Author name: 9u50fv

anti-vaccine-rfk-jr.-creates-vaccine-panel-of-anti-vaccine-group’s-dreams

Anti-vaccine RFK Jr. creates vaccine panel of anti-vaccine group’s dreams

Immediate concern

It’s possible that Kennedy did not immediately set up the task force because the necessary leadership was not in place. The 1986 law says the task force “shall consist of consist of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control [and Prevention].” But a CDC director was only confirmed and sworn in at the end of July.

With Susan Monarez now at the helm at CDC, the Department of Health and Human Services said Thursday that the task force is being revived, though it will be led by the NIH.

“By reinstating this Task Force, we are reaffirming our commitment to rigorous science, continuous improvement, and the trust of American families,” NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya said in the announcement. “NIH is proud to lead this effort to advance vaccine safety and support innovation that protects children without compromise.”

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine group cheered the move on social media, saying it was “grateful” that Kennedy was fulfilling his duty.

Outside health experts were immediately concerned by the move.

“What I am concerned about is making sure that we don’t overemphasize very small risks [of vaccines] and underestimate the real risk of infectious diseases and cancers that these vaccines help prevent,” Anne Zink, Alaska’s former chief medical officer, told The Washington Post.

David Higgins, a pediatrician and preventive medicine specialist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, worried about eroding trust in vaccines, telling the Post, “I am concerned that bringing this committee back implies to the public that we have not been looking at vaccine safety. The reality is, we evaluate the safety of vaccines more than any other medication, medical intervention, or supplements available.”

Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, worried about a more direct attack on vaccines, telling CNN, “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an anti-vaccine activist who has these fixed, immutable, science-resistant beliefs that vaccines are dangerous. He is in a position now to be able to set up task forces like this one [that] will find some way to support his notion that vaccines are doing more harm than good.”

Anti-vaccine RFK Jr. creates vaccine panel of anti-vaccine group’s dreams Read More »

spending-too-much-time-at-airports

Spending Too Much Time At Airports

In honor of Nate Silver’s analysis of when to leave for the airport, and because it’s been an intense week, I thought I’d offer my thoughts on various related questions.

As far as I can tell, the major booking portals for tickets are all basically the same. I’ve been using Orbitz for a long time because I’m used to the interface, it is clean and I have confidence it works. The times I checked Kayak and so on they all seemed to be exactly the same.

I still book tickets manually rather than using an AI agent. There isn’t much time to plausibly save and by the time I fully express preferences and enter my information anew I might as well have just done it myself. It also means I look at alternatives, which helps me keep tabs.

My heuristic is to book a little over two weeks in advance, but not to book much more in advance of that in case plans change or want to change, since in expectation price changes are pretty small and maybe you decide to stay an extra day for some reason even if you are confident you won’t cancel.

I almost always book the minimum flight, basic economy, whether or not I am paying. There is so little to be gained from moving up compared to the price. What I will pay a substantial amount for are nonstop flights since connections create bad luck surface you don’t want, flights at the right time of day so I don’t lose a bunch of sleep or work for no reason, and avoiding terrible airlines, with only minor preference between the normal options.

Terrible airlines mostly means avoiding Spirit and other ‘bargain’ options. I’ve given up on caring about frequent flier programs. I’ll still enter my information because who knows, but they’ve raised the barriers a lot and I don’t fly as often as I used to, and they frequently don’t even offer credit at all for basic economy. That last point seems like an obvious mistake by the airlines.

You intentionally can spend a bunch of time at airports without spending too much time (per flight) at airports, unless that extra time is expensive for you in some fashion.

Maia: Something that the evil efficiency freaks on this place don’t understand is that spending time at the airport is fun.

Elizabeth Van Nostrand: “Should I take 5% risk of missing an irreplaceable Christmas flight, or be on my laptop in a slightly worse place for 30m?” Easy choice.

Airport time beyond that first walkaround period is not as fun or productive as time at home. It is still for the most part totally fine?

You have your laptop and your phone, if wise you have your headphones, you bring a book, you can go for a stroll, you have an excuse to relax and reset.

The bigger your buffer the more relaxing it is. Unless you are extremely pressed for time, the number of flights you should miss is essentially zero.

The food at the airport is not ideal, and it is more expensive than usual, but even if you do end up eating there so long as you have an option you don’t mind the cost in absolute terms is quite low. You should scout this ahead of time. I have notes for all the New York airports.

The reason not to spend that much time at airports, even though that time is cheap and you want to mostly never miss a flight that is expensive to miss (not all of them are), is that you don’t have to spend a full two hours to get your risk near zero.

Nate Silver, taker of many flights and cruncher of many numbers, tells us when we need to arrive at the airport. As he says, the standard advice of allowing 2 hours before a domestic flight makes absolutely no sense in today’s world.

Nate Silver: My default is to allocate 60 minutes — one hour, not two — from walking through the airport doors until departure time. There are several important assumptions behind this, however, which usually fit my circumstances but might not match yours:

  • I’m flying within the United States.

  • I have some form of expedited security: CLEAR, TSA PreCheck or the priority lane.

  • I’m not checking bags.

  • And there are some reasonable backups if I miss the flight, as is almost always the case since I mostly fly from New York to other major cities and have decent status on some of the big carriers.

This won’t give you much time to hang out — but it’s enough of a buffer that you’re very unlikely to miss your flight. There are more things that can add time to the baseline than subtract from it, however — so let’s consider those complications.

I, also a taker of a reasonable number of flights and a cruncher of many numbers, agree with this. One hour from arrival at the terminal is very safe in 2025 in American airports. Maybe add on a few minutes each for lack of PreCheck (more if it’s a big travel day too) and the need to check bags, but realistically no, an hour is still fine even if you are trying to maintain full peace of mind.

Maybe, as he notes, add another 15 minutes if you’re in an especially slow-to-navigate airport, or if you have kids with you or are otherwise going to move slow.

If missing the flight is an epic disaster, as in there are no backups and you lose an entire day, then you do want to allocate some extra time, but that extra time is more about guarding against delays in the commute rather than at the airport. Kids similarly should make you leave early because they add variance getting to the airport.

As we all know, the estimated travel times that Uber or Lyft shows you are often optimistic. You’re rarely going to be put in too much of a pickle in, say, Pittsburgh. But New York or Los Angeles is a different story.

So as a default, I’d round up that commute time by 30 percent if there’s a reasonable likelihood of encountering traffic.

This is the tricky part. You need to know the worst-case scenario for the trip to the airport. This is why I love taking trains to the airport, even when they are on average slower than a taxi. You have a safe upper bound of how long it takes. I agree that adding 30% is mostly safe enough for taxis, largely because the hour once you arrive also has a bunch of buffer in it.

What about international flights?

To break it down more precisely [for international travel]:

  • As a default, even if you think you’re fully checked in, I’d add 20 to 40 minutes to your domestic flight baseline for international travel, depending on your general experience level with flying abroad.

  • If you do need to visit the check-in counter, I’d add a further 15 minutes for business class and 30 minutes for coach.

  • And if you need to clear immigration before you take off — remember, this is not true for most destinations, but the most common exception is Canada — I’d add another 30 minutes.

If missing the flight would cause a huge inconvenience — your best friend annoyingly decided to hold a destination wedding in Buenos Aires, you’re the best man and it’s last flight of the day — you might add more time still. But this sort of situation can also apply for domestic flights, so we’ll cover these cases later.

He also emphasizes the need to consider what happens if you miss the flight. Are you out a day? Do you miss an important event? Is there a next flight?

Nate offers a handy spreadsheet for doing approximate calculations.

The two most underrated considerations are how much you like airports, which Nate Silver does take into account, and peace of mind. If you don’t mind the extra time, why not play it safe? And most of all, if you or someone you are traveling with is easily stressed about missing a flight, why not play it safer to avoid the stress? When I travel with anyone in the family, I’d much rather be a lot too early than have to cut it close even if I know I’m never actually going to miss the flight.

If you are aiming for two hours or more at the airport, then either you have something specific you actively want to do there, or you had nothing better to do, there was very large uncertainty about your trip getting there, you took the only available shuttle or ride you had available, or you are almost certainly making a mistake.

It saves you a bunch of money and time and also trouble and worry if you can move from checking bags to not checking bags, or from an overhead bags to only a backpack. Put more value on ‘moving down a tier’ on this than you might think.

If you have an overhead bag, you have to worry about them forcing you to check it. That means you have to aggressively board the plane, and sometimes that will not be enough, and you have to worry and argue about this. Also they make you pay for it. If you check a bag, there is a substantial delay that can become a considerably longer one, and the probability of your luggage being lost is nontrivial.

So consider this an excuse and opportunity to travel light.

If you do not need to fight for overhead bin space and are not in first class, you should consider being one of the last to board the plane. Why do you want more time in that seat instead of staying at the gate?

Maxwell Tabarrok asks whether air travel is getting worse. The conclusion is that typical flights now take longer, but we pad the schedules so much that flights typically arrive ‘early.’ And then we have several times as many delays of three hours or more, although the chances are still recorded as on the order of 1% (I very much press X to doubt based on my track record).

In exchange, travel has gotten cheaper in real dollars. These days I am consistently happy with the prices I get. Part of this is I am happy to fly basic economy with no checked bags and often not even an overhead bag, so I get beneficial price discrimination, and I’d want to make sure the graphs showing constant prices incorporate average actual net prices paid.

Unless you have something urgent, focus on comparative advantage.

You have time away from it all, or when various activities are hard to do. I’ve long had a rule that I don’t seek out internet on the plane. The plane is an excuse to not have internet.

The mistake is to try to use that time to do the things that are harder to do in the air, or less fun to do, and force them to happen anyway. The other mistake is to fiddle away the time aimlessly.

The correct play is usually to take advantage of the isolation and lack of distractions. That makes some activities actively great to do. Reading books or listening to music or podcasts if you have good headphones are excellent picks.

Watching movies is common. The screen is small, but the flight is an excuse to gain the focus that is even more important to watching movies than the big screen. You also have temporary access to movies you might not have otherwise considered, which can be exciting. So contra Tyler Cowen I think this is typically only a small mistake.

Trying to sleep is of course great if you can pull it off, but be realistic and know thyself.

What about working on the plane or preparing for when you arrive?

To the extent that this is necessary to get you into the right mindset, to review information you will need, or it was impossible to do earlier? Sure, go ahead. But to the extent you can take care of it ahead of time, you want to do that.

Discussion about this post

Spending Too Much Time At Airports Read More »

us-may-purchase-stake-in-intel-after-trump-attacked-ceo

US may purchase stake in Intel after Trump attacked CEO


Trump’s attacks on Intel CEO may stem from beef with Biden.

Lip-Bu Tan, chief executive officer of Intel Corp., departs following a meeting at the White House. President Donald Trump said Tan had an “amazing story” after the meeting.

Donald Trump has been meddling with Intel, which now apparently includes mulling “the possibility of the US government taking a financial stake in the troubled chip maker,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Trump and Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan weighed the option during a meeting on Monday at the White House, people familiar with the matter told WSJ. These talks have only just begun—with Intel branding them a rumor—and sources told the WSJ that Trump has yet to iron out how the potential arrangement might work.

The WSJ’s report comes after Trump called for Tan to “resign immediately” last week. Trump’s demand was seemingly spurred by a letter that Republican senator Tom Cotton sent to Intel, accusing Tan of having “concerning” ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Cotton accused Tan of controlling “dozens of Chinese companies” and holding a stake in “hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms,” at least eight of which “reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”

Further, before joining Intel, Tan was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which recently “pleaded guilty to illegally selling its products to a Chinese military university and transferring its technology to an associated Chinese semiconductor company without obtaining license.”

“These illegal activities occurred under Mr. Tan’s tenure,” Cotton pointed out.

He demanded answers by August 15 from Intel on whether they weighed Tan’s alleged Cadence conflicts of interest against the company’s requirements to comply with US national security laws after accepting $8 billion in CHIPS Act funding—the largest granted during Joe Biden’s term. The senator also asked Intel if Tan was required to make any divestments to meet CHIPS Act obligations and if Tan has ever disclosed any ties to the Chinese government to the US government.

Neither Intel nor Cotton’s office responded to Ars’ request to comment on the letter or confirm whether Intel has responded.

But Tan has claimed that there is “a lot of misinformation” about his career and portfolio, the South China Morning Post reported. Born in Malaysia, Tan has been a US citizen for 40 years after finishing postgraduate studies in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In an op-ed, SCMP reporter Alex Lo suggested that Tan’s investments—which include stakes in China’s largest sanctioned chipmaker, SMIC, as well as “several” companies on US trade blacklists, SCMP separately reported—seem no different than other US executives and firms with substantial investments in Chinese firms.

“Cotton accused [Tan] of having extensive investments in China,” Lo wrote. “Well, name me a Wall Street or Silicon Valley titan in the past quarter of a century who didn’t have investment or business in China. Elon Musk? Apple? BlackRock?”

He also noted that “numerous news reports” indicated that “Cadence staff in China hid the dodgy sales from the company’s compliance officers and bosses at the US headquarters,” which Intel may explain to Cotton if a response comes later today.

Any red flags that Intel’s response may raise seems likely to heighten Trump’s scrutiny, as he looks to make what Reuters reported was yet another “unprecedented intervention” by a president in a US firm’s business. Previously, Trump surprised the tech industry by threatening the first-ever tariffs aimed at a US company (Apple) and more recently, Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and AMD that gives US a 15 percent cut of the firms’ revenue from China chip sales.

However, Trump was seemingly impressed by Tan after some face-time this week. Trump came out of their meeting professing that Tan has an “amazing story,” Bloomberg reported, noting that any agreement between Trump and Tan “would likely help Intel build out” its planned $28 billion chip complex in Ohio.

Those chip fabs—boosted by CHIPS Act funding—were supposed to put Intel on track to launch operations by 2030, but delays have set that back by five years, Bloomberg reported. That almost certainly scrambles another timeline that Biden’s Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo had suggested would ensure that “20 percent of the world’s most advanced chips are made in the US by the end of the decade.”

Why Intel may be into Trump’s deal

At one point, Intel was the undisputed leader in chip manufacturing, Bloomberg noted, but its value plummeted from $288 billion in 2020 to $104 billion today. The chipmaker has been struggling for a while—falling behind as Nvidia grew to dominate the AI chip industry—and 2024 was its “first unprofitable year since 1986,” Reuters reported. As the dismal year wound down, Intel’s longtime CEO Pat Gelsinger retired.

Helming Intel for more than 40 years, Gelsinger acknowledged the “challenging year.” Now Tan is expected to turn it around. To do that, he may need to deprioritize the manufacturing process that Gelsinger pushed, which Tan suspects may have caused Intel being viewed as an outdated firm, anonymous insiders told Reuters. Sources suggest he’s planning to pivot Intel to focus more on “a next-generation chipmaking process where Intel expects to have advantages over Taiwan’s TSMC,” which currently dominates chip manufacturing and even counts Intel as a customer, Reuters reported. As it stands now, TSMC “produces about a third of Intel’s supply,” SCMP reported.

This pivot is supposedly how Tan expects Intel can eventually poach TSMC’s biggest customers like Apple and Nvidia, Reuters noted.

Intel has so far claimed that any discussions of Tan’s supposed plans amount to nothing but speculation. But if Tan did go that route, one source told Reuters that Intel would likely have to take a write-off that industry analysts estimate could trigger losses “of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.”

Perhaps facing that hurdle, Tan might be open to agreeing to the US purchasing a financial stake in the company while he rights the ship.

Trump/Intel deal reminiscent of TikTok deal

Any deal would certainly deepen the government’s involvement in the US chip industry, which is widely viewed as critical to US national security.

While unusual, the deal does seem somewhat reminiscent to the TikTok buyout that the Trump administration has been trying to iron out since he took office. Through that deal, the US would acquire enough ownership divested from China-linked entities to supposedly appease national security concerns, but China has been hesitant to sign off on any of Trump’s proposals so far.

Last month, Trump admitted that he wasn’t confident that he could sell China on the TikTok deal, which TikTok suggested would have resulted in a glitchier version of the app for American users. More recently, Trump’s commerce secretary threatened to shut down TikTok if China refuses to approve the current version of the deal.

Perhaps the terms of a US deal with Intel could require Tan to divest certain holdings that the US fears compromises the CEO. Under terms of the CHIPS Act grant, Intel is already required to be “a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,” Cotton reminded the company in his letter.

But social media users in Malaysia and Singapore have criticized Cotton of the “usual case of racism” in attacking Intel’s CEO, SCMP reported. They noted that Cotton “was the same person who repeatedly accused TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew of ties with the Chinese Communist Party despite his insistence of being a Singaporean,” SCMP reported.

“Now it’s the Intel’s CEO’s turn on the chopping block for being [ethnic] Chinese,” a Facebook user, Michael Ong, said.

Tensions were so high that there was even a social media push for Tan to “call on Trump’s bluff and resign, saying ‘Intel is the next Nokia’ and that Chinese firms would gladly take him instead,” SCMP reported.

So far, Tan has not criticized the Trump administration for questioning his background, but he did issue a statement yesterday, seemingly appealing to Trump by emphasizing his US patriotism.

“I love this country and am profoundly grateful for the opportunities it has given me,” Tan said. “I also love this company. Leading Intel at this critical moment is not just a job—it’s a privilege.”

Trump’s Intel attacks rooted in Biden beef?

In his op-ed, SCMP’s Lo suggested that “Intel itself makes a good punching bag” as the biggest recipient of CHIPS Act funding. The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden’s lasting legacy in the US, and Trump has resolved to dismantle it, criticizing supposed handouts to tech firms that Trump prefers to strong-arm into US manufacturing instead through unpredictable tariff regimes.

“The attack on Intel is also an attack on Trump’s predecessor, Biden, whom he likes to blame for everything, even though the industrial policies of both administrations and their tech war against China are similar,” Lo wrote.

At least one lawmaker is ready to join critics who question if Trump’s trade war is truly motivated by national security concerns. On Friday, US representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.-Ill.) sent a letter to Trump “expressing concern” over Trump allowing Nvidia to resume exports of its H20 chips to China.

“Trump’s reckless policy on AI chip exports sells out US security to Beijing,” Krishnamoorthi warned.

“Allowing even downgraded versions of cutting-edge AI hardware to flow” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “risks accelerating Beijing’s capabilities and eroding our technological edge,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. Further, “the PRC can build the largest AI supercomputers in the world by purchasing a moderately larger number of downgraded Blackwell chips—and achieve the same capability to train frontier AI models and deploy them at scale for national security purposes.”

Krishnamoorthi asked Trump to send responses by August 22 to four questions. Perhaps most urgently, he wants Trump to explain “what specific legal authority would allow the US government to “extract revenue sharing as a condition for the issuance of export licenses” and what exactly he intends to do with those funds.

Trump was also asked to confirm if the president followed protocols established by Congress to ensure proper export licensing through the agreement. Finally, Krishnamoorthi demanded to know if Congress was ever “informed or consulted at any point during the negotiation or development of this reported revenue-sharing agreement with NVIDIA and AMD.”

“The American people deserve transparency,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. “Our export control regime must be based on genuine security considerations, not creative taxation schemes disguised as national security policy.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

US may purchase stake in Intel after Trump attacked CEO Read More »

here’s-acura’s-next-all-electric-rsx-crossover

Here’s Acura’s next all-electric RSX crossover

“The Acura RSX has a sporty coupe style that expresses the performance that comes from excellent aerodynamics,” said Yasutake Tsuchida, Acura creative director and vice president of American Honda R&D. “Starting from this all-new RSX, we will redefine the Acura brand around timeless beauty and a high-tech feel that is essential for a performance and unique brand.”

I have to admit, when I saw a teaser shot a week or two ago, my first thought was that it looked like someone had taken a McLaren Artura and given it the Urus treatment, at least based on the nose. But Acura has also been using an arrow-like prow for some time, too. I’m also getting some Lotus Eletre from the other views, but as ever, looks are subjective.

When the RSX hits the street in the second half of next year, it will do so running ASIMO OS, the new software-defined vehicle operating system that Honda announced at CES earlier this year. Among the things ASIMO OS can do is learn a driver’s preferences and driving style “to deliver an ultra-personal in-car experience,” Acura says.

Here’s Acura’s next all-electric RSX crossover Read More »

polestar-sets-production-car-record-for-longest-drive-on-a-single-charge

Polestar sets production car record for longest drive on a single charge

Wait, are you sure that’s a record?

Booker, Clarke, and Parker drove an impressive distance on a single charge, but “longest EV drive on a single charge” is a slightly more nebulous thing. In this case, the Polestar 3 was entirely standard, on stock tires. But if you’re prepared to start tweaking stuff around, longer drives are possible.

Last week, Chevrolet revealed that it took one of its Silverado WT trucks—with a gargantuan 205 kWh battery—and then fitted it with worn-down, massively over-inflated tires and drove it around the Detroit area for 1,059 miles (1,704 km). That required a team of 40 drivers, and like the Polestar 3, the average speed was below 25 mph (40 km/h).

Squeezing 4.9 miles/kWh (12.7 kWh/100 km) out of something the size and shape of a full-size pickup is probably more impressive than getting slightly more out of an SUV, but we should note that the Silverado drivers kept the air conditioning turned off until the final 59 miles.

And in July, Lucid announced that it, too, had set a new world record for the longest drive on a single charge. In its case, it took a Lucid Air Grand Touring from St. Moritz in Switzerland to Munich in Germany, covering 749 miles (1,205 km) on a single charge. That’s significantly farther than the Polestar, and the Lucid drivers achieved more than 6 miles/kWh (10.4 kWh/100 km), but the route also involved going mostly downhill.

Polestar sets production car record for longest drive on a single charge Read More »

upcoming-deepseek-ai-model-failed-to-train-using-huawei’s-chips

Upcoming DeepSeek AI model failed to train using Huawei’s chips

DeepSeek is still working with Huawei to make the model compatible with Ascend for inference, the people said.

Founder Liang Wenfeng has said internally he is dissatisfied with R2’s progress and has been pushing to spend more time to build an advanced model that can sustain the company’s lead in the AI field, they said.

The R2 launch was also delayed because of longer-than-expected data labeling for its updated model, another person added. Chinese media reports have suggested that the model may be released as soon as in the coming weeks.

“Models are commodities that can be easily swapped out,” said Ritwik Gupta, an AI researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. “A lot of developers are using Alibaba’s Qwen3, which is powerful and flexible.”

Gupta noted that Qwen3 adopted DeepSeek’s core concepts, such as its training algorithm that makes the model capable of reasoning, but made them more efficient to use.

Gupta, who tracks Huawei’s AI ecosystem, said the company is facing “growing pains” in using Ascend for training, though he expects the Chinese national champion to adapt eventually.

“Just because we’re not seeing leading models trained on Huawei today doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. It’s a matter of time,” he said.

Nvidia, a chipmaker at the center of a geopolitical battle between Beijing and Washington, recently agreed to give the US government a cut of its revenues in China in order to resume sales of its H20 chips to the country.

“Developers will play a crucial role in building the winning AI ecosystem,” said Nvidia about Chinese companies using its chips. “Surrendering entire markets and developers would only hurt American economic and national security.”

DeepSeek and Huawei did not respond to a request for comment.

© 2025 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Upcoming DeepSeek AI model failed to train using Huawei’s chips Read More »

sam-altman-finally-stood-up-to-elon-musk-after-years-of-x-trolling

Sam Altman finally stood up to Elon Musk after years of X trolling


Elon Musk and Sam Altman are beefing. But their relationship is complicated.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Much attention was paid to OpenAI’s Sam Altman and xAI’s Elon Musk trading barbs on X this week after Musk threatened to sue Apple over supposedly biased App Store rankings privileging ChatGPT over Grok.

But while the heated social media exchanges were among the most tense ever seen between the two former partners who cofounded OpenAI—more on that below—it seems likely that their jabs were motivated less by who’s in the lead on Apple’s “Must Have” app list than by an impending order in a lawsuit that landed in the middle of their public beefing.

Yesterday, a court ruled that OpenAI can proceed with claims that Musk was so incredibly stung by OpenAI’s success after his exit didn’t doom the nascent AI company that he perpetrated a “years-long harassment campaign” to take down OpenAI.

Musk’s motivation? To clear the field for xAI to dominate the AI industry instead, OpenAI alleged.

OpenAI’s accusations arose as counterclaims in a lawsuit that Musk initially filed in 2024. Musk has alleged that Altman and OpenAI had made a “fool” of Musk, goading him into $44 million in donations by “preying on Musk’s humanitarian concern about the existential dangers posed by artificial intelligence.”

But OpenAI insists that Musk’s lawsuit is just one prong in a sprawling, “unlawful,” and “unrelenting” harassment campaign that Musk waged to harm OpenAI’s business by forcing the company to divert resources or expend money on things like withdrawn legal claims and fake buyouts.

“Musk could not tolerate seeing such success for an enterprise he had abandoned and declared doomed,” OpenAI argued. “He made it his project to take down OpenAI, and to build a direct competitor that would seize the technological lead—not for humanity but for Elon Musk.”

Most significantly, OpenAI alleged that Musk forced OpenAI to entertain a “sham” bid to buy the company in February. Musk then shared details of the bid with The Wall Street Journal to artificially raise the price of OpenAI and potentially spook investors, OpenAI alleged. The company further said that Musk never intended to buy OpenAI and is willing to go to great lengths to mislead the public about OpenAI’s business so he can chip away at OpenAI’s head start in releasing popular generative AI products.

“Musk has tried every tool available to harm OpenAI,” Altman’s company said.

To this day, Musk maintains that Altman pretended that OpenAI would remain a nonprofit serving the public good in order to seize access to Musk’s money and professional connections in its first five years and gain a lead in AI. As Musk sees it, Altman always intended to “betray” these promises in pursuit of personal gains, and Musk is hoping a court will return any ill-gotten gains to Musk and xAI.

In a small win for Musk, the court ruled that OpenAI will have to wait until the first phase of the trial litigating Musk’s claims concludes before the court will weigh OpenAI’s theories on Musk’s alleged harassment campaign. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers noted that all of OpenAI’s counterclaims occurred after the period in which Musk’s claims about a supposed breach of contract occurred, necessitating a division of the lawsuit into two parts. Currently, the jury trial is scheduled for March 30, 2026, presumably after which, OpenAI’s claims can be resolved.

If yesterday’s X clash between the billionaires is any indication, it seems likely that tensions between Altman and Musk will only grow as discovery and expert testimony on Musk’s claims proceed through December.

Whether OpenAI will prevail on its counterclaims is anybody’s guess. Gonzalez Rogers noted that Musk and OpenAI have been hypocritical in arguments raised so far, condemning the “gamesmanship of both sides” as “obvious, as each flip flops.” However, “for the purposes of pleading an unfair or fraudulent business practice, it is sufficient [for OpenAI] to allege that the bid was a sham and designed to mislead,” Gonzalez Rogers said, since OpenAI has alleged the sham bid “ultimately did” harm its business.

In April, OpenAI told the court that the AI company risks “future irreparable harm” if Musk’s alleged campaign continues. Fast-forward to now, and Musk’s legal threat to OpenAI’s partnership with Apple seems to be the next possible front Musk may be exploring to allegedly harass Altman and intimidate OpenAI.

“With every month that has passed, Musk has intensified and expanded the fronts of his campaign against OpenAI,” OpenAI argued. Musk “has proven himself willing to take ever more dramatic steps to seek a competitive advantage for xAI and to harm Altman, whom, in the words of the President of the United States, Musk ‘hates.'”

Tensions escalate as Musk brands Altman a “liar”

On Monday evening, Musk threatened to sue Apple for supposedly favoring ChatGPT in App Store rankings, which he claimed was “an unequivocal antitrust violation.”

Seemingly defending Apple later that night, Altman called Musk’s claim “remarkable,” claiming he’s heard allegations that Musk manipulates “X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn’t like.”

At 4 am on Tuesday, Musk appeared to lose his cool, firing back a post that sought to exonerate the X owner of any claims that he tweaks his social platform to favor his own posts.

“You got 3M views on your bullshit post, you liar, far more than I’ve received on many of mine, despite me having 50 times your follower count!” Musk responded.

Altman apparently woke up ready to keep the fight going, suggesting that his post got more views as a fluke. He mocked X as running into a “skill issue” or “bots” messing with Musk’s alleged agenda to boost his posts above everyone else. Then, in what may be the most explosive response to Musk yet, Altman dared Musk to double down on his defense, asking, “Will you sign an affidavit that you have never directed changes to the X algorithm in a way that has hurt your competitors or helped your own companies? I will apologize if so.”

Court filings from each man’s legal team show how fast their friendship collapsed. But even as Musk’s alleged harassment campaign started taking shape, their social media interactions show that underlying the legal battles and AI ego wars, the tech billionaires are seemingly hiding profound respect for—and perhaps jealousy of—each other’s accomplishments.

A brief history of Musk and Altman’s feud

Musk and Altman’s friendship started over dinner in July 2015. That’s when Musk agreed to help launch “an AGI project that could become and stay competitive with DeepMind, an AI company under the umbrella of Google,” OpenAI’s filing said. At that time, Musk feared that a private company like Google would never be motivated to build AI to serve the public good.

The first clash between Musk and Altman happened six months later. Altman wanted OpenAI to be formed as a nonprofit, but Musk thought that was not “optimal,” OpenAI’s filing said. Ultimately, Musk was overruled, and he joined the nonprofit as a “member” while also becoming co-chair of OpenAI’s board.

But perhaps the first major disagreement, as Musk tells it, came in 2016, when Altman and Microsoft struck a deal to sell compute to OpenAI at a “steep discount”—”so long as the non-profit agreed to publicly promote Microsoft’s products.” Musk rejected the “marketing ploy,” telling Altman that “this actually made me feel nauseous.”

Next, OpenAI claimed that Musk had a “different idea” in 2017 when OpenAI “began considering an organizational change that would allow supporters not just to donate, but to invest.” Musk wanted “sole control of the new for-profit,” OpenAI alleged, and he wanted to be CEO. The other founders, including Altman, “refused to accept” an “AGI dictatorship” that was “dominated by Musk.”

“Musk was incensed,” OpenAI said, threatening to leave OpenAI over the disagreement, “or I’m just being a fool who is essentially providing free funding for you to create a startup.”

But Musk floated one more idea between 2017 and 2018 before severing ties—offering to sell OpenAI to Tesla so that OpenAI could use Tesla as a “cash cow.” But Altman and the other founders still weren’t comfortable with Musk controlling OpenAI, rejecting the idea and prompting Musk’s exit.

In his filing, Musk tells the story a little differently, however. He claimed that he only “briefly toyed with the idea of using Tesla as OpenAI’s ‘cash cow'” after Altman and others pressured him to agree to a for-profit restructuring. According to Musk, among the last straws was a series of “get-rich-quick schemes” that Altman proposed to raise funding, including pushing a strategy where OpenAI would launch a cryptocurrency that Musk worried threatened the AI company’s credibility.

When Musk left OpenAI, it was “noisy but relatively amicable,” OpenAI claimed. But Musk continued to express discomfort from afar, still donating to OpenAI as Altman grabbed the CEO title in 2019 and created a capped-profit entity that Musk seemed to view as shady.

“Musk asked Altman to make clear to others that he had ‘no financial interest in the for-profit arm of OpenAI,'” OpenAI noted, and Musk confirmed he issued the demand “with evident displeasure.”

Although they often disagreed, Altman and Musk continued to publicly play nice on Twitter (the platform now known as X), casually chatting for years about things like movies, space, and science, including repeatedly joking about Musk’s posts about using drugs like Ambien.

By 2019, it seemed like none of these disagreements had seriously disrupted the friendship. For example, at that time, Altman defended Musk against people rooting against Tesla’s success, writing that “betting against Elon is historically a mistake” and seemingly hyping Tesla by noting that “the best product usually wins.”

The niceties continued into 2021, when Musk publicly praised “nice work by OpenAI” integrating its coding model into GitHub’s AI tool. “It is hard to do useful things,” Musk said, drawing a salute emoji from Altman.

This was seemingly the end of Musk playing nice with OpenAI, though. Soon after ChatGPT’s release in November 2022, Musk allegedly began his attacks, seemingly willing to change his tactics on a whim.

First, he allegedly deemed OpenAI “irrelevant,” predicting it would “obviously” fail. Then, he started sounding alarms, joining a push for a six-month pause on generative AI development. Musk specifically claimed that any model “more advanced than OpenAI’s just-released GPT-4” posed “profound risks to society and humanity,” OpenAI alleged, seemingly angling to pause OpenAI’s development in particular.

However, in the meantime, Musk started “quietly building a competitor,” xAI, without announcing those efforts in March 2023, OpenAI alleged. Allegedly preparing to hobble OpenAI’s business after failing with the moratorium push, Musk had his personal lawyer contact OpenAI and demand “access to OpenAI’s confidential and commercially sensitive internal documents.”

Musk claimed the request was to “ensure OpenAI was not being taken advantage of or corrupted by Microsoft,” but two weeks later, he appeared on national TV, insinuating that OpenAI’s partnership with Microsoft was “improper,” OpenAI alleged.

Eventually, Musk announced xAI in July 2023, and that supposedly motivated Musk to deepen his harassment campaign, “this time using the courts and a parallel, carefully coordinated media campaign,” OpenAI said, as well as his own social media platform.

Musk “supercharges” X attacks

As OpenAI’s success mounted, the company alleged that Musk began specifically escalating his social media attacks on X, including broadcasting to his 224 million followers that “OpenAI is a house of cards” after filing his 2024 lawsuit.

Claiming he felt conned, Musk also pressured regulators to probe OpenAI, encouraging attorneys general of California and Delaware to “force” OpenAI, “without legal basis, to auction off its assets for the benefit of Musk and his associates,” OpenAI said.

By 2024, Musk had “supercharged” his X attacks, unleashing a “barrage of invective against the enterprise and its leadership, variously describing OpenAI as a ‘digital Frankenstein’s monster,’ ‘a lie,’ ‘evil,’ and ‘a total scam,'” OpenAI alleged.

These attacks allegedly culminated in Musk’s seemingly fake OpenAI takeover attempt in 2025, which OpenAI claimed a Musk ally, Ron Baron, admitted on CNBC was “pitched to him” as not an attempt to actually buy OpenAI’s assets, “but instead to obtain ‘discovery’ and get ‘behind the wall’ at OpenAI.”

All of this makes it harder for OpenAI to achieve the mission that Musk is supposedly suing to defend, OpenAI claimed. They told the court that “OpenAI has borne costs, and been harmed, by Musk’s abusive tactics and unrelenting efforts to mislead the public for his own benefit and to OpenAI’s detriment and the detriment of its mission.”

But Musk argues that it’s Altman who always wanted sole control over OpenAI, accusing his former partner of rampant self-dealing and “locking down the non-profit’s technology for personal gain” as soon as “OpenAI reached the threshold of commercially viable AI.” He further claimed OpenAI blocked xAI funding by reportedly asking investors to avoid backing rival startups like Anthropic or xAI.

Musk alleged:

Altman alone stands to make billions from the non-profit Musk co-founded and invested considerable money, time, recruiting efforts, and goodwill in furtherance of its stated mission. Altman’s scheme has now become clear: lure Musk with phony philanthropy; exploit his money, stature, and contacts to secure world-class AI scientists to develop leading technology; then feed the non-profit’s lucrative assets into an opaque profit engine and proceed to cash in as OpenAI and Microsoft monopolize the generative AI market.

For Altman, this week’s flare-up, where he finally took a hard jab back at Musk on X, may be a sign that Altman is done letting Musk control the narrative on X after years of somewhat tepidly pushing back on Musk’s more aggressive posts.

In 2022, for example, Musk warned after ChatGPT’s release that the chatbot was “scary good,” warning that “we are not far from dangerously strong AI.” Altman responded, cautiously agreeing that OpenAI was “dangerously” close to “strong AI in the sense of an AI that poses e.g. a huge cybersecurity risk” but “real” artificial general intelligence still seemed at least a decade off.

And Altman gave no response when Musk used Grok’s jokey programming to mock GPT-4 as “GPT-Snore” in 2024.

However, Altman seemingly got his back up after Musk mocked OpenAI’s $500 billion Stargate Project, which launched with the US government in January of this year. On X, Musk claimed that OpenAI doesn’t “actually have the money” for the project, which Altman said was “wrong,” while mockingly inviting Musk to visit the worksite.

“This is great for the country,” Altman said, retorting, “I realize what is great for the country isn’t always what’s optimal for your companies, but in your new role [at the Department of Government Efficiency], I hope you’ll mostly put [America] first.”

It remains to be seen whether Altman wants to keep trading jabs with Musk, who is generally a huge fan of trolling on X. But Altman seems more emboldened this week than he was back in January before Musk’s breakup with Donald Trump. Back then, even when he was willing to push back on Musk’s Stargate criticism by insulting Musk’s politics, he still took the time to let Musk know that he still cares.

“I genuinely respect your accomplishments and think you are the most inspiring entrepreneur of our time,” Altman told Musk in January.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Sam Altman finally stood up to Elon Musk after years of X trolling Read More »

report:-apple’s-smart-home-ambitions-include-“tabletop-robot,”-cameras,-and-more

Report: Apple’s smart home ambitions include “tabletop robot,” cameras, and more

Rumors about a touchscreen-equipped smart home device from Apple have been circulating for years, periodically bolstered by leaked references in Apple’s software updates. But a report from Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman indicates that Apple’s ambitions might extend beyond HomePods with screens attached.

Gurman claims that Apple is working on a “tabletop robot” that “resembles an iPad mounted on a movable limb that can swivel and reposition itself to follow users in a room.” The device will also turn toward people who are addressing it or toward people whose attention it’s trying to get. Prototypes have used a 7-inch display similar in size to an iPad mini, with a built-in camera for FaceTime calls.

Apple is reportedly targeting a 2027 launch for some version of this robot, although, as with any unannounced Apple product, it could come out earlier, later, or not at all. Gurman reported in January that a different smart home device—essentially a HomePod with a screen, without the moving robot parts—was being planned for 2025, but has said more recently that Apple has bumped it to 2026. The robot could be a follow-up to or a fancier, more expensive version of that device, and it sounds like both will run the same software.

Report: Apple’s smart home ambitions include “tabletop robot,” cameras, and more Read More »

openai,-cofounder-sam-altman-to-take-on-neuralink-with-new-startup

OpenAI, cofounder Sam Altman to take on Neuralink with new startup

The company aims to raise $250 million from OpenAI and other investors, although the talks are at an early stage. Altman will not personally invest.

The new venture would be in direct competition with Neuralink, founded by Musk in 2016, which seeks to wire brains directly to computers.

Musk and Altman cofounded OpenAI, but Musk left the board in 2018 after clashing with Altman, and the two have since become fierce rivals in their pursuit of AI.

Musk launched his own AI start-up, xAI, in 2023 and has been attempting to block OpenAI’s conversion from a nonprofit in the courts. Musk donated much of the initial capital to get OpenAI off the ground.

Neuralink is one of a pack of so-called brain-computer interface companies, while a number of start-ups, such as Precision Neuroscience and Synchron, have also emerged on the scene.

Neuralink earlier this year raised $650 million at a $9 billion valuation, and it is backed by investors including Sequoia Capital, Thrive Capital, and Vy Capital. Altman had previously invested in Neuralink.

Brain implants are a decades-old technology, but recent leaps forward in AI and in the electronic components used to collect brain signals have offered the prospect that they can become more practically useful.

Altman has backed a number of other companies in markets adjacent to ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, which is valued at $300 billion. In addition to cofounding World, he has also invested in the nuclear fission group Oklo and nuclear fusion project Helion.

OpenAI declined to comment.

© 2025 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

OpenAI, cofounder Sam Altman to take on Neuralink with new startup Read More »

worm-invades-man’s-eyeball,-leading-doctors-to-suck-out-his-eye-jelly

Worm invades man’s eyeball, leading doctors to suck out his eye jelly

For eight months, a 35-year-old man in India was bothered by his left eye. It was red and blurry. When he finally visited an ophthalmology clinic, it didn’t take long for doctors to unearth the cause.

In a case report in the New England Journal of Medicine, doctors report that they first noted that the eye was bloodshot and inflamed, and the pupil was dilated and fixed. The man’s vision in the eye was 20/80. A quick look inside his eye revealed it was all due to a small worm, which they watched “moving sluggishly” in the back of his eyeball.

To gouge out the parasitic pillager, the doctors performed a pars plana vitrectomy—a procedure that involves sucking out some of the jelly-like vitreous inside the eye. This procedure can be used in the treatment of a variety of eye conditions, but using it to hoover up worms is rare. In order to get in, the doctors make tiny incisions in the white parts of the eye (the sclera) and use a hollow needle-like device with suction. They replace extracted eye jelly with things like saline.

In this case, the device was able to suck in part of the worm’s tail and drag it out—still squirming. Under the microscope, they quickly identified the peeper creeper. With a bulbous head, well-formed intestines, and a thick outer layer, it perfectly fit the description of Gnathostoma spinigerum, a known bodily marauder that can sometimes wiggle its way into eyeballs.

Panel A shows the pars plana vitrectomy removing the worm; Panel B shows the worm under light microscopy, revealing a larval-stage nematode with a cephalic bulb, thick cuticle, and well-developed intestine. Credit: New England Journal of Medicine, 2025

Stomach-churning cycle

G. spinigerum are endemic parasites in India that infect carnivorous mammals, particularly wild and domestic cats and dogs. In these primary hosts, adult worms form tumor-like masses on the walls of the animals’ intestinal tracts. There, the adults mate, and the mass erupts like an infernal, infectious volcano, spewing out eggs. The eggs are passed in the animals’ feces and can then spread to intermediate hosts. These include freshwater plankton, which get eaten by fish and amphibians, which then get eaten by the cats and dogs to complete the cycle. The young parasites can also be taken up by dead-end hosts like birds, including chickens, and snakes—these are called paratenic hosts.

Worm invades man’s eyeball, leading doctors to suck out his eye jelly Read More »

musk-threatens-to-sue-apple-so-grok-can-get-top-app-store-ranking

Musk threatens to sue Apple so Grok can get top App Store ranking

After spending last week hyping Grok’s spicy new features, Elon Musk kicked off this week by threatening to sue Apple for supposedly gaming the App Store rankings to favor ChatGPT over Grok.

“Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation,” Musk wrote on X, without providing any evidence. “xAI will take immediate legal action.”

In another post, Musk tagged Apple, asking, “Why do you refuse to put either X or Grok in your ‘Must Have’ section when X is the #1 news app in the world and Grok is #5 among all apps?”

“Are you playing politics?” Musk asked. “What gives? Inquiring minds want to know.”

Apple did not respond to the post and has not responded to Ars’ request to comment.

At the heart of Musk’s complaints is an OpenAI partnership that Apple announced last year, integrating ChatGPT into versions of its iPhone, iPad, and Mac operating systems.

Musk has alleged that this partnership incentivized Apple to boost ChatGPT rankings. OpenAI’s popular chatbot “currently holds the top spot in the App Store’s ‘Top Free Apps’ section for iPhones in the US,” Reuters noted, “while xAI’s Grok ranks fifth and Google’s Gemini chatbot sits at 57th.” Sensor Tower data shows ChatGPT similarly tops Google Play Store rankings.

While Musk seems insistent that ChatGPT is artificially locked in the lead, fact-checkers on X added a community note to his post. They confirmed that at least one other AI tool has somewhat recently unseated ChatGPT in the US rankings. Back in January, DeepSeek topped App Store charts and held the lead for days, ABC News reported.

OpenAI did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment on Musk’s allegations, but an OpenAI developer, Steven Heidel, did add a quip in response to one of Musk’s posts, writing, “Don’t forget to also blame Google for OpenAI being #1 on Android, and blame SimilarWeb for putting ChatGPT above X on the most-visited websites list, and blame….”

Musk threatens to sue Apple so Grok can get top App Store ranking Read More »

china-tells-alibaba,-bytedance-to-justify-purchases-of-nvidia-ai-chips

China tells Alibaba, ByteDance to justify purchases of Nvidia AI chips

Beijing is demanding tech companies including Alibaba and ByteDance justify their orders of Nvidia’s H20 artificial intelligence chips, complicating the US chipmaker’s business in China after striking an export arrangement with the Trump administration.

The tech companies have been asked by regulators such as the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) to explain why they need to order Nvidia’s H20 chips instead of using domestic alternatives, said three people familiar with the situation.

Some tech companies, who were the main buyers of Nvidia’s H20 chips before their sale in China was restricted, were planning to downsize their orders as a result of the questions from regulators, said two of the people.

“It’s not banned but has kind of become a politically incorrect thing to do,” said one Chinese data center operator about purchasing Nvidia’s H20 chips.

Alibaba, ByteDance, and MIIT did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Chinese regulators have expressed growing disapproval of companies using Nvidia’s chips for any government or security related projects. Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that Chinese authorities had sent notices to a range of companies discouraging the use of the H20 chips, particularly for government-related work.

China tells Alibaba, ByteDance to justify purchases of Nvidia AI chips Read More »