×
Tesla just increased its spending plan to B — here’s where the money is going | TechCrunch
Tesla CEO Elon Musk kicked off the company’s first-quarter earnings call with a monetary heads-up — or depending on the mindset of the investor, a warning. Tesla’s capital expenditures will skyrocket to  billion in 2026, far outpacing its previous annual spend as it races to stay ahead of the competition and transitions to an AI and robotics company, according to its first-quarter earnings report.

That figure, which covers what Tesla plans to spend on physical assets outside of its day-to-day operating expenditures, is three times higher than its annual capex budget in previous years. For comparison, Tesla’s annual capital expenditures were .5 billion in 2025, .3 billion in 2024, and .9 billion in 2023. 







Tesla had announced in January that it expected capital expenditures to be in excess of  billion in 2026, already a substantial increase meant to cover its AI initiatives, including investments in compute infrastructure and data centers, and the expansion and ramp of its manufacturing and R&D production lines, among other items. 

This  billion uptick suggests these initiatives will require more money than previously planned. But so far, its quarterly capital expenditure, which was .5 billion, was in line with previous quarters, the report shows.

Of course, Musk views this as a positive, a sentiment many other shareholders will likely also share since it positions Tesla as a company investing in its future, namely AI and robotics. 

“With 2026 we’re going to be substantially increasing our investments in the future,” Musk said in the earnings call Wednesday. “So you should expect to see significant, a very significant increase in capital expenditures, but I think well justified for a substantially increased future revenue stream.”

Musk was quick to note that Tesla isn’t the only company raising its capital expenditure budget. Amazon, for instance, has projected 0 billion in capital expenditures in 2026, across “AI, chips, robotics, and low earth orbit satellites.” Google is slated to spend between 5 billion and 5 billion in capital expenditures in 2026, up from .4 billion the previous year.

	
		
		Techcrunch event
		
			
			
									San Francisco, CA
													|
													October 13-15, 2026
							
			
		
	


The increase in Tesla’s capital expenditures is linked to Musk’s desire and ambition to evolve the company beyond building and selling EVs, solar, and energy storage. 

Some of the capex spend will go toward Tesla’s core technologies such as its battery and AI software, according to Musk. The company plans to invest in AI training, chip design, and “laying the groundwork” for increasing manufacturing production, as well as invest in its robotaxi operations and its new semiconductor research fab in Austin.

The Fremont, California, factory will likely suck up some of that capital as the company ends production of the Tesla Model S and Model X and begins building its Optimus humanoid robot at scale. The company said Wednesday it has also cleared ground outside its Austin factory for a dedicated Optimus manufacturing facility.







Tesla plans to increase its internal production of Optimus for testing and then “probably” make Optimus “useful outside of Tesla sometime next year,” he said. 

Tesla is also putting money toward strengthening its supply chain “across the board,” Musk said, adding that this covers batteries, energy, and AI silicon.

All of this spending, which CFO Vaibhav Taneja said will last a couple of years, comes with a literal cost. The company — which enjoyed a brief 4% share price bump due, in part, to an unexpected .4 billion in free cash flow — will head into negative territory later this year, Taneja said.

Tesla shares erased their gains in after-hours trading as Musk and Taneja laid out these plans to investors. Still, Tesla is sitting on loads of cash. At the end of the first quarter, Tesla reported .7 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments.

“While this may seem like a lot, and we will have the impact of negative free cash flow for the rest of the year, we believe this is the right strategy to position the company for the next era,”  Taneja said. 
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Tesla #increased #spending #plan #25B #heres #money #TechCrunchElon Musk,Tesla

Tesla just increased its spending plan to $25B — here’s where the money is going | TechCrunch

Tesla CEO Elon Musk kicked off the company’s first-quarter earnings call with a monetary heads-up — or depending on the mindset of the investor, a warning. Tesla’s capital expenditures will skyrocket to $25 billion in 2026, far outpacing its previous annual spend as it races to stay ahead of the competition and transitions to an AI and robotics company, according to its first-quarter earnings report.

That figure, which covers what Tesla plans to spend on physical assets outside of its day-to-day operating expenditures, is three times higher than its annual capex budget in previous years. For comparison, Tesla’s annual capital expenditures were $8.5 billion in 2025, $11.3 billion in 2024, and $8.9 billion in 2023.

Tesla had announced in January that it expected capital expenditures to be in excess of $20 billion in 2026, already a substantial increase meant to cover its AI initiatives, including investments in compute infrastructure and data centers, and the expansion and ramp of its manufacturing and R&D production lines, among other items.

This $5 billion uptick suggests these initiatives will require more money than previously planned. But so far, its quarterly capital expenditure, which was $2.5 billion, was in line with previous quarters, the report shows.

Of course, Musk views this as a positive, a sentiment many other shareholders will likely also share since it positions Tesla as a company investing in its future, namely AI and robotics.

“With 2026 we’re going to be substantially increasing our investments in the future,” Musk said in the earnings call Wednesday. “So you should expect to see significant, a very significant increase in capital expenditures, but I think well justified for a substantially increased future revenue stream.”

Musk was quick to note that Tesla isn’t the only company raising its capital expenditure budget. Amazon, for instance, has projected $200 billion in capital expenditures in 2026, across “AI, chips, robotics, and low earth orbit satellites.” Google is slated to spend between $175 billion and $185 billion in capital expenditures in 2026, up from $91.4 billion the previous year.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA | October 13-15, 2026

The increase in Tesla’s capital expenditures is linked to Musk’s desire and ambition to evolve the company beyond building and selling EVs, solar, and energy storage.

Some of the capex spend will go toward Tesla’s core technologies such as its battery and AI software, according to Musk. The company plans to invest in AI training, chip design, and “laying the groundwork” for increasing manufacturing production, as well as invest in its robotaxi operations and its new semiconductor research fab in Austin.

The Fremont, California, factory will likely suck up some of that capital as the company ends production of the Tesla Model S and Model X and begins building its Optimus humanoid robot at scale. The company said Wednesday it has also cleared ground outside its Austin factory for a dedicated Optimus manufacturing facility.

Tesla plans to increase its internal production of Optimus for testing and then “probably” make Optimus “useful outside of Tesla sometime next year,” he said.

Tesla is also putting money toward strengthening its supply chain “across the board,” Musk said, adding that this covers batteries, energy, and AI silicon.

All of this spending, which CFO Vaibhav Taneja said will last a couple of years, comes with a literal cost. The company — which enjoyed a brief 4% share price bump due, in part, to an unexpected $1.4 billion in free cash flow — will head into negative territory later this year, Taneja said.

Tesla shares erased their gains in after-hours trading as Musk and Taneja laid out these plans to investors. Still, Tesla is sitting on loads of cash. At the end of the first quarter, Tesla reported $44.7 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments.

“While this may seem like a lot, and we will have the impact of negative free cash flow for the rest of the year, we believe this is the right strategy to position the company for the next era,” Taneja said.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Tesla #increased #spending #plan #25B #heres #money #TechCrunchElon Musk,Tesla

Tesla CEO Elon Musk kicked off the company’s first-quarter earnings call with a monetary heads-up — or depending on the mindset of the investor, a warning. Tesla’s capital expenditures will skyrocket to $25 billion in 2026, far outpacing its previous annual spend as it races to stay ahead of the competition and transitions to an AI and robotics company, according to its first-quarter earnings report.

That figure, which covers what Tesla plans to spend on physical assets outside of its day-to-day operating expenditures, is three times higher than its annual capex budget in previous years. For comparison, Tesla’s annual capital expenditures were $8.5 billion in 2025, $11.3 billion in 2024, and $8.9 billion in 2023.

Tesla had announced in January that it expected capital expenditures to be in excess of $20 billion in 2026, already a substantial increase meant to cover its AI initiatives, including investments in compute infrastructure and data centers, and the expansion and ramp of its manufacturing and R&D production lines, among other items.

This $5 billion uptick suggests these initiatives will require more money than previously planned. But so far, its quarterly capital expenditure, which was $2.5 billion, was in line with previous quarters, the report shows.

Of course, Musk views this as a positive, a sentiment many other shareholders will likely also share since it positions Tesla as a company investing in its future, namely AI and robotics.

“With 2026 we’re going to be substantially increasing our investments in the future,” Musk said in the earnings call Wednesday. “So you should expect to see significant, a very significant increase in capital expenditures, but I think well justified for a substantially increased future revenue stream.”

Musk was quick to note that Tesla isn’t the only company raising its capital expenditure budget. Amazon, for instance, has projected $200 billion in capital expenditures in 2026, across “AI, chips, robotics, and low earth orbit satellites.” Google is slated to spend between $175 billion and $185 billion in capital expenditures in 2026, up from $91.4 billion the previous year.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

The increase in Tesla’s capital expenditures is linked to Musk’s desire and ambition to evolve the company beyond building and selling EVs, solar, and energy storage.

Some of the capex spend will go toward Tesla’s core technologies such as its battery and AI software, according to Musk. The company plans to invest in AI training, chip design, and “laying the groundwork” for increasing manufacturing production, as well as invest in its robotaxi operations and its new semiconductor research fab in Austin.

The Fremont, California, factory will likely suck up some of that capital as the company ends production of the Tesla Model S and Model X and begins building its Optimus humanoid robot at scale. The company said Wednesday it has also cleared ground outside its Austin factory for a dedicated Optimus manufacturing facility.

Tesla plans to increase its internal production of Optimus for testing and then “probably” make Optimus “useful outside of Tesla sometime next year,” he said.

Tesla is also putting money toward strengthening its supply chain “across the board,” Musk said, adding that this covers batteries, energy, and AI silicon.

All of this spending, which CFO Vaibhav Taneja said will last a couple of years, comes with a literal cost. The company — which enjoyed a brief 4% share price bump due, in part, to an unexpected $1.4 billion in free cash flow — will head into negative territory later this year, Taneja said.

Tesla shares erased their gains in after-hours trading as Musk and Taneja laid out these plans to investors. Still, Tesla is sitting on loads of cash. At the end of the first quarter, Tesla reported $44.7 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments.

“While this may seem like a lot, and we will have the impact of negative free cash flow for the rest of the year, we believe this is the right strategy to position the company for the next era,” Taneja said.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Source link
#Tesla #increased #spending #plan #25B #heres #money #TechCrunch

Previous post

Italy to replace Iran in FIFA World Cup 2026? Trump envoy seeks change: Reports <div id="content-body-70895576" itemprop="articleBody"><p>A top ​envoy to U.S. President Donald Trump has asked ‌FIFA to replace Iran with Italy in ​the upcoming World Cup, the <i>Financial ⁠Times </i>reported on Wednesday.</p><p>The plan is an effort to repair ties between Trump and Italy’s Prime Minister ‌Giorgia Meloni after the two fell out amid the American president’s attacks against ‌Pope Leo XIV over the Iran ‌war, ⁠the <i>FT </i>reported, citing people familiar with ⁠the matter.</p><p>“I confirm I have suggested to Trump and (FIFA president Gianni) Infantino that Italy replace Iran at the World ​Cup. I’m an ‌Italian native and it would be a dream to see the Azzurri at a US-hosted tournament. With four titles, they have the ‌pedigree to justify inclusion,” U.S. special envoy ​Paolo Zampolli told the <i>FT</i>.</p><p>The White House, FIFA, the Italian Football Federation(FIGC) ⁠and Iran’s football federation (FFIRI) did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.</p><p>Italy suffered a shock ‌in March after the national team missed out on the World Cup for the third time in a row following a 1-4 penalty shootout defeat to Bosnia and Herzegovina in their qualifying playoff final. Meanwhile, Iran has qualified for its fourth consecutive World Cup.</p><p>Iran reportedly issued a statement on Wednesday saying it was ​prepared for the tournament and planned to participate. Reuters could not immediately verify ⁠the report.</p><p>Iran had said earlier in April it would ⁠only decide on the national team’s participation in the World Cup once it ‌received a response from FIFA over the relocation of its matches from the U.S. ​to Mexico.</p><p class="publish-time" id="end-of-article">Published on Apr 23, 2026</p></div> #Italy #replace #Iran #FIFA #World #Cup #Trump #envoy #seeks #change #Reports

Next post

Deadspin | DC United ends scoring drought, earns 4-4 draw with Red Bulls <div id=""><section id="0" class=" w-full"><div class="xl:container mx-0 !px-4 py-0 pb-4 !mx-0 !px-0"><img src="https://images.deadspin.com/tr:w-900/28787725.jpg" srcset="https://images.deadspin.com/tr:w-900/28787725.jpg" alt="MLS: D.C. United at Red Bull New York" class="w-full" fetchpriority="high" loading="eager"/><span class="text-0.8 leading-tight">Apr 22, 2026; Harrison, New Jersey, USA; Red Bull New York forward Jorge Ruvalcaba (11) reacts after scoring a goal against D.C. United during the second half at Sports Illustrated Stadium. Mandatory Credit: John Jones-Imagn Images<!-- --> <!-- --> </span></div></section><section id="section-1"> <p>Tai Baribo scored his third goal in the 80th minute as D.C. United ended a long scoring drought and escaped with a 4-4 draw in an adrenaline-fueled match against the New York Red Bulls on Wednesday night in Harrison, N.J.</p> </section><section id="section-2"> <p>Jackson Hopkins added a goal and an assist for D.C. United (2-4-3, 9 points), who rallied from a two-goal deficit. D.C. has not won in its last five games, going 0-2-3 over that stretch.</p> </section><section id="section-3"> <p>The offensive splurge came from a D.C. team that entered the match with an MLS-low four goals. Baribo has now scored six of the team’s eight goals this season.</p> </section><section id="section-4"> <p>Jorge Ruvalcaba scored two spectacular goals in the second half for struggling New York (3-3-3, 12 points), which has won only one of its last seven MLS matches.</p> </section><section id="section-5"> <p>Ronald Donkor added a goal and two assists and Julian Hall scored his team-high sixth goal for the Red Bulls, who have surrendered 18 goals in their last five matches.</p> </section><section id="section-6"> <p>New York struck first in the 15th minute with a precise pair of passes by Adri Mehmeti and Donkor, which set up Hall for a low right-footed shot past on-rushing D.C. keeper Sean Johnson (one save).</p> </section><section id="section-7"> <p>Just six minutes later, the Red Bulls took advantage of a lack of pressure from the D.C. defense as a cross by 17-year-old Matthew Dos Santos was deflected by D.C. defender Aaron Herrera.</p> </section><br/><section id="section-8"> <p>The ball found Donkor in the center of the box and he fired a right-footed shot to the bottom left corner for a 2-0 lead.</p> </section> <section id="section-9"> <p>D.C. answered in the 37th minute in transition as Hopkins crossed from the right side to Baribo in the middle of the box. With a sliding right-footed shot, Baribo beat New York keeper Ethan Horvath (one save).</p> </section><section id="section-10"> <p>New York countered in the 52nd minute in transition as Emil Forsberg found Ruvalcaba sprinting down the left wing. Ruvalcaba beat one defender then watched another slide past before rifling a tough-angle shot into the top right corner for a 3-1 lead.</p> </section><section id="section-11"> <p>But D.C. answered, taking advantage of the tendency of the back line of New York to play too far forward. D.C.’s Joao Peglow won two balls near midfield and sent them forward for breakaway goals five minutes apart.</p> </section><section id="section-12"> <p>Hopkins scored the first to make it 3-2 and Baribo followed in the 59th minute to tie it up.</p> </section><section id="section-13"> <p>After Ruvalcaba scored again in transition in the 71st minute, Baribo answered from just in front of the goal line with his equalizer on a feed from Silvan Hefti, who had two assists in the match.</p> </section><section id="section-14"> <p>In stoppage time, D.C.’s Jacob Murrell appeared to score a transition goal but was called for a foul, shoving a defender out of his way before flicking in a shot with his left foot.</p> </section><section id="section-15"> <p>–Field Level Media</p> </section></div> #Deadspin #United #ends #scoring #drought #earns #draw #Red #Bulls


The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling.

Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said.

She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines.

Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.

#Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon">The Pentagon’s Case Against Anthropic Isn’t Going Well
                The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling. Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said. She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

 This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

 You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines. Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

 Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.        #Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon

Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said.

She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines.

Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.

#Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon">The Pentagon’s Case Against Anthropic Isn’t Going WellThe Pentagon’s Case Against Anthropic Isn’t Going Well
                The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling. Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said. She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

 This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

 You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines. Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

 Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.        #Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon

The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling.

Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said.

She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines.

Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.

#Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon

I was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.

More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety">Everyone Is Freaking Out About OpenAI and Anthropic’s Race for DominanceI was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety

OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety">Everyone Is Freaking Out About OpenAI and Anthropic’s Race for Dominance

I was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.

More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety

Post Comment