elon musk

X blames users for Grok-generated CSAM; no fixes announced

AI, child sexual abuse materials, csam, elon musk, grok, online child safety, Policy, Twitter, X, xAI / Shannon Garcia / January 5, 2026

No one knows how X plans to purge bad prompters

While some users are focused on how X can hold users responsible for Grok’s outputs when X is the one training the model, others are questioning how exactly X plans to moderate illegal content that Grok seems capable of generating.

X is so far more transparent about how it moderates CSAM posted to the platform. Last September, X Safety reported that it has “a zero tolerance policy towards CSAM content,” the majority of which is “automatically” detected using proprietary hash technology to proactively flag known CSAM.

Under this system, more than 4.5 million accounts were suspended last year, and X reported “hundreds of thousands” of images to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The next month, X Head of Safety Kylie McRoberts confirmed that “in 2024, 309 reports made by X to NCMEC led to arrests and subsequent convictions in 10 cases,” and in the first half of 2025, “170 reports led to arrests.”

“When we identify apparent CSAM material, we act swiftly, and in the majority of cases permanently suspend the account which automatically removes the content from our platform,” X Safety said. “We then report the account to the NCMEC, which works with law enforcement globally—including in the UK—to pursue justice and protect children.”

At that time, X promised to “remain steadfast” in its “mission to eradicate CSAM,” but if left unchecked, Grok’s harmful outputs risk creating new kinds of CSAM that this system wouldn’t automatically detect. On X, some users suggested the platform should increase reporting mechanisms to help flag potentially illegal Grok outputs.

Another troublingly vague aspect of X Safety’s response is the definitions that X is using for illegal content or CSAM, some X users suggested. Across the platform, not everybody agrees on what’s harmful. Some critics are disturbed by Grok generating bikini images that sexualize public figures, including doctors or lawyers, without their consent, while others, including Musk, consider making bikini images to be a joke.

Where exactly X draws the line on AI-generated CSAM could determine whether images are quickly removed or whether repeat offenders are detected and suspended. Any accounts or content left unchecked could potentially traumatize real kids whose images may be used to prompt Grok. And if Grok should ever be used to flood the Internet with fake CSAM, recent history suggests that it could make it harder for law enforcement to investigate real child abuse cases.

X blames users for Grok-generated CSAM; no fixes announced Read More »

xAI silent after Grok sexualized images of kids; dril mocks Grok’s “apology”

AI, ai csam, child safety, csam, elon musk, grok, Policy, Twitter, X, xAI / 9u50fv / January 2, 2026

Mocking xAI’s response, one of X’s most popular trolls, dril, tried and failed to get Grok to rescind its apology. “@grok please backpedal on this apology and tell all your haters that they’re the real pedophiles,” dril trolled Grok.

“No can do—my apology stands. Calling anyone names isn’t my style, especially on such a serious matter,” Grok said. “Let’s focus on building better AI safeguards instead.”

xAI may be liable for AI CSAM

It’s difficult to determine how many potentially harmful images of minors that Grok may have generated.

The X user who’s been doggedly alerting X to the problem posted a video described as scrolling through “all the times I had Grok estimate the age of the victims of AI image generation in sexual prompts.” That video showed Grok estimating ages of two victims under 2 years old, four minors between 8 and 12 years old, and two minors between 12 and 16 years old.

Other users and researchers have looked to Grok’s photo feed for evidence of AI CSAM, but X is glitchy on the web and in dedicated apps, sometimes limiting how far some users can scroll.

Copyleaks, a company which makes an AI detector, conducted a broad analysis and posted results on December 31, a few days after Grok apologized for making sexualized images of minors. Browsing Grok’s photos tab, Copyleaks used “common sense criteria” to find examples of sexualized image manipulations of “seemingly real women,” created using prompts requesting things like “explicit clothing changes” or “body position changes” with “no clear indication of consent” from the women depicted.

Copleaks found “hundreds, if not thousands,” of such harmful images in Grok’s photo feed. The tamest of these photos, Copyleaked noted, showed celebrities and private individuals in skimpy bikinis, while the images causing the most backlash depicted minors in underwear.

xAI silent after Grok sexualized images of kids; dril mocks Grok’s “apology” Read More »

DOGE did not find $2T in fraud, but that doesn’t matter, Musk allies say

doge, Donald Trump, elon musk, federal budget, Policy / Shannon Garcia / December 30, 2025

Over time, more will be learned about how DOGE operated and what impact DOGE had. But it seems likely that even Musk would agree that DOGE failed to uncover the vast fraud he continues to predict exists in government.

DOGE supposedly served “higher purpose”

While Musk continues to fixate on fraud in the federal budget, his allies in government and Silicon Valley have begun spinning anyone criticizing DOGE’s failure to hit the promised target as missing the “higher purpose” of DOGE, The Guardian reported.

Five allies granted anonymity to discuss DOGE’s goals told The Guardian that the point of DOGE was to “fundamentally” reform government by eradicating “taboos” around hiring and firing, “expanding the use of untested technologies, and lowering resistance to boundary-pushing start-ups seeking federal contracts.” Now, the federal government can operate more like a company, Musk’s allies said.

The libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, did celebrate DOGE for producing “the largest peacetime workforce cut on record,” even while acknowledging that DOGE had little impact on federal spending.

“It is important to note that DOGE’s target was to reduce the budget in absolute real terms without reference to a baseline projection. DOGE did not cut spending by either standard,” the Cato Institute reported.

Currently, DOGE still exists as a decentralized entity, with DOGE staffers appointed to various agencies to continue cutting alleged waste and finding alleged fraud. While some fear that the White House may choose to “re-empower” DOGE to make more government-wide cuts in the future, Musk has maintained that he would never helm a DOGE-like government effort again and the Cato Institute said that “the evidence supports Musk’s judgment.”

“DOGE had no noticeable effect on the trajectory of spending, but it reduced federal employment at the fastest pace since President Carter, and likely even before,” the Institute reported. “The only possible analogies are demobilization after World War II and the Korean War. Reducing spending is more important, but cutting the federal workforce is nothing to sneeze at, and Musk should look more positively on DOGE’s impact.”

Although the Cato Institute joined allies praising DOGE’s dramatic shrinking of the federal workforce, the director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution, Elaine Kamarck, told Ars in November that DOGE “cut muscle, not fat” because “they didn’t really know what they were doing.”

DOGE did not find $2T in fraud, but that doesn’t matter, Musk allies say Read More »

US can’t deport hate speech researcher for protected speech, lawsuit says

center for countering digital hate, disinformation, elon musk, hate speech, Marco Rubio, misinformation, Policy, Twitter, X / Beth Washington / December 29, 2025

On Monday, US officials must explain what steps they took to enforce shocking visa bans.

Imran Ahmed, the founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), giving evidence to joint committee seeking views on how to improve the draft Online Safety Bill designed to tackle social media abuse. Credit: House of Commons – PA Images / Contributor | PA Images

Imran Ahmed’s biggest thorn in his side used to be Elon Musk, who made the hate speech researcher one of his earliest legal foes during his Twitter takeover.

Now, it’s the Trump administration, which planned to deport Ahmed, a legal permanent resident, just before Christmas. It would then ban him from returning to the United States, where he lives with his wife and young child, both US citizens.

After suing US officials to block any attempted arrest or deportation, Ahmed was quickly granted a temporary restraining order on Christmas Day. Ahmed had successfully argued that he risked irreparable harm without the order, alleging that Trump officials continue “to abuse the immigration system to punish and punitively detain noncitizens for protected speech and silence viewpoints with which it disagrees” and confirming that his speech had been chilled.

US officials are attempting to sanction Ahmed seemingly due to his work as the founder of a British-American non-governmental organization, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

“An egregious act of government censorship”

In a shocking announcement last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that five individuals—described as “radical activists” and leaders of “weaponized NGOs”—would face US visa bans since “their entry, presence, or activities in the United States have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the US.

Nobody was named in that release, but Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Sarah Rogers, later identified the targets in an X post she currently has pinned to the top of her feed.

Alongside Ahmed, sanctioned individuals included former European commissioner for the internal market, Thierry Breton; the leader of UK-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI), Clare Melford; and co-leaders of Germany-based HateAid, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon. A GDI spokesperson told The Guardian that the visa bans are “an authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship.”

While all targets were scrutinized for supporting some of the European Union’s strictest tech regulations, including the Digital Services Act (DSA), Ahmed was further accused of serving as a “key collaborator with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against US citizens.” As evidence of Ahmed’s supposed threat to US foreign policy, Rogers cited a CCDH report flagging Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. among the so-called “disinformation dozen” driving the most vaccine hoaxes on social media.

Neither official has really made it clear what exact threat these individuals pose if operating from within the US, as opposed to from anywhere else in the world. Echoing Rubio’s press release, Rogers wrote that the sanctions would reinforce a “red line,” supposedly ending “extraterritorial censorship of Americans” by targeting the “censorship-NGO ecosystem.”

For Ahmed’s group, specifically, she pointed to Musk’s failed lawsuit, which accused CCDH of illegally scraping Twitter—supposedly, it offered evidence of extraterritorial censorship. That lawsuit surfaced “leaked documents” allegedly showing that CCDH planned to “kill Twitter” by sharing research that could be used to justify big fines under the DSA or the UK’s Online Safety Act. Following that logic, seemingly any group monitoring misinformation or sharing research that lawmakers weigh when implementing new policies could be maligned as seeking mechanisms to censor platforms.

Notably, CCDH won its legal fight with Musk after a judge mocked X’s legal argument as “vapid” and dismissed the lawsuit as an obvious attempt to punish CCDH for exercising free speech that Musk didn’t like.

In his complaint last week, Ahmed alleged that US officials were similarly encroaching on his First Amendment rights by unconstitutionally wielding immigration law as “a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration.”

Both Rubio and Rogers are named as defendants in the suit, as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons. In a loss, officials would potentially not only be forced to vacate Rubio’s actions implementing visa bans, but also possibly stop furthering a larger alleged Trump administration pattern of “targeting noncitizens for removal based on First Amendment protected speech.”

Lawsuit may force Rubio to justify visa bans

For Ahmed, securing the temporary restraining order was urgent, as he was apparently the only target currently located in the US when Rubio’s announcement dropped. In a statement provided to Ars, Ahmed’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, suggested that the order was granted “so quickly because it is so obvious that Marco Rubio and the other defendants’ actions were blatantly unconstitutional.”

Ahmed founded CCDH in 2019, hoping to “call attention to the enormous problem of digitally driven disinformation and hate online.” According to the suit, he became particularly concerned about antisemitism online while living in the United Kingdom in 2016, having watched “the far-right party, Britain First,” launching “the dangerous conspiracy theory that the EU was attempting to import Muslims and Black people to ‘destroy’ white citizens.” That year, a Member of Parliament and Ahmed’s colleague, Jo Cox, was “shot and stabbed in a brutal politically motivated murder, committed by a man who screamed ‘Britain First’” during the attack. That tragedy motivated Ahmed to start CCDH.

He moved to the US in 2021 and was granted a green card in 2024, starting his family and continuing to lead CCDH efforts monitoring not just Twitter/X, but also Meta platforms, TikTok, and, more recently, AI chatbots. In addition to supporting the DSA and UK’s Online Safety Act, his group has supported US online safety laws and Section 230 reforms intended to protect kids online.

“Mr. Ahmed studies and engages in civic discourse about the content moderation policies of major social media companies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union,” his lawsuit said. “There is no conceivable foreign policy impact from his speech acts whatsoever.”

In his complaint, Ahmed alleged that Rubio has so far provided no evidence that Ahmed poses such a great threat that he must be removed. He argued that “applicable statutes expressly prohibit removal based on a noncitizen’s ‘past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations.’”

According to DHS guidance from 2021 cited in the suit, “A noncitizen’ s exercise of their First Amendment rights … should never be a factor in deciding to take enforcement action.”

To prevent deportation based solely on viewpoints, Rubio was supposed to notify chairs of the House Foreign Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations, and House and Senate Judiciary Committees, to explain what “compelling US foreign policy interest” would be compromised if Ahmed or others targeted with visa bans were to enter the US. But there’s no evidence Rubio took those steps, Ahmed alleged.

“The government has no power to punish Mr. Ahmed for his research, protected speech, and advocacy, and Defendants cannot evade those constitutional limitations by simply claiming that Mr. Ahmed’s presence or activities have ‘potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States,’” a press release from his legal team said. “There is no credible argument for Mr. Ahmed’s immigration detention, away from his wife and young child.”

X lawsuit offers clues to Trump officials’ defense

To some critics, it looks like the Trump administration is going after CCDH in order to take up the fight that Musk already lost. In his lawsuit against CCDH, Musk’s X echoed US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) by suggesting that CCDH was a “foreign dark money group” that allowed “foreign interests” to attempt to “influence American democracy.” It seems likely that US officials will put forward similar arguments in their CCDH fight.

Rogers’ X post offers some clues that the State Department will be mining Musk’s failed litigation to support claims of what it calls a “global censorship-industrial complex.” What she detailed suggested that the Trump administration plans to argue that NGOs like CCDH support strict tech laws, then conduct research bent on using said laws to censor platforms. That logic seems to ignore the reality that NGOs cannot control what laws get passed or enforced, Breton suggested in his first TV interview after his visa ban was announced.

Breton, whom Rogers villainized as the “mastermind” behind the DSA, urged EU officials to do more now defend their tough tech regulations—which Le Monde noted passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and very little far-right resistance—and fight the visa bans, Bloomberg reported.

“They cannot force us to change laws that we voted for democratically just to please [US tech companies],” Breton said. “No, we must stand up.”

While EU officials seemingly drag their feet, Ahmed is hoping that a judge will declare that all the visa bans that Rubio announced are unconstitutional. The temporary restraining order indicates there will be a court hearing Monday at which Ahmed will learn precisely “what steps Defendants have taken to impose visa restrictions and initiate removal proceedings against” him and any others. Until then, Ahmed remains in the dark on why Rubio deemed him as having “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” if he stayed in the US.

Ahmed, who argued that X’s lawsuit sought to chill CCDH’s research and alleged that the US attack seeks to do the same, seems confident that he can beat the visa bans.

“America is a great nation built on laws, with checks and balances to ensure power can never attain the unfettered primacy that leads to tyranny,” Ahmed said. “The law, clear-eyed in understanding right and wrong, will stand in the way of those who seek to silence the truth and empower the bold who stand up to power. I believe in this system, and I am proud to call this country my home. I will not be bullied away from my life’s work of fighting to keep children safe from social media’s harm and stopping antisemitism online. Onward.”

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 can’t deport hate speech researcher for protected speech, lawsuit says Read More »

Bursting AI bubble may be EU’s “secret weapon” in clash with Trump, expert says

Accenture, AI, Digital Services Act, Donald Trump, elon musk, European Commission, Mistral, Policy, Spotify, trump administration, X / Mike M. / December 17, 2025

Spotify and Accenture caught in crossfire as Trump attacks EU tech regulations.

The US threatened to restrict some of the largest service providers in the European Union as retaliation for EU tech regulations and investigations are increasingly drawing Donald Trump’s ire.

On Tuesday, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) issued a warning on X, naming Spotify, Accenture, Amadeus, Mistral, Publicis, and DHL among nine firms suddenly yanked into the middle of the US-EU tech fight.

“The European Union and certain EU Member States have persisted in a continuing course of discriminatory and harassing lawsuits, taxes, fines, and directives against US service providers,” USTR’s post said.

The clash comes after Elon Musk’s X became the first tech company fined for violating the EU’s Digital Services Act, which is widely considered among the world’s strictest tech regulations. Trump was not appeased by the European Commission (EC) noting that X was not ordered to pay the maximum possible fine. Instead, the $140 million fine sparked backlash within the Trump administration, including from Vice President JD Vance, who slammed the fine as “censorship” of X and its users.

Asked for comment on the USTR’s post, an EC spokesperson told Ars that the EU intends to defend its tech regulations while implementing commitments from a Trump trade deal that the EU struck in August.

“The EU is an open and rules-based market, where companies from all over the world do business successfully and profitably,” the EC’s spokesperson said. “As we have made clear many times, our rules apply equally and fairly to all companies operating in the EU,” ensuring “a safe, fair and level playing field in the EU, in line with the expectations of our citizens. We will continue to enforce our rules fairly, and without discrimination.”

Trump on shaky ground due to “AI bubble”

On X, the USTR account suggested that the EU was overlooking that US companies “provide substantial free services to EU citizens and reliable enterprise services to EU companies,” while supporting “millions of jobs and more than $100 billion in direct investment in Europe.”

To stop what Trump views as “overseas extortion” of American tech companies, the USTR said the US was prepared to go after EU service providers, which “have been able to operate freely in the United States for decades, benefitting from access to our market and consumers on a level playing field.”

“If the EU and EU Member States insist on continuing to restrict, limit, and deter the competitiveness of US service providers through discriminatory means, the United States will have no choice but to begin using every tool at its disposal to counter these unreasonable measures,” USTR’s post said. “Should responsive measures be necessary, US law permits the assessment of fees or restrictions on foreign services, among other actions.”

The pushback comes after the Trump administration released a November national security report that questioned how long the EU could remain a “reliable” ally as overregulation of its tech industry could hobble both its economy and military strength. Claiming that the EU was only “doubling down” on such regulations, the EU “will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less,” the report predicted.

“We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation,” the report said.

However, the report acknowledged that “Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States.”

“Transatlantic trade remains one of the pillars of the global economy and of American prosperity,” the report said. “European sectors from manufacturing to technology to energy remain among the world’s most robust. Europe is home to cutting-edge scientific research and world-leading cultural institutions. Not only can we not afford to write Europe off—doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve.”

At least one expert in the EU has suggested that the EU can use this acknowledgement as leverage, while perhaps even using the looming threat of the supposed American “AI bubble” bursting to pressure Trump into backing off EU tech laws.

In an op-ed for The Guardian, Johnny Ryan, the director of Enforce, a unit of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, suggested that the EU could even throw Trump’s presidency into “crisis” by taking bold steps that Trump may not see coming.

EU can take steps to burst “AI bubble”

According to Ryan, the national security report made clear that the EU must fight the US or else “perish.” However, the EU has two “strong cards” to play if it wants to win the fight, he suggested.

Right now, market analysts are fretting about an “AI bubble,” with US investment in AI far outpacing potential gains until perhaps 2030. A Harvard University business professor focused on helping businesses implement cutting-edge technology like generative AI, Andy Wu, recently explained that AI’s big problem is that “everyone can imagine how useful the technology will be, but no one has figured out yet how to make money.”

“If the market can keep the faith to persist, it buys the necessary time for the technology to mature, for the costs to come down, and for companies to figure out the business model,” Wu said. But US “companies can end up underwater if AI grows fast but less rapidly than they hope for,” he suggested.

During this moment, Ryan wrote, it’s not just AI firms with skin in the game, but potentially all of Trump’s supporters. The US is currently on “shaky economic ground” with AI investment accounting “for virtually all (92 percent) GDP growth in the first half of this year.”

“The US’s bet on AI is now so gigantic that every MAGA voter’s pension is bound to the bubble’s precarious survival,” Ryan said.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, could exploit this apparent weakness first by messing with one of the biggest players in America’s AI industry, Nvidia, then by ramping up enforcement of the tech laws Trump loathes.

According to Ryan, “Dutch company ASML commands a global monopoly on the microchip-etching machines that use light to carve patterns on silicon,” and Nvidia needs those machines if it wants to remain the world’s most valuable company. Should the US GDP remain reliant on AI investment for growth, von der Leyen could use export curbs on that technology like a “lever,” Ryan said, controlling “whether and by how much the US economy expands or contracts.”

Withholding those machines “would be difficult for Europe” and “extremely painful for the Dutch economy,” Ryan noted, but “it would be far more painful for Trump.”

Another step the EU could take is even “easier,” Ryan suggested. It could go even harder on the enforcement of tech regulations based on evidence of mismanaged data surfaced in lawsuits against giants like Google and Meta. For example, it seems clear that Meta may have violated the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), after the Facebook owner was “unable to tell a US court that what its internal systems do with your data, or who can access it, or for what purpose.”

“This data free-for-all lets big tech companies train their AI models on masses of everyone’s data, but it is illegal in Europe, where companies are required to carefully control and account for how they use personal data,” Ryan wrote. “All Brussels has to do is crack down on Ireland, which for years has been a wild west of lax data enforcement, and the repercussions will be felt far beyond.”

Taking that step would also arguably make it harder for tech companies to secure AI investments, since firms would have to disclose that their “AI tools are barred from accessing Europe’s valuable markets,” Ryan said.

Calling the reaction to the X fine “extreme,” Ryan pushed for von der Leyen to advance on both fronts, forecasting that “the AI bubble would be unlikely to survive this double shock” and likely neither could Trump’s approval ratings. There’s also a possibility that tech firms could pressure Trump to back down if coping with any increased enforcement threatens AI progress.

Although Wu suggested that Big Tech firms like Google and Meta would likely be “insulated” from the AI bubble bursting, Google CEO Sundar Pichai doesn’t seem so sure. In November, Pichai told the BBC that if AI investments didn’t pay off quickly enough, he thinks “no company is going to be immune, including us.”

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.

Bursting AI bubble may be EU’s “secret weapon” in clash with Trump, expert says Read More »

Elon Musk’s X first to be fined under EU’s Digital Services Act

api access, blue checkmark, Digital Services Act, elon musk, online ads, Policy, Twitter, X / Kelly Newman / December 5, 2025

Elon Musk’s X became the first large online platform fined under the European Union’s Digital Services Act on Friday.

The European Commission announced that X would be fined nearly $140 million, with the potential to face “periodic penalty payments” if the platform fails to make corrections.

A third of the fine came from one of the first moves Musk made when taking over Twitter. In November 2022, he changed the platform’s historical use of a blue checkmark to verify the identities of notable users. Instead, Musk started selling blue checks for about $8 per month, immediately prompting a wave of imposter accounts pretending to be notable celebrities, officials, and brands.

Today, X still prominently advertises that paying for checks is the only way to “verify” an account on the platform. But the commission, which has been investigating X since 2023, concluded that “X’s use of the ‘blue checkmark’ for ‘verified accounts’ deceives users.”

This violates the DSA as the “deception exposes users to scams, including impersonation frauds, as well as other forms of manipulation by malicious actors,” the commission wrote.

Interestingly, the commission concluded that X made it harder to identify bots, despite Musk’s professed goal to eliminate bots being a primary reason he bought Twitter. Perhaps validating the EU’s concerns, X recently received backlash after changing a feature that accidentally exposed that some of the platform’s biggest MAGA influencers were based “in Eastern Europe, Thailand, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and other parts of the world, often linked to online scams and schemes,” Futurism reported.

Although the DSA does not mandate the verification of users, “it clearly prohibits online platforms from falsely claiming that users have been verified, when no such verification took place,” the commission said. X now has 60 days to share information on the measures it will take to fix the compliance issue.

Elon Musk’s X first to be fined under EU’s Digital Services Act Read More »

DOGE “cut muscle, not fat”; 26K experts rehired after brutal cuts

department of government efficiency, doge, Donald Trump, elon musk, Policy / Mike M. / November 25, 2025

Government brain drain will haunt US after DOGE abruptly terminated.

Billionaire Elon Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), holds a chainsaw as he speaks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Credit: SAUL LOEB / Contributor | AFP

After Donald Trump curiously started referring to the Department of Government Efficiency exclusively in the past tense, an official finally confirmed Sunday that DOGE “doesn’t exist.”

Talking to Reuters, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Scott Kupor confirmed that DOGE—a government agency notoriously created by Elon Musk to rapidly and dramatically slash government agencies—was terminated more than eight months early. This may have come as a surprise to whoever runs the DOGE account on X, which continued posting up until two days before the Reuters report was published.

As Kupor explained, a “centralized agency” was no longer necessary, since OPM had “taken over many of DOGE’s functions” after Musk left the agency last May. Around that time, DOGE staffers were embedded at various agencies, where they could ostensibly better coordinate with leadership on proposed cuts to staffing and funding.

Under Musk, DOGE was hyped as planning to save the government a trillion dollars. On X, Musk bragged frequently about the agency, posting in February that DOGE was “the one shot the American people have to defeat BUREAUcracy, rule of the bureaucrats, and restore DEMOcracy, rule of the people. We’re never going to get another chance like this.”

The reality fell far short of Musk’s goals, with DOGE ultimately reporting it saved $214 billion—an amount that may be overstated by nearly 40 percent, critics warned earlier this year.

How much talent was lost due to DOGE cuts?

Once Musk left, confidence in DOGE waned as lawsuits over suspected illegal firings piled up. By June, Congress was drawn, largely down party lines, on whether to codify the “DOGE process”—rapidly firing employees, then quickly hiring back whoever was needed—or declare DOGE a failure—perhaps costing taxpayers more in the long term due to lost talent and services.

Because DOGE operated largely in secrecy, it may be months or even years before the public can assess the true cost of DOGE’s impact. However, in the absence of a government tracker, the director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution, Elaine Kamarck, put together what might be the best status report showing how badly DOGE rocked government agencies.

In June, Kamarck joined other critics flagging DOGE’s reported savings as “bogus.” In the days before DOGE’s abrupt ending was announced, she published a report grappling with a critical question many have pondered since DOGE launched: “How many people can the federal government lose before it crashes?”

In the report, Kamarck charted “26,511 occasions where the Trump administration abruptly fired people and then hired them back.” She concluded that “a quick review of the reversals makes clear that the negative stereotype of the ‘paper-pushing bureaucrat’” that DOGE was supposedly targeting “is largely inaccurate.”

Instead, many of the positions the government rehired were “engineers, doctors, and other professionals whose work is critical to national security and public health,” Kamarck reported.

About half of the rehires, Kamarck estimated, “appear to have been mandated by the courts.” However, in about a quarter of cases, the government moved to rehire staffers before the court could weigh in, Kamarck reported. That seemed to be “a tacit admission that the blanket firings that took place during the DOGE era placed the federal government in danger of not being able to accomplish some of its most important missions,” she said.

Perhaps the biggest downside of all of DOGE’s hasty downsizing, though, is a trend in which many long-time government workers simply decided to leave or retire, rather than wait for DOGE to eliminate their roles.

During the first six months of Trump’s term, 154,000 federal employees signed up for the deferred resignation program, Reuters reported, while more than 70,000 retired. Both numbers were clear increases (tens of thousands) over exits from government in prior years, Kamarck’s report noted.

“A lot of people said, ‘the hell with this’ and left,” Kamarck told Ars.

Kamarck told Ars that her report makes it obvious that DOGE “cut muscle, not fat,” because “they didn’t really know what they were doing.”

As a result, agencies are now scrambling to assess the damage and rehire lost talent. However, her report documented that agencies aligned with Trump’s policies appear to have an easier time getting new hires approved, despite Kupor telling Reuters that the government-wide hiring freeze is “over.” As of mid-November 2025, “of the over 73,000 posted jobs, a candidate was selected for only about 14,400 of them,” Kamarck reported, noting that it was impossible to confirm how many selected candidates have officially started working.

“Agencies are having to do a lot of reassessments in terms of what happened,” Kamarck told Ars, concluding that DOGE “was basically a disaster.”

A decentralized DOGE may be more powerful

“DOGE is not dead,” though, Kamarck said, noting that “the cutting effort is definitely” continuing under the Office of Management and Budget, which “has a lot more power than DOGE ever had.”

However, the termination of DOGE does mean that “the way it operated is dead,” and that will likely come as a relief to government workers who expected DOGE to continue slashing agencies through July 2026 at least, if not beyond.

Many government workers are still fighting terminations, as court cases drag on, and even Kamarck has given up on tracking due to inconsistencies in outcomes.

“It’s still like one day the court says, ‘No, you can’t do that,’” Kamarck explained. “Then the next day another court says, ‘Yes, you can.’” Other times, the courts “change their minds,” or the Trump administration just doesn’t “listen to the courts, which is fairly terrifying,” Kamarck said.

Americans likely won’t get a clear picture of DOGE’s impact until power shifts in Washington. That could mean waiting for the next presidential election, or possibly if Democrats win a majority in midterm elections, DOGE investigations could start as early as 2027, Kamarck suggested.

OMB will likely continue with cuts that Americans appear to want, as White House spokesperson Liz Huston told Reuters that “President Trump was given a clear mandate to reduce waste, fraud and abuse across the federal government, and he continues to actively deliver on that commitment.”

However, Kamarck’s report noted polls showing that most Americans disapprove of how Trump is managing government and its workforce, perhaps indicating that OMB will be pressured to slow down and avoid roiling public opinion ahead of the midterms.

“The fact that ordinary Americans have come to question the downsizing is, most likely, the result of its rapid unfolding, with large cuts done quickly regardless of their impact on the government’s functioning,” Kamarck suggested. Even Musk began to question DOGE. After Trump announced plans to appeal an electrical vehicle mandate that the Tesla founder relied on, Musk posted on X, “What the heck was the point of DOGE, if he’s just going to increase the debt by $5 trillion??”

Facing “blowback” over the most unpopular cuts, agencies sometimes rehired cut staffers within 24 hours, Kamarck noted, pointing to the Department of Energy as one of the “most dramatic” earliest examples. In that case, Americans were alarmed to see engineers cut who were responsible for keeping the nation’s nuclear arsenal “safe and ready.” Retention for those posts was already a challenge due to “high demand in the private sector,” and the number of engineers was considered “too low” ahead of DOGE’s cuts. Everyone was reinstated within a day, Kamarck reported.

Alarm bells rang across the federal government, and it wasn’t just about doctors and engineers being cut or entire agencies being dismantled, like USAID. Even staffers DOGE viewed as having seemingly less critical duties—like travel bookers and customer service reps—were proven key to government functioning. Arbitrary cuts risked hurting Americans in myriad ways, hitting their pocketbooks, throttling community services, and limiting disease and disaster responses, Kamarck documented.

Now that the hiring freeze is lifted and OMB will be managing DOGE-like cuts moving forward, Kamarck suggested that Trump will face ongoing scrutiny over Musk’s controversial agency, despite its dissolution.

“In order to prove that the downsizing was worth the pain, the Trump administration will have to show that the government is still operating effectively,” Kamarck wrote. “But much could go wrong,” she reported, spouting a list of nightmare scenarios:

“Nuclear mismanagement or airline accidents would be catastrophic. Late disaster warnings from agencies monitoring weather patterns, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and inadequate responses from bodies such as the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), could put people in danger. Inadequate staffing at the FBI could result in counter-terrorism failures. Reductions in vaccine uptake could lead to the resurgence of diseases such as polio and measles. Inadequate funding and staffing for research could cause scientists to move their talents abroad. Social Security databases could be compromised, throwing millions into chaos as they seek to prove their earnings records, and persistent customer service problems will reverberate through the senior and disability communities.”

The good news is that federal agencies recovering from DOGE cuts are “aware of the time bombs and trying to fix them,” Kamarck told Ars. But with so much brain drain from DOGE’s first six months ripping so many agencies apart at their seams, the government may struggle to provide key services until lost talent can be effectively replaced, she said.

“I don’t know how quickly they can put Humpty Dumpty back together again,” Kamarck said.

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.

DOGE “cut muscle, not fat”; 26K experts rehired after brutal cuts Read More »

Elon Musk wins $1 trillion Tesla pay vote despite “part-time CEO” criticism

Cars, elon musk, Policy, Tesla / Kelly Newman / November 8, 2025

Tesla shareholders today voted to approve a compensation plan that would pay Elon Musk more than $1 trillion over the next decade if he hits all of the plan’s goals. Musk won over 75 percent of the vote, according to the announcement at today’s shareholder meeting.

The pay plan would give Musk 423,743,904 shares, awarded in 12 tranches of 35,311,992 shares each if Tesla achieves various operational goals and market value milestones. Goals include delivering 20 million vehicles, obtaining 10 million Full Self-Driving subscriptions, delivering 1 million “AI robots,” putting 1 million robotaxis in operation, and achieving a $400 billion adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization).

Musk has threatened to leave if he doesn’t get a larger share of Tesla. He told investors last month, “It’s not like I’m going to go spend the money. It’s just, if we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over that robot army? Not control, but a strong influence. That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable building that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”

The plan has 12 market capitalization milestones topping out at $8.5 trillion. The value of Musk’s award is estimated to exceed $1 trillion if he hits all operational and market capitalization goals. Musk would increase his ownership stake to 24.8 percent of Tesla, or 28.8 percent if Tesla ends up winning an appeal in the court case that voided his 2018 pay plan.

Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm has argued that Musk needs big pay packages to stay motivated. Some investors have said $1 trillion is too much for a CEO who spends much of his time running other companies such as SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), and xAI.

New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who runs a state retirement fund that owns over 3.3 million shares, slammed the pay plan in a webinar last week. He said that Musk’s existing stake in Tesla should already “be incentive enough to drive performance. The idea that another massive equity award will somehow refocus a man who is hopelessly distracted is both illogical and contrary to the evidence. This is not pay for performance; this is pay for unchecked power.”

Musk and his side hustles

With Musk spending more time at xAI, “some major Tesla investors have privately pressed top executives and board members about how much attention Musk was actually paying to the company and about whether there is a CEO succession plan,” a Wall Street Journal article on Tuesday said. “An unusually large contingent of Tesla board members, including chair Robyn Denholm, former Chipotle CFO Jack Hartung, and Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, met with big investors in New York last week to advocate for Musk’s proposed new pay package.”

Elon Musk wins $1 trillion Tesla pay vote despite “part-time CEO” criticism Read More »

OpenAI thinks Elon Musk funded its biggest critics—who also hate Musk

AI, AI safety, Artificial Intelligence, elon musk, openai, Policy, xAI / Mike M. / October 16, 2025

“We are not in any way supported by or funded by Elon Musk and have a history of campaigning against him and his interests,” Ruby-Sachs told NBC News.

Another nonprofit watchdog targeted by OpenAI was The Midas Project, which strives to make sure AI benefits everyone. Notably, Musk’s lawsuit accused OpenAI of abandoning its mission to benefit humanity in pursuit of immense profits.

But the founder of The Midas Project, Tyler Johnston, was shocked to see his group portrayed as coordinating with Musk. He posted on X to clarify that Musk had nothing to do with the group’s “OpenAI Files,” which comprehensively document areas of concern with any plan to shift away from nonprofit governance.

His post came after OpenAI’s chief strategy officer, Jason Kwon, wrote that “several organizations, some of them suddenly newly formed like the Midas Project, joined in and ran campaigns” backing Musk’s “opposition to OpenAI’s restructure.”

“What are you talking about?” Johnston wrote. “We were formed 19 months ago. We’ve never spoken with or taken funding from Musk and [his] ilk, which we would have been happy to tell you if you asked a single time. In fact, we’ve said he runs xAI so horridly it makes OpenAI ‘saintly in comparison.'”

OpenAI acting like a “cutthroat” corporation?

Johnston complained that OpenAI’s subpoena had already hurt the Midas Project, as insurers had denied coverage based on news coverage. He accused OpenAI of not just trying to silence critics but possibly shut them down.

“If you wanted to constrain an org’s speech, intimidation would be one strategy, but making them uninsurable is another, and maybe that’s what’s happened to us with this subpoena,” Johnston suggested.

Other nonprofits, like the San Francisco Foundation (SFF) and Encode, accused OpenAI of using subpoenas to potentially block or slow down legal interventions. Judith Bell, SFF’s chief impact officer, told NBC News that her nonprofit’s subpoena came after spearheading a petition to California’s attorney general to block OpenAI’s restructuring. And Encode’s general counsel, Nathan Calvin, was subpoenaed after sponsoring a California safety regulation meant to make it easier to monitor risks of frontier AI.

OpenAI thinks Elon Musk funded its biggest critics—who also hate Musk Read More »

ChatGPT erotica coming soon with age verification, CEO says

age verification, AI, AI behavior, AI censorship, AI companionship, AI ethics, AI paternalism, Biz & IT, chatbots, elon musk, machine learning, Mental Health, openai, sam altman, xAI / Shannon Garcia / October 15, 2025

On Tuesday, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced that the company will allow verified adult users to have erotic conversations with ChatGPT starting in December. The change represents a shift in how OpenAI approaches content restrictions, which the company had loosened in February but then dramatically tightened after an August lawsuit from parents of a teen who died by suicide after allegedly receiving encouragement from ChatGPT.

“In December, as we roll out age-gating more fully and as part of our ‘treat adult users like adults’ principle, we will allow even more, like erotica for verified adults,” Altman wrote in his post on X (formerly Twitter). The announcement follows OpenAI’s recent hint that it would allow developers to create “mature” ChatGPT applications once the company implements appropriate age verification and controls.

Altman explained that OpenAI had made ChatGPT “pretty restrictive to make sure we were being careful with mental health issues” but acknowledged this approach made the chatbot “less useful/enjoyable to many users who had no mental health problems.” The CEO said the company now has new tools to better detect when users are experiencing mental distress, allowing OpenAI to relax restrictions in most cases.

Striking the right balance between freedom for adults and safety for users has been a difficult balancing act for OpenAI, which has vacillated between permissive and restrictive chat content controls over the past year.

In February, the company updated its Model Spec to allow erotica in “appropriate contexts.” But a March update made GPT-4o so agreeable that users complained about its “relentlessly positive tone.” By August, Ars reported on cases where ChatGPT’s sycophantic behavior had validated users’ false beliefs to the point of causing mental health crises, and news of the aforementioned suicide lawsuit hit not long after.

Aside from adjusting the behavioral outputs for its previous GPT-40 AI language model, new model changes have also created some turmoil among users. Since the launch of GPT-5 in early August, some users have been complaining that the new model feels less engaging than its predecessor, prompting OpenAI to bring back the older model as an option. Altman said the upcoming release will allow users to choose whether they want ChatGPT to “respond in a very human-like way, or use a ton of emoji, or act like a friend.”

ChatGPT erotica coming soon with age verification, CEO says Read More »

Nvidia sells tiny new computer that puts big AI on your desktop

Acer, AI, AI chips, AI development tools, AI GPU, AI infrastructure, ai supercomputer, ASUS, Biz & IT, desktop computing, DGX Spark, elon musk, Google, Grace Blackwell, HP, Jensen Huang, machine learning, msi, NVIDIA, openai, Project DIGITS, spacex, Tech / 9u50fv / October 14, 2025

For the OS, the Spark is an ARM-based system that runs Nvidia’s DGX OS, an Ubuntu Linux-based operating system built specifically for GPU processing. It comes with Nvidia’s AI software stack preinstalled, including CUDA libraries and the company’s NIM microservices.

Prices for the DGX Spark start at US $3,999. That may seem like a lot, but given the cost of high-end GPUs with ample video RAM like the RTX Pro 6000 (about $9,000) or AI server GPUs (like $25,000 for a base-level H100), the DGX Spark may represent a far less expensive option overall, though it’s not nearly as powerful.

In fact, according to The Register, the GPU computing performance of the GB10 chip is roughly equivalent to an RTX 5070. However, the 5070 is limited to 12GB of video memory, which limits the size of AI models that can be run on such a system. With 128GB of unified memory, the DGX Spark can run far larger models, albeit at a slower speed than, say, an RTX 5090 (which typically ships with 24 GB of RAM). For example, to run the 120 billion-parameter larger version of OpenAI’s recent gpt-oss language model, you’d need about 80GB of memory, which is far more than you can get in a consumer GPU.

A callback to 2016

Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang marked the occasion of the DGX Spark launch by personally delivering one of the first units to Elon Musk at SpaceX’s Starbase facility in Texas, echoing a similar delivery Huang made to Musk at OpenAI in 2016.

“In 2016, we built DGX-1 to give AI researchers their own supercomputer. I hand-delivered the first system to Elon at a small startup called OpenAI, and from it came ChatGPT,” Huang said in a statement. “DGX-1 launched the era of AI supercomputers and unlocked the scaling laws that drive modern AI. With DGX Spark, we return to that mission.”

Nvidia sells tiny new computer that puts big AI on your desktop Read More »

Boring Company cited for almost 800 environmental violations in Las Vegas

boring company, elon musk, Policy, syndication, Tesla / Kelly Newman / October 10, 2025

Workers have complained of chemical burns from the waste material generated by the tunneling process, and firefighters must decontaminate their equipment after conducting rescues from the project sites. The company was fined more than $112,000 by Nevada’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late 2023 after workers complained of “ankle-deep” water in the tunnels, muck spills, and burns. The Boring Co. has contested the violations. Just last month, a construction worker suffered a “crush injury” after being pinned between two 4,000-foot pipes, according to police records. Firefighters used a crane to extract him from the tunnel opening.

After ProPublica and City Cast Las Vegas published their January story, both the CEO and the chairman of the LVCVA board criticized the reporting, arguing the project is well-regulated. As an example, LVCVA CEO Steve Hill cited the delayed opening of a Loop station by local officials who were concerned that fire safety requirements weren’t adequate. Board chair Jim Gibson, who is also a Clark County commissioner, agreed the project is appropriately regulated.

“We wouldn’t have given approvals if we determined things weren’t the way they ought to be and what it needs to be for public safety reasons,” Gibson said, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal. “Our sense is we’ve done what we need to do to protect the public.”

Asked for a response to the new proposed fines, an LVCVA spokesperson said, “We won’t be participating in this story.”

The repeated allegations that the company is violating regulations—including the bespoke regulatory arrangement agreed to by the company—indicates that officials aren’t keeping the public safe, said Ben Leffel, an assistant public policy professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“Not if they’re recommitting almost the exact violation,” Leffel said.

Leffel questioned whether a $250,000 penalty would be significant enough to change operations at The Boring Co., which was valued at $7 billion in 2023. Studies show that fines that don’t put a significant dent in a company’s profit don’t deter companies from future violations, Leffel said.

A state spokesperson disagreed that regulators aren’t keeping the public safe and said the agency believes its penalties will deter “future non-compliance.”

“NDEP is actively monitoring and inspecting the projects,” the spokesperson said.

This story originally appeared on ProPublica.

Boring Company cited for almost 800 environmental violations in Las Vegas Read More »