It will not dock directly in Tenerife but will instead anchor out at sea and its passengers will be ferried to the vast industrial port of Granadilla, in the south-east of the island, well away from residential areas. Soon after their arrival they will be repatriated, or, in the case of the 14 Spaniards aboard, taken to Madrid to be quarantined.
In the second week of the landmark trial between Elon Musk and OpenAI, Musk’s motivations for bringing the suit were under scrutiny.
Last week, Musk took the stand, alleging that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman had deceived him into donating $38 million to the company. He claimed that they’d promised to maintain it as a nonprofit dedicated to developing AI for the benefit of humanity, only to later accept billions of dollars of investment from Microsoft and restructure the company to operate a for-profit subsidiary.
This week, Brockman fired back with his side of the story, arguing that Musk had actually pushed for OpenAI to create a for-profit arm and fought a bitter battle to have “absolute control” over it. OpenAI has argued that Musk is suing because he didn’t get his way and is now trying to undermine a competitor to his own AI company, xAI.
Shivon Zilis, a former OpenAI board member and the mother of four of Musk’s children, also testified, revealing that Musk tried to recruit OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to lead a new AI lab at his electric-car company, Tesla.
Musk cofounded OpenAI in 2015 with Altman, Brockman, and others but left in 2018. Now, he’s asking the court to remove Altman and Brockman from their roles and to unwind the restructuring OpenAI undertook last year, which converted its for-profit subsidiary into a public benefit corporation. He is also seeking as much as $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, OpenAI’s investor.
The outcome of the trial could upend OpenAI’s race toward an IPO at a valuation approaching $1 trillion. Meanwhile, xAI, which Musk founded in 2023, is now a division of his rocket company, SpaceX; the combined companies are also expected to go public as early as June, at a target valuation of $1.75 trillion.
On Monday, Brockman walked into the courtroom in a blue suit and tie, holding hands with his wife, Anna Brockman. On the stand, he was serene, even chipper, as he recalled OpenAI’s early days. But he grew agitated under impassioned questioning from Elon Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo. Altman listened in silence, while Anna Brockman sat behind him, fidgeting. Outside the courthouse, protesters rallying against the AI race sang hymns over the voices of lawyers giving press conferences.
Two days before trial began, according to Brockman, Musk messaged him to ask if he would be interested in settling. When Brockman suggested that both sides drop their claims, Musk texted back: “By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be.”
Last week, Musk testified that he’s suing to save OpenAI’s nonprofit mission to develop AI safely, but he said he was open to seeing OpenAI become a capped-profit company with moderate investments from Microsoft.
This week, Brockman told the jury that Musk was never truly committed to keeping OpenAI a nonprofit. In the summer of 2017, when an AI model that OpenAI built beat the world’s best players in a video game called Dota 2, Musk hosted a gathering at his “Haunted Mansion” near San Francisco. The house was splattered with confetti and cups, Brockman recalled, and the actress Amber Heard, who was Musk’s girlfriend at the time, served whiskey.
“Time to make the next step for OpenAI. This is the triggering event,” Musk wrote in an email—having said weeks earlier that if OpenAI made a major public achievement, it would be “time to create a for-profit,” Brockman told the jury.
Over the next six weeks, Brockman said, Musk and the other cofounders had intense discussions about creating a for-profit entity to raise enough capital to build artificial general intelligence—powerful AI that can compete with humans on most cognitive tasks. Musk wanted to have majority equity in the entity and the right to choose a majority of the board members. He also wanted to be its CEO, said Brockman.
Brockman testified that in August 2017, he and other cofounders gathered to hash out the terms of the for-profit structure. Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist at the time, arrived bearing a painting of a Tesla as a “token of goodwill” in return for the actual Teslas Musk had given them days earlier. “It felt a little bit like [Musk] was buttering us up, right,that he wanted us to feel indebted to him,” Brockman told the jury.
When Brockman and Sutskever proposed that they all have equal shares of equity, said Brockman, Musk fell silent and finally said, “I decline.” Musk then stood up and “stormed around the table,” he said. “I actually thought he was going to hit me.” Musk grabbed the painting and walked out.
Brockman said that afterwards he struggled to decide whether to continue building OpenAI with Musk or break away. “There was a fork in the road,” he said. “Do we accept Elon’s terms? Or do we reject the terms, he quits to create his own, and then we create our own?”
“The one thing we could not accept was to hand him unilateral, absolute control, potentially, over the AGI,” Brockman told the jury.
In his theatrical baritone, Molo argued that Brockman was motivated by greed rather than a commitment to OpenAI’s nonprofit mission to develop AI that benefits humanity. He noted that while Brockman never invested money in the company, he now owns a stake worth close to $30 billion.
“Solving for the mission has always been my primary motivation,” Brockman said, pushing back on Molo’s characterization of him. “It remains so today.”
Molo pulled up Brockman’s electronic journal on a screen in the courtroom, trying to show the jury what Brockman was really thinking behind the scenes. In 2017, while negotiating with Musk about the future of OpenAI, Brockman wrote about wanting to become a billionaire: “Financially what will take me to $1B?”
“Why didn’t you take the $29 billion and donate it to the nonprofit that you had a fiduciary duty to, for the good of humanity?” Molo asked Brockman, raising his voice to dramatize moral indignation.
Molo then pulled up a journal entry Brockman had written in November 2017, while he was torn over whether to turn OpenAI into a for-profit without Musk: “it’d be wrong to steal the nonprofit from him. to convert to a b-corp without him. that’d be pretty morally bankrupt.” Brockman and Musk had previously considered creating a b-corp, which is a for-profit company that pursues a social mission.
Brockman explained, “I meant it would actually serve the mission, but it’d be hard to look at yourself in the mirror.”
Molo also tried to undermine Brockman’s credibility by revealing that he holds a stake in multiple companies with business ties to OpenAI, including the AI company Cerebras, the cloud provider CoreWeave, and the nuclear fusion startup Helion Energy. Altman has tried to steer OpenAI into deals with companies that he invests in, including Helion and the rocket maker Stoke Space, drawing scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest.
Former OpenAI chief technology officer Mira Murati and former OpenAI board member Helen Toner both appeared in video depositions. They addressed the brief firing of Altman in 2023, saying that they could not trust him because of his alleged history of lying. Murati’s text messages with Altman from that time, which were introduced as evidence, revealed his desperate attempts to understand what was happening and regain control.
After Brockman’s two days of testimony, Shivon Zilis, who left OpenAI’s board in 2023, took the stand in a black jacket and black jeans, appearing composed but with a flicker of nerves. OpenAI’s lawyer Sarah Eddy asked her in a deceptively soothing voice whether she acted as a conduit for Musk as he tried to poach OpenAI’s cofounders to work at a new AI lab within Tesla. Eddy argued that Musk is suing OpenAI only to undermine a competitor in the AI race.
Zilis said she met Musk while working at OpenAI as an informal advisor in 2016, and that they had a “one-off” romantic encounter. In 2017, she joined Tesla and Musk’s brain-implant company, Neuralink. In 2020, she joined OpenAI’s board of directors. She became pregnant with Musk’s children through IVF but did not disclose her ties with Musk to OpenAI until Business Insider reported them in 2022.
By late 2017, Musk had concluded that OpenAI was unlikely to build AGI and pivoted to building an AI lab at Tesla, according to an email sent to Zilis.
Eddy pulled up a draft of an FAQ document that Zilis emailed a colleague at Tesla in 2017 about an event the company was organizing at the NeurIPS AI conference: “The purpose of this event is to share that Tesla is building a world leading AI lab(?) which will rival the likes of Google/DeepMind and Facebook AI Research.”
Zilis told the jury that when Musk was still on OpenAI’s board, he tried to recruit Altman to lead that prospective AI lab. Musk had asked Andrej Karpathy, an OpenAI research scientist he’d recruited to work at Tesla, “to send a list of top OpenAI people to poach,” according to a text message by Zilis.
“There is little chance of OpenAI being a serious force if I focus on TeslaAI,” Musk texted Zilis in 2018, just before he left OpenAI. Tesla’s AI lab never came to fruition.
Eddy pressed Zilis about whom she was loyal to when she was working for OpenAI and Musk at the same time. “I had an allegiance to the best outcome for AI for humanity,” Zilis told the jury.
Next week, Ilya Sutskever will testify, as will Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. The lawyers for both Musk and OpenAI will deliver their closing arguments. The jury will begin deliberating the week after and deliver an advisory verdict guiding the judge to decide the case.
This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s ongoing coverage of the Musk v. Altman trial. Follow @techreview or @michelletomkim on X for up-to-the-minute reporting.
Like any other manufactured chip, the wiring that connects the quantum dots is locked into place during the chip’s manufacture. Since different error correction schemes require different connections among the qubits, this forces us to commit to specific error-correction schemes during manufacturing. If a better scheme is developed after a chip is made, it’s probably not possible to switch to it. Less complex algorithms may benefit from simpler error-correction schemes that require less overhead, but we wouldn’t be able to switch schemes with these chips.
So, quantum dots appear to typify the trade-offs that we’re facing with quantum computing: it’s easier for us to make lots of quantum dots and all the hardware needed to manipulate them, but it’s seemingly not possible for them to benefit from the flexibility that other types of qubits have.
The whole point of this new paper is to show that this isn’t necessarily true.
The new work was done in collaboration between researchers at Delft University of Technology and the startup QuTech. The team built a chip that had a linear array of quantum dots, and they started out with single electron spins at each end. Then, with the appropriate electrical signals, they could shift the spins into the net dot, gradually bringing them closer together. (And, by gradually, we mean a fraction of a second here, but relatively slowly compared to basic switching in electronics.)
Once the electrons were close enough, the spin wavefunctions overlapped, allowing the researchers to perform two-qubit gates on them. These manipulations can be used to entangle the two spins and are thus needed to build error-corrected logical qubits; these gates are also needed for performing calculations.
The researchers then confirmed that they could move the electrons back to their starting positions, after which measurements confirmed that their spins were entangled. And since quantum teleportation also requires a two-qubit gate, they showed that the process could be used for teleportation. Teleportation can enhance the sort of mobility provided by moving the qubits around, since it can be used to move states around after the qubits have been widely separated.
Apple and Intel are reportedly closing in on a deal that would see Intel make some of the chips for the iPhone maker’s devices, marking a major shift in the chipmaking landscape.
Talks between the two companies have been brewing for more than a year, with a preliminary agreement reached in recent months, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.
Intel shares soared nearly 14% on Friday. Apple shares added 2%. Both companies declined to comment.
“I 100% believe this is going to happen. I don’t know when,” chip analyst Ben Bajarin of Creative Strategies said in an interview.
If it comes to fruition, the deal would be the most notable vote of confidence yet for Intel’s once-struggling chip foundry business. Intel shares are up more than 200% this year.
For Apple, it would be the end of era. The iPhone maker currently relies solely on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. to make all the most advanced chips for its devices.
But TSMC’s wafer capacity can only go so far, amid soaring demand for AI chips that has sent every major tech company into a semiconductor frenzy. Apple is no exception, ramping up its in-house silicon program in recent years to make nearly all the core chips in iPhones, Macs and more. Apple is TSMC’s second-largest customer, topped only by Nvidia, according to Bajarin.
“Intel is the only place that can scale up capacity as a viable second source,” Bajarin said.
Intel is indeed ramping up capacity quickly, with a new chip fabrication plant now in high-volume production in Chandler, Arizona. It’s making chips there on 18A, its most advanced node, or production process, which is meant to rival TSMC’s 2nm node that’s currently only manufactured in Taiwan. TSMC also has multiple new chip fabs in Arizona, where Apple has committed to making some of its silicon.
Bajarin said Apple is most likely to wait to make chips on Intel’s next node, called 18A-P, which could scale as soon as next year. He called Intel’s current 18A node “a little bit rough” and said 18A-P “cleans a lot of stuff up.”
For years, Intel’s foundry business faced delays and low yields that cast doubt on its ability to manufacture chips for others. For now, Intel remains the only major customer of its foundry business, making central processing units and other chips for its own devices.
Bajarin said those days are over.
“They’ve got through the rough patch and can now be considered validated as a credible second source,” he said.
Intel’s only other major external customer commitment for foundry is unlikely to see real results until 2029 or beyond.
Elon Musk said last month that he plans to rely on Intel’s future 14A chip node at his $119 billion Terafab planned for Austin, Texas, which is meant to make chips for Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI. Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan said in February that 14A will be in volume production in 2029.
Intel already has major customers — such as Amazon and Cisco — for the advanced packaging side of its chipmaking business, in which individual chip dies and memory are bonded together to make things like a graphics processing unit.
An Apple-Intel deal won’t impact TSMC because “they’re already printing wafers as fast as they can,” Bajarin said. Still, TSMC shifted its rhetoric last month when President and CEO C.C. Wei called Intel a “formidable competitor.”
“If you’re about to have one of your largest customers probably sign a deal with a competing foundry, that would be the kind of thing you say to perhaps soften the blow,” Bajarin said.
Apple executives have also reportedly visited Samsung’s new chip manufacturing plant under construction in Texas, where CNBC got an early look. Samsung, Intel and TSMC are the only three companies in the world capable of manufacturing the most advanced chips needed for AI, and “nobody can build fast enough,” Bajarin said.
WATCH: How Samsung became the world’s second biggest advanced chipmaker
At 12.3 inches, the new Asus ROG Strix XG129C is a little smaller than its competition from Corsair.
At 12.3 inches, the new Asus ROG Strix XG129C is a little smaller than its competition from Corsair.
Asus’s latest gaming monitor is a little smaller than usual. The ROG Strix XG129C, announced on Friday, is a 12.3-inch touchscreen IPS display that’s intended to be a sidekick for a larger main monitor, similar to the 14.1-inch secondary display in the 2020 Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 15. It’s a slightly smaller competitor to Corsair’s Xeneon Edge, which has a 14.5-inch display, but the same 720p resolution.
Asus says the XG129C covers 125 percent of the sRGB color gamut and 90 percent of the DCI-P3 color gamut. It also comes with a one-year subscription for the hardware monitoring tool AIDA64 Extreme, which would usually cost $65. Besides acting as a performance monitor for your PC, sidekick displays like this can also be handy as an extension for streaming or editing setups, much like Elgato’s Stream Deck.
Along with the little XG129C, Asus also announced the ROG Strix OLED XG34WCDMS, a 34-inch RGB Tandem QD-OLED gaming monitor. It features a 280Hz refresh rate and a 3440 x 1440p resolution, and, according to Asus, covers 99 percent of the DCI-P3 color gamut. Asus has not yet officially announced pricing for either display.
The chefs worked together for several hours, first to sterilize the onggi over heated charcoal topped with a small amount of honey, which fumigate and purify the vessels. They then added the meju and salted water into the urns, stirring in jujube (a sweet fruit similar to a date) which adds natural sugar, antioxidants, and antimicrobials to balance the flavor of the fermentation. Dried chili peppers also help to stabilize the fermentation environment in the early stage.
The final step will come in a few months when the solids and liquids separate. The liquid becomes ganjang (soy sauce); the solids are mashed to become doenjang (soybean paste). “Both soy sauce and soybean paste are aged further, often for years,” said Ellia Park. “Time softens the saltiness, increases depth of flavor and natural umami develops. It is common in Korea to reference jang by its age—three-year, five-year, or even ten-year-old jang—reflecting its value and complexity.”
The farm comes at the right time in the evolution of Korean cuisine and culture. “Over the past 10 years, there has been a significant increase in global interest in Korean food and culture,” said First Hand Farm’s Director Joshua Lee. Growing Korean ingredients on New York soil is impactful as well. “I’ve come to think deeply about terroir,” said JP Park. “There is something meaningful about ingredients that are grown here, shaped by this environment. That contrast—Korean culinary philosophy expressed through New York-grown ingredients—can create a new kind of identity and experience.”
Paying it forward to the next generation, keeping rituals and traditions alive, is a value embedded in the project. “We want to educate younger cooks, and expose them to the connection between nature, ingredients, and cooking,” said JP Park. “That experience is difficult to replicate in a traditional kitchen environment, and I believe it will become a valuable part of how we train and develop our team.
For the chefs, the farm also represents a broader exploration of the meaning of hospitality.
“First Hand holds two meanings at once: ingredients grown by our own hands, and the very first gesture that makes hospitality possible,” said Ellia Park. “The farm also allows us to build something beyond procurement — a space for education, collaboration, and cultural exchange,” added chef Park. “The farm is not just about growing food. It’s about redefining where hospitality starts.”
PS5 sales dropped by 46 percent year over year.
PS5 sales dropped by 46 percent year over year.
Sony sold just 1.5 million PS5 consoles in its most recent fourth fiscal quarter, down 46 percent year over year. The slump in PS5 sales comes after Sony raised the price of its PS5 consoles twice over the past year, pushing the price of the regular PS5 from $499.99 all the way up to $649.99.
Sony blamed “continued pressures in the global economic landscape,” for the price hikes in March, amid an ongoing memory crisis and pressure from the war in Iran. Sony now forecasts that annual gaming revenue will drop 6 percent, but these forecasts could be impacted by ongoing memory costs. “We plan to base our PS5 hardware sales in FY26 on the volume of memory we can procure at reasonable prices and we expect hardware profitability to be essentially the same as FY25,” says Sony.
Sony previously revealed in February that it had secured “the minimum quantity necessary” of memory to manage the year-end shopping season and that it was working “with various suppliers to secure enough supply to meet the demand of our customers.” Across the whole 2025 financial year, Sony sold 16 million PS5 consoles, down from 18.5 million in the prior financial year.
It’s a tough market for hardware in general right now. Microsoft recently revealed its Xbox hardware revenues plummeted 33 percent year over year. Along with declining Xbox hardware revenue, Microsoft also reported a 5 percent drop in Xbox content and services. Nintendo is also raising its Switch 2 prices by $50 on September 1st and forecasting a drop in sales over the next year.
Sony also revealed that during the last financial year it has recorded a $765 million impairment cost against Bungie, the struggling studio behind Destiny 2 and Marathon. Sony first announced it was acquiring Bungie in a $3.6 billion deal just days after Microsoft’s announcement that it was acquiring Activision Blizzard in 2022. Bungie has been hit with with the layoff of hundreds of workers since joining Sony’s PlayStation division and was forced to delay its extraction shooter Marathon following lackluster alpha test feedback. Last year an artist accused Bungie of using their work in Marathon without permission, and the matter was resolved a few months later.
Now, Takaichi says this framework no longer reflects reality. Geographically, Japan sits in a challenging neighbourhood with an assertive China, an unpredictable North Korea, and Russia nearby. And the United States, its closest ally, has been encouraging Tokyo to play a more active security role.
Thirty-year-old Grace Cooper was also in the designated “free speech zone” when she was arrested in a clash that she described as “the most terrifying 90 seconds of her life.”
It was her first time at a Broadview protest, and Cooper didn’t know what to expect. On that day, Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino allegedly arbitrarily ruled that the designated area was suddenly a “free arrest zone,” then ordered protesters to move quickly from the area or else face arrest.
Although Cooper immediately turned to comply, an agent grabbed her from behind and “slammed her to the ground.” After her arrest, no agents could tell her what her crime was, and she even reported overhearing agents debating what her crime might possibly be.
Of the protesters suing, Cooper was the only one to refuse the DNA sample. Such refusal is a crime, the complaint noted, and agents did not allow her to decline. After hours, agents released her without charging her, dropping her off at “a nearby gas station” and refusing to give her any information about whether her case remained ongoing.
Like the others, Cooper’s “most immediate fear” after her arrest was “what the government will do with her DNA.”
“She worries the government will use her DNA to place her on a ‘domestic terrorist watchlist’ and track her movements—at airports, during traffic stops, and in ways she cannot anticipate or contest,” the complaint said.
Carey R. Dunne, a founder of the Free + Fair Litigation Group, which is representing Briggs in the lawsuit, told The New York Times that the protesters’ litigation addresses “a constellation of constitutional violations that needed to be challenged.”
The unchecked DNA collection “puts you and your family in a surveillance state database of people who’ve criticized this administration,” Dunne alleged, while suggesting that on an “authoritarian scale of one to 10, this is a 10.”
Briggs told the NYT that the lawsuit could clarify the DNA Act and potentially restore privacy for countless Americans who may be increasingly affected by the allegedly unconstitutional DNA collection.
“If we don’t have a right to our own selves, everything is going to break down,” Briggs said.
Not that long ago, U.S. payroll growth of less than 100,000 or so a month meant the labor market was sinking and signaling a potential recession. No more, though, as that kind of number is pretty much all that is needed to keep unemployment steady and the Federal Reserve at bay.
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its job count for April on Friday morning at 8:30 a.m. ET, it’s expected to show a gain of just 55,000 — anemic compared with what the economy has seen in recent years, but enough to keep the jobless rate at a relatively low 4.3%.
The picture in total is one of a labor market that, while undoubtedly cooling, is generally stable and resilient despite a number of challenges.
“The headline message remains similar to previous employment reports, if anything, accentuated though,” said David Tinsley, senior economist at the Bank of America Institute. “The labor market momentum in terms of payrolls has really turned solid.”
The degree of stability, though, is in relative terms.
Against muted expectations, job gains totaled 178,000 in March, the best month since December 2024. But that still left the 12-month average at just 22,000. Excluding healthcare, the economy has seen a net loss of jobs.
Understanding the current labor market requires looking beyond the headline numbers, said Tinsley, who referenced the popular K shape used to describe current economic conditions where benefits of prosperity are weighted toward top earners.
“It’s a really interesting set of kind of divergences across the economy. The overall picture seems to us quite solid, both in terms of wages and payrolls, but lots of Ks,” he said. “There’s lots of divergence in this economy right now, even though the headline looks solid.”
One area he cites particularly is wage growth.
Average hourly earnings are projected to have risen 3.8% annually in April, though that doesn’t tell the story of where the gains are flowing.
Bank of America’s deep well of data shows that in April, the top one-third of earners saw 6% after-tax wage gains while the bottom group showed a gain of 1.5%. That’s a particularly painful statistic considering that the consumer price index rose 3.5% through March, indicating that low earners saw a net loss of income.
“Just beneath the surface, distributions matter a lot here,” Tinsley said.
The economist further pointed out that hiring disparities are popping up regarding business size, with small businesses seeing declines over the past three months.
The crosscurrents are presenting challenges to Fed policymakers who have grown increasingly split over the direction of interest rate policy.
Earlier this week, New York Fed President John Williams noted the “conflicting signs” between data such as weekly jobless claims showing stability even as consumer sentiment surveys point to a softening picture.
“Much of the hard data points to stabilization, while some of the soft data suggest continued gradual slowing,” Williams said.
“Together, these indicators suggest increasing labor market slack,” Williams added, using a term synonymous with a softening labor market. “Although this dissonance in the hard and soft data may reflect the effects of a low-hire, low-fire labor market, it bears continued close monitoring for signs that conditions are shifting.”
Investors are betting that the labor market’s relative stability, combined with elevated inflation, will keep the Fed on hold through the year. Williams repeated his position that he sees monetary policy as “well-positioned” for the current climate.
