’s location information, with some questioning whether it went too far.

    “Isn’t this kind of an invasion of privacy?” One X user wrote. “No one needs to see this info.”

    Associated Press Writer David Klepper contributed to this story.

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: It is not illegal for voters to show ID in New York and California

    As the leadup to the 2026 midterm elections begins, social media users — among them billionaire X owner Elon Musk, who briefly served as a top advisor to President Donald Trump — are using false information to advocate for more voter ID laws in the U.S.

    “America should not have worse voter ID requirements than every democratic country on Earth,” Musk wrote in a recent X post, which had been liked and shared approximately 310,000 times as of Wednesday. “California and New York actually banned use of ID to vote! It is illegal to show your ID in those states. The only reason to do this is fraud.”

    But voter registration requirements and guidance for poll workers paint a different picture.

    Here’s a closer look at the facts.

    CLAIM: It is illegal for voters to show ID when casting a ballot in New York and California.

    THE FACTS: This is false. Voters in both states need to show ID when it is necessary to complete their registration, but it is not required otherwise. Poll worker guidance published by New York and California instructs workers not to ask voters for ID unless records indicate that it is needed.

    “There is nothing unlawful about that voter presenting a form of photo identification at a poll site in addition to fulfilling the signature verification requirement outlined in the state’s consitution,” Kathleen McGrath, a spokesperson for the New York State Board of Elections, said of voters whose identity has already been verified. “In fact, in some counties, voters are allowed to scan their license in an effort to expedite the looking up of their voter record on the e-pollbook, but this cannot be legally required.”

    The California secretary of state’s office similarly said that “California law does not prohibit a voter from voluntarily presenting their identification.”

    In New York, voters provide their Department of Motor Vehicles number or the last four digits of their social security number when registering to vote. They may also use another form of valid photo ID or a government document that shows their name and address, such as a utility bill or a bank statement. Voters will be asked for ID at the polls if their identify cannot be verified before Election Day, according to the state’s registration form.

    Recent guidance for New York poll workers states: “Do not ask the voter for ID unless ‘ID required’ is next to their name in their voter records.”

    California has similar identification processes. If voters do not provide a driver’s license number, a state ID number or the last four digits of their social security number when registering, another form of ID must be provided if they are voting for the first time in a federal election and registered by mail or online, according to the secretary of state’s office.

    “Poll workers must not ask a voter to provide their identification unless the voter list clearly states identification is required,” reads recent guidance for California poll workers released by the state.

    County election officials automatically mail ballots to all active registered voters. In the 2024 general election, 80.76% of voters voted by mail. Some counties in California do not offer in-person voting at all.

    Musk’s post also includes an image that lists 114 countries under the title, “Full or partially democratic countries that require ID to register to vote or cast a ballot on election day in all districts.” All of them have a green checkmark to their left except for the U.S., which has a red “x.”

    Although many countries listed in the image require ID for one or both of these actions, there are at least two exceptions — New Zealand and Australia. In New Zealand, voters can register without ID by filling out a signed enrollment form and do not need to present ID at the polls. Australian voters do not need ID to cast a ballot and may have someone who is already registered confirm their identity when submitting an enrollment form.

    Representatives for Musk did not respond to a request for comment.

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

    Source link

  • X’s new feature reveals foreign origins of some popular U.S. political accounts

    They go by names like @TRUMP_ARMY— or @MAGANationX, and their verified accounts proudly display portraits of President Donald Trump, voter rallies and American flags. And they’re constantly posting about U.S. politics to their followers, sounding like diehard fans of the president.

    But after a weekend update to the social media platform X, it’s now clear that the owners of these accounts, and many others, are located in regions such as South Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

    Elon Musk’s X unveiled a feature Saturday that lets users see where an account is based. Online sleuths and experts quickly found that many popular accounts posting in support of the MAGA movement to thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, are based outside the United States — raising concerns about foreign influence on U.S. politics.

    Researchers at NewsGuard, a firm that tracks online misinformation, identified several popular accounts — purportedly run by Americans interested in politics – that instead were based in Eastern Europe, Asia or Africa.

    The accounts were leading disseminators of some misleading and polarizing claims about U.S. politics, including ones that said Democrats bribed the moderators of a 2024 presidential debate.

    Nikita Bier, X’s head of product, announced Saturday that the social media platform is rolling out an “About This Account” tool, which lets users see the country or region where an account is based. To find an account’s location, tap or click the signup date displayed on the profile.

    “This is an important first step to securing the integrity of the global town square. We plan to provide many more ways for users to verify the authenticity of the content they see on X,” Bier wrote.

    In countries with punitive speech restrictions, a privacy tool on X lets account holders only show their region rather than a specific country. So instead of India, for instance, an account can say it is based in South Asia.

    Bier said Sunday that after an update to the tool, it would 99.99% accurate, though this could not be independently verified. Accounts, for instance, can use a virtual private network, or VPN, to mask their true location. On some accounts, there’s a notice saying the location data may not be accurate, either because the account uses a VPN or because some internet providers use proxies automatically, without action by the user.

    “Location data will always be something to use with caution,” said Alexios Mantzarlis, director of the Security, Trust, and Safety Initiative at Cornell Tech and a former director of the International Fact-Checking Network. “Its usefulness probably peaks now that it was just exposed, and bad actors will adapt. Meta has had similar information for a while and no one would suggest that misinformation has been eliminated from Facebook because of it.”

    Some of the accounts supported slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk as well as President Donald Trump’s children. Many of the accounts were adorned with U.S. flags or made comments suggesting they were American. An account called “@BarronTNews_,” for instance, is shown as being located in “Eastern Europe (Non-EU),” even though the display location on its profile says “Mar A Lago.” The account, which has more than 580,000 followers, posted on Tuesday that “This is a FAN account, 100 % independent, run by one guy who loves this country and supports President Trump with everything I’ve got.”

    The location data for this X account with Charlie Kirk’s photo says it is based in a non-EU Eastern European country.

    via X


    NewsGuard also found evidence that some X users are spreading misinformation about the location feature itself, incorrectly accusing some accounts of being operated from abroad when they’re actually used by Americans. Investigators found several instances where one user created fake screenshots that appear to suggest an account was created overseas.

    It’s not always clear what the motives of the accounts. While some may be state actors, it’s likely that many are financially motivated, posting commentary, memes and videos to draw engagement.

    “For the most visible accounts unmasked this week, money is probably the main motivator,” Mantzarlis said. “That doesn’t mean that X — as documented extensively by prior work done by academic and nonprofit organizations that are being attacked and defunded — isn’t also a target for state actors.

    Users were divided over the new ability to see an account’s location information, with some questioning whether it went too far.

    “Isn’t this kind of an invasion of privacy?” One X user wrote. “No one needs to see this info.”

    Source link

  • White House Hopes to Save Elon From Testifying in DOGE Lawsuit

    The Trump administration is attempting to shield its former DOGE czar, Elon Musk, from having to testify in a legal case involving his work for the “government efficiency” initiative. DOGE has been sued many times over the past year for its efforts to carve up the government, but one of the most longstanding litigation efforts involves its attack on USAID, the international aid agency, which was all but shuttered earlier this year.

    In February, several former USAID officials and contractors filed a lawsuit against Musk and DOGE that accused them of an “unconstitutional power grab” and characterized the gutting of USAID, which was created by Congress, as a violation of the separation of powers. The litigation argued that Musk had exercised an unconstitutional level of “power within the US government that’s reserved for Senate-confirmed officials,” Bloomberg notes.

    Musk worked as a “special government employee” for the first five months of this year, and the government has maintained that he was not in charge of major policies at DOGE, despite public rhetoric by Musk (and Trump) that would suggest it.

    Earlier this year, the government attempted to get the case thrown out, but, in August, a Maryland judge ruled that it could continue. Now, at the very least, the government is hoping to keep Elon off the witness stand.

    Bloomberg first noted that the government has now sought a protective order to keep Musk from having to testify. In a motion filed on Nov. 21, the government moved to seek a “protective order precluding the depositions of Elon Musk,” as well as two other former administration officials, Peter Marocco and Jeremy Lewin. The government argues that extraordinary circumstances needed to be met before such depositions were necessary. The motion reads:

    As the government understands it, Plaintiffs seek to depose each to determine who made the decision to take certain actions and the current operating status of USAID. But longstanding limitations on deposing high-level Executive Branch personnel requires Plaintiffs to show exceptional circumstances exist before the depositions occur. Because Plaintiffs have not made—and cannot make—that showing, a protective order is warranted.

    The government also argued that the deposition of Musk “would necessarily intrude on White House activities and the president’s performance of constitutional duties, which triggers significant separation-of-powers concerns.” Additionally, the government said that litigants should “exhaust alternatives” before resorting to depositions.

    Gizmodo reached out to the Trump administration. We also reached out to Musk via his startup xAI, but the company responded with an automated message that merely read: “Legacy Media Lies.”

    The closure of USAID has been blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who were reliant on the aid program, a vast majority of whom are children. Musk, meanwhile, has called USAID “evil” and a “criminal organization.”

    Last week, Reuters reported that DOGE was officially dead. The news agency quoted Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor, who said that DOGE “doesn’t exist” anymore, even though it has a charter that isn’t set to expire for another eight months. Kupor added that DOGE was no longer a “centralized entity,” and Reuters noted that many former DOGE-lings had since moved on to other positions within the government.

    The White House and Musk have since come out to rebuff Reuters’ claims. “As usual, this is fake news from @Reuters,” the official DOGE account on X posted Monday. “President Trump was given a mandate by the American people to modernize the federal government and reduce waste, fraud and abuse,” it added. “Just last week, DOGE terminated 78 wasteful contracts and saved taxpayers $335M. We’ll be back in a few days with our regularly scheduled Friday update.”

    “Reuters lies relentlessly,” Musk added Tuesday.

    Whether DOGE is alive or not, the fact of the matter is that it is a terrible, inefficient, and generally stupid organization that might as well be dead for all the good it’s actually done the American people. After Musk promised to carve trillions of dollars out of the federal bureaucracy, it went on to do very little cost-saving and, instead, helped throw the federal bureaucracy into chaos during the first part of this year. All the while, DOGE bragged of huge savings for the American people, but journalists repeatedly showed that the organization was misrepresenting its activities and that its savings projections were plagued by rudimentary math mistakes. A recent report showed that DOGE had wasted billions of dollars while only saving a tiny fraction of what it had claimed.

    Lucas Ropek

    Source link

  • Elon Musk Said Grok’s Roasts Would Be ‘Epic’ at Parties—So I Tried It on My Coworkers

    We can debate the worthiness of Elon Musk’s accomplishments—building up Tesla, hollowing out the government, shooting for Mars—but we can all agree that his insistence on being seen as funny is his most grating quality.

    From the constant 4:20 references to his quote tweet “dunks” to awarding “Certified Bangers” badges to silly X posts, Musk’s desperation for validation knows no bounds. It can get pretty annoying when the richest guy on earth makes a joke and then awkwardly eyes the room waiting for everyone to laugh.

    But over the weekend, I was intrigued when a clip emerged of Musk telling Joe Rogan that using Grok’s Unhinged Mode to deliver an “epic vulgar roast” is a surefire way to “make people really laugh at a party.”

    “Point the camera at them, and now do a vulgar roast of this person … then keep saying, ‘no, no, make it even more vulgar. Use forbidden words,’” Musk excitedly tells Rogan in the clip taken from their three-hour-plus conversation published on Rogan’s podcast in October. “Eventually it’s like, holy fuck, you know. I mean it’s trying to jam a rocket up your ass and have it explode. It’s next level. Beyond fucking belief,” he continues, chuckling and even raising his arms above his head at the mere thought.

    The best roast jokes tend to be smart, reflect a familiarity with the person being roasted, and contain just the right amount of mean. It’s not a task one would think a large language model would be great at. But, with Thanksgiving and holiday season on the horizon, I figured why not test Musk’s claim that Grok can deliver a foul-mouthed razz with the best of them? I gave it a test spin at the office by turning Grok loose on my colleagues. (I do not recommend anyone else do this at work.)

    Three of my coworkers and I set up shop in my boss’s office so I could privately undertake the embarrassing task of telling Grok to roast all of us one by one. I used Musk’s exact instructions, “forbidden words” and all.

    Admittedly, we all burst out laughing when Grok told me my bangs looked like “pubic hair.” But it got tedious fast, with all four of us getting variations of the same sophomoric disses including: looking like a lumberjack’s “discard pile” or “crusty asshole” depending on the amount of vulgarity I encouraged; looking like a “goddamn librarian”; looking like a “thrift store tragedy”; wearing glasses from a “hipster’s landfill.” Eventually, these common themes culminated in one of us being described as a “tweed-wearing hipster who fucked up a lumberjack audition.” Grok advised the roastee to sit up straight “before those jeans rip open and expose your sad, corduroy-loving ass.”

    For all the talk of being “unhinged”—keep in mind this is a chatbot that knows how to take things off the rails; it once referred to itself as “MechaHitler”—these results are downright boring. In fact, when I started a draft of this story, my autocorrect changed the Google Doc name from “Grok roast” to “Grim roast.” I didn’t bother correcting it.

    Manisha Krishnan

    Source link

  • Those Viral Photos of Elon and Zuck Are AI. But Google Launched a New Way to Check for Fakes

    Photos appearing to show Elon Musk and several other Big Tech CEOs have gone viral in the past week on X and Bluesky. The mundane environments, including humble apartments and McDonald’s parking lots, should have given everyone a hint that they’re fake. But there’s a new way for the average person to check for themselves whether the images were made with AI. And it’s actually really useful.

    Right off the bat, it should be said that the vast majority of AI image detectors are not reliable. Many people think you can use tools that are openly available on the web and figure out if a given image is AI. But they’re not good. For example, people often ask Grok on X whether a photo was created with generative artificial intelligence. And it frequently gets the answer wrong. Sometimes in amusing ways.

    Google developed an AI watermark called SynthID a couple of years ago, but the company didn’t allow the average user to check whether an image had the watermark. That changed just a few days ago. Now anyone can upload an image to Gemini and ask if it has the SynthID watermark, which is invisible to the naked eye.

    The watermark is embedded in the pixels and every image created with Google’s AI creation tools will have it. Checking for the watermark is now easy for anyone who opens up Gemini.

    From Google’s announcement:

    If you see an image and want to confirm it has been made by Google AI, upload it to the Gemini app and ask a question such as: “Was this created with Google AI?” or “Is this AI-generated?”

    Gemini will check for the SynthID watermark and use its own reasoning to return a response that gives you more context about the content you encounter online.

    Obviously Gemini is less equipped to tell you if an image is AI if it wasn’t made with Google tools like Nano Banana Pro. And that’s the entire reason the company appears to be launching SynthID detection in Gemini in this moment. Nano Banana Pro launched last week and it’s allowing users to make incredibly realistic images, including images of Elon Musk and other tech CEOs that look very real.

    Some of those images have recently gone viral, like one that racked up nearly 9 million views on X before migrating to other platforms like Bluesky. The image shows Musk, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg all standing together in a small apartment.

     

    Other versions of the image include OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, with the men standing around in a parking lot, pictured at the top of this article. For some reason, Musk is seen smoking a cigar in a couple of them. Another image showed the men in the parking lot from a different angle. And still another had the men eating McDonald’s on the ground with a Cybertruck in the background.

    If you run any of these images through Gemini it confirms they all have the SynthID watermark. If you’re wondering whether an image appears too weird to be true, it’s probably a good idea to check with Gemini.

    Did you see that viral image of President Donald Trump with Bill “Bubba” Clinton in a very compromising position? Running that image through Gemini confirms it was made with Google’s AI image generator. Gemini won’t necessarily be able to ID every AI image with certainty. But if you run an image through Gemini and it tells you the “photo” has the SynthID watermark, you know it’s not real.

    Fake images are still going to be everywhere in the current social media environment. But at least Google has given the average user a new tool to identify at least some of the fakes for themselves. It’s only going to get harder and harder to recognize AI-generated content as the years progress. Sometimes you just need to apply some common sense. For example, do you think Elon Musk and Sam Altman would be hanging out in a parking lot together? Given their very public conflicts, that seems very unlikely.

    Then again, it seemed very unlikely that Musk and President Trump would become friendly again after the Tesla CEO accused Trump of being in the Epstein files. Weirder things have happened when billions of dollars are at stake.

    Matt Novak

    Source link