Category Archives: Elon Musk

Elon Musk dished out some words of advice to Taylor Swift after the pop star was recently chosen as Time magazines 2023 Person of the Year.

On Thursday, the SpaceX founder congratulated Swift on his X social media platform (formerly Twitter) before jokingly cautioning the singer that her social life could take a nosedive after scoring the honor, based on his experience.

Some risk of popularity decline after this award. I speak from experience lol, the billionaire tech mogul wrote under the stars post.

Back in 2021, Musk was named Person of the Year for solving the globes most intractable challenges and driving societys most daring and disruptive transformations, the magazine explained at the time.

Elon Musk's comments to Taylor Swift come amid histumultuous custody battle with his ex-girlfriend Grimes overtheir three children.

Since then, the Tesla CEO and X ownerhas been embroiled in several controversies, including engagingwith antisemitic content on social media and boosting the oldPizzagateconspiracy theory that first went viral in 2016 and led a man to fire a rifle inside a pizza place in Washington, D.C., in the delusional belief that he needed to rescue hidden child sex slaves.

Most recently, Musk, who remains the richest person in the world, was criticized for telling companies that have paused ad buys on X: Go fuck yourself.

If someone is going to try and blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself, he said at The New York Times DealBook Summit last week.Go fuck yourself. Is that clear? Hope it is.

Swift has not yet responded to Musks reply on X.

Read the original here:

Elon Musk Has A Warning For Taylor Swift On Becoming Time's Person Of The Year - Yahoo Entertainment

Last month, during an interview at The New York Times DealBook summit, X owner Elon Musk declared that the advertisers whod boycotted the platform in reaction to his endorsement of a wildly antisemitic post could go to hell. Dont advertise, he said before going on to specifically target Disney CEO Bob Iger. If someone is going to try to blackmail me with advertising? Blackmail me with money? Go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself, is that clear? Hey, Bob, if youre in the audience. Thats how I feel, dont advertise. A week and change later, (perhaps with the benefit of hindsight and maybe even a gentle reminder from shareholders that his job is not, in fact, to tank the company), has Musk decided to make nice with the companies upon whom X relies on revenue to survive? Not exactly!

Instead, on Thursday morning, he declared on X that Iger should be fired immediately and that Walt Disney is turning in his grave over what Bob has done to his company.

In November, Disney, along with IBM, Apple and others, pulled their advertising on X after Musk wrote, You have said the actual truth in response to a post accusing Jewish communities of pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. Musk later apologized, saying, It might be literally the worst and dumbest post Ive ever done,yet curiously, it remained on the site as of Friday:

MuskboughtTwitter in October 2022, andunder his tutelagethe company has gone from a valuation of$44 billion to $19 billion (he also, for some reason, changed the name to X). At the DealBook conference, after telling Iger and company to fuck yourself, Musk said: If the company fails because of an advertiser boycott, it will fail because of an advertiser boycott. And that will be what bankrupt the company, and thats what everybody on earth will know. Let the chips fall where they may.

See original here:

Elon Musk Says Bob Iger, the Disney CEO He Publicly Told to Fuck Yourself, Should Be Fired Immediately - Vanity Fair

In the ever-evolving landscape of cryptocurrencies, where innovation is the key to survival, BFIC stands out as more than just a digital asset. Its recent surge of 50% in value in mere three days, has turned heads, but what truly makes BFIC tick lies beyond the numbers. Let's dive into the cool tech features that make BFIC a standout player in the crypto crowd and explore the exciting possibilities that could propel it to the $50 mark.

Cutting-Edge Technology at the Core

Here are some of the standout features of BFIC:

Proof of Stake (PoS) Algorithm:

Unlike traditional Proof of Work (PoW) cryptocurrencies that require extensive computational power, BFIC utilizes a PoS algorithm. This not only reduces energy consumption but also enhances the scalability and efficiency of the BFIC blockchain.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) Integration:

BFIC isn't just a store of value; it's a gateway to decentralized finance. Its integration with DeFi platforms opens up opportunities for users to engage in a wide array of financial activities, including lending, borrowing, and yield farming.

Community Governance:

BFIC empowers its community through governance mechanisms. Token holders have a say in the decision-making process, fostering a decentralized and democratic ecosystem.

Security Measures:

Security is paramount in the world of cryptocurrencies. BFIC employs robust encryption techniques and smart contract auditing to ensure the integrity and safety of transactions within its network.

Interoperability with Other Networks:

BFIC allows for the tokenization of assets, enabling them to circulate not only within its network but also across other blockchain networks such as Ethereum. This interoperability enhances the versatility and utility of BFIC.

Recent Surge and the Path to $50

BFIC's recent surge in price reflects not only investor interest but also a growing recognition of its technological prowess. As of now, the coin has demonstrated resilience and strength, moving from $16.5 to $23.8 in just three days.

While specific price predictions are inherently speculative, the unique features of BFIC, coupled with its community support and strategic partnerships, position it as a contender for further growth. The $50 mark might not be an unrealistic goal given the momentum and the increasing adoption of BFIC in various applications.

Conclusion: BFIC's Journey Unfolding

BFIC is more than just a cryptocurrency; it's a technological marvel that continues to unfold its journey. Beyond the recent surge in numbers, the underlying tech features make BFIC a standout player in the crypto space. As the crypto community eagerly watches, the prospect of BFIC reaching $50 is not merely a numerical target; it's a symbol of the exciting possibilities that lie ahead in the world of blockchain innovation.

Elon Musk is the father of at least 10 children. He has five with his ex Justine Musk, who has written that she felt like an employee in their marriage, rather than a partner. He secretly had twins in 2021 with Shivon Zilis, an executive at his company Neuralink; the rumor among their colleagues, Reuters reported, was that there was no romance, just IVF. Musk confirmed last month that he and Grimes, his more recent ex, are the parents of three kids, two of whom were born via surrogacy. Grimes is now suing Musk for parental rights, having asked, Vulture reported, in a now-deleted X post: tell Elon to let me see my son.

Musks many, many kids and his pattern toward the women he has them with arent just fodder for gossip. Theyre connected to Musks larger worldviewone that the billionaire owner of an increasingly chaotic social media platform is now working to spread far beyond his own family.

Musk has been called the tech worlds highest-profile pronatalist, albeit unofficially by Insider, and its clear that at least some of his views line up with the movements. The pronatalists, or natalists, as some call themselves, believe that low birth ratesespecially low birth rates among the high-achieving and really smartis the No. 1 danger plaguing the nation, and the world writ large. This ranks the number of babies women are having as more important than income inequality, gun violence, or even the continued risk of climate disaster. Really: Elon Musk has called low birth rates a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming. They also believe that the biological effects of hormonal birth control and abortionwhich Musk has linked to the crumble of civilizationcoupled with a lack of support for parents and families are driving these decreasing birth rates.

Some of these concerns do make sense: Certainly, there should be much more support for parents, especially mothers, in the United States. Subsidized child care and a health care system where childbirth doesnt cost parents $10,000 on average would be a good place to start, in my opinion as a medical sociologist with training in reproductive health and demography. Easing financial barriers to parenthood, like housing prices and the student loan crisis, would help, too.

Some of the concerns of pronatalists, though, are downright disturbing, as well as misplaced: There is no evidence that womens ability to control their fertilitya practice that has always existed, if via other meansis the main driver of low birth rates. Nor should women be responsible for fixing demographic trends with their bodies. While some pronatalists proclaim they are pro-choice, some hint at the ills of abortion or are explicitly against it. Forced births are not a viable solution to a dip in birth rates. Further, pronatalism is at least sometimes tied to racism and the great replacement theory, a belief that nonwhites and immigrants will soon outnumber white voters in Western nations.

Globally, birth rates are declining, but the reality of this is more nuanced than pronatalists often paint it as being. Demographers agree that a fertility decline does not indicate the end of babies, but rather that many women are now delaying when they have children until they feel ready. Declining birth rates are also not a worrying long-term trend: Most of us were taught at one point that resources will soon be depleted due to too much population growth. An ebb can be viewed as good news.

Instead of working to make parenthood easier for anyone who does want kids, some of the loudest proponents, namely the Silicon Valley megawealthy, have committed themselves to solving this alleged societal ailment with blunt force: by reproducing as much as possible among themselves. You might remember the bespectacled Malcolm and Simone Collins, who penned an opinion piece in the New York Post in January titled Why the World Needs More Big Families Like Ours Amid the Population Crisis (a side benefit: growing our family has made us more efficient as CEOs, they wrote). In their own reproductive journey, they are having their embryos genetically tested for mental-performance-adjacent traits, according to reporting by Insider.

Their pronatalism extends far beyond their bedrooms. The Collinses, who run a pronatalist website, are now part of a lineup for the Natalist Conference taking place in Austin, Texas, this December, which will spread the seeds of their ideology. Among the 14 other speakers is The Raw Egg Nationalist, whom some will know as the author of the book about eating raw eggs to fight globalism in the food chain, or as a star in Tucker Carlons documentary The End of Men. Another speaker is Charles Haywood, who runs The Worthy House, a Substack focused on a post-liberal future and whose Twitter bio warns that that Moloch (a mythical god of child sacrifice) is within the gates. The Natalist Conference landing page warns: By the end of the century, nearly every country on earth will have a shrinking population and economic systems dependent on reliable growth will collapse. Thousands of unique cultures and populations will be snuffed out.

For his part, Musk has donated $10 million to the University of Texas in Austin, Bloomberg reported in August, to create the Population Wellbeing Initiative (PWI), a research program tasked with generating research on his concerns about there being too few babies. The director, Dean Spears, an economist who received the grant from Musk, has written about dwindling fertility rates possibly leading humanity to end with a whimper and penned an opinion piece in the New York Times last month about the global population peaking in our lifetimes. Though not all of the PWIs research directly speaks to Musks concerns, their research program overall can be used by pronatalists to promote their beliefs. If the birth rate is really such a dire issue for humanity, its not as big a leap to think that the uptake of birth control and general autonomy for women has gone too far. (That $10 million is also the kind of funding that, say, abortion research, which has long relied on private donors, could really, really use.)

Musk doesnt just want a big family for himself, and he isnt just being a jerk to his exes. Hes hoping that everyonewell, maybe just people who are like himwill have more babies. Hes using his influence and superlative wealth to support a movement that isnt good for women. And against the backdrop of the end of Roe v. Wade, we cant afford to look away.

Go here to see the original:

Elon Musk and pronatalism: His fight with Grimes is more than media spectacle. - Slate

Of all Elon Musks exploits the Tesla cars, the SpaceX rockets, the Twitter takeover, the plans to colonize Mars his secretive brain chip company Neuralink may be the most dangerous.

What is Neuralink for? In the short term, its for helping people with paralysis. But thats not the whole answer.

Launched in 2016, the company revealed in 2019 that it had created flexible threads that can be implanted into a brain, along with a sewing-machine-like robot to do the implanting. The idea is that these threads will read signals from a paralyzed patients brain and transmit that data to an iPhone or computer, enabling the patient to control it with just their thoughts no need to tap or type or swipe.

So far, Neuralink has only done testing on animals. But in May, the company announced it had won FDA approval to run its first clinical trial in humans. Now, its recruiting paralyzed volunteers to study whether the implant enables them to control external devices. If the technology works in humans, it could improve quality of life for millions of people. Approximately 5.4 million people are living with paralysis in the US alone.

But helping paralyzed people is not Musks end goal. Thats just a step on the way to achieving a much wilder long-term ambition.

That ambition, in Musks own words, is to achieve a symbiosis with artificial intelligence. His goal is to develop a technology that helps humans merg[e] with AI so that we wont be left behind as AI becomes more sophisticated.

This fantastical vision is not the sort of thing for which the FDA greenlights human trials. But work on helping people with paralysis? That can get a warmer reception. And so it has.

But its important to understand that this technology comes with staggering risks. Former Neuralink employees as well as experts in the field alleged that the company pushed for an unnecessarily invasive, potentially dangerous approach to the implants that can damage the brain (and apparently has done so in animal test subjects) to advance Musks goal of merging with AI.

Neuralink did not respond to a request for comment.

There are also ethical risks for society at large that go beyond just Neuralink. A number of companies are developing tech that plugs into human brains, which can decode whats going on in our minds and has the potential to erode mental privacy and supercharge authoritarian surveillance. We have to prepare ourselves for whats coming.

Neuralink is a response to one big fear: that AI will take over the world.

This is a fear thats increasingly widespread among AI leaders, who worry that we may create machines that are smarter than humans and that have the ability to deceive us and ultimately seize control from us.

In March, many of them, including Musk, signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause on developing AI systems more powerful than OpenAIs GPT-4. The letter warned that AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity and went on to ask: Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?

Although Musk is not alone in warning about civilizational risk posed by AI systems, where he differs from others is in his plan for warding off the risk. The plan is basically: If you cant beat em, join em.

Musk foresees a world where AI systems that can communicate information at a trillion bits per second will look down their metaphorical noses at humans, who can only communicate at 39 bits per second. To the AI systems, wed seem useless. Unless, perhaps, we became just like them.

A big part of that, in Musks view, is being able to think and communicate at the speed of AI. Its mostly about the bandwidth, the speed of the connection between your brain and the digital version of yourself, particularly output, he said in 2017. Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem.

Fast forward a half-dozen years, and you can see that Musk is still obsessed with this notion of bandwidth the rate at which computers can read out information from your brain. It is, in fact, the idea that drives Neuralink.

The Neuralink device is a brain implant, outfitted with 1,024 electrodes, that can pick up signals from a whole lot of neurons. The more electrodes youve got, the more neurons you can listen in on, and the more data youll get. Plus, the closer you can get to those neurons, the higher quality your data will be.

And the Neuralink device gets very close to the neurons. The companys procedure for implanting it requires drilling a hole in the skull and penetrating the brain.

But there are less extreme ways to go about this. Other companies are proving it. Lets break down what theyre doing and why Musk feels the need to do something different.

Neuralink isnt the only company exploring brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for restoring peoples physical capabilities. Other companies like Synchron, Blackrock Neurotech, Paradromics, and Precision Neuroscience are also working in this space. So is the US military.

In recent years, a lot of the research thats made headlines has focused on brain implants that would translate paralyzed peoples thoughts into speech. Mark Zuckerbergs Meta, for example, is working on BCIs that could pick up thoughts directly from your neurons and translate them into words in real time. (In the long term, the company says it aims to give everyone the ability to control keyboards, augmented reality glasses, and more, using just their thoughts.)

Earlier success in the BCI field focused not on speech, but on movement. In 2006, Matthew Nagle, a man with spinal cord paralysis, received a brain implant that allowed him to control a computer cursor. Soon Nagle was playing Pong using only his mind.

Nagles brain implant, developed by the research consortium BrainGate, contained a Utah array, a cluster of 100 spiky electrodes that is surgically embedded into the brain. Thats only around one-tenth of the electrodes in Neuralinks device. But it still enabled a paralyzed person to move a cursor, check email, adjust the volume or channel on a TV, and control a robotic limb. Since then, others with paralysis have achieved similar feats with BCI technology.

While early technologies like the Utah array protruded awkwardly from the skull, newer BCIs are invisible to the outside observer once theyre implanted, and some are much less invasive.

Synchrons BCI, for example, builds on stent technology thats been around since the 1980s. A stent is a metal scaffold that you can introduce into a blood vessel; it can be safely left there for decades (and has been in many cardiac patients, keeping their arteries open). Synchron uses a catheter to send a stent up into a blood vessel in the motor cortex of the brain. Once there, the stent unfurls like a flower, and sensors on it pick up signals from neurons. This has already enabled several paralyzed people to tweet and text with their thoughts.

No open brain surgery necessary. No drilling holes in the skull.

Musk himself has said that BCIs wouldnt necessarily require open brain surgery, in a telling five-minute video at Recodes Code Conference in 2016. You could go through the veins and arteries, because that provides a complete roadway to all of your neurons, he said. You could insert something basically into the jugular and...

After the audience laughed nervously, he added, It doesnt involve chopping your skull off or anything like that.

In Neuralinks early years, before the company had settled on its current approach which does involve drilling into the skull one of its research teams allegedly looked into the tamer intravascular approach, four former Neuralink employees told me. This team explored the option of delivering a device to the brain through an artery and demonstrated that it was feasible.

But by 2019, Neuralink had rejected this option, choosing instead to go with the more invasive surgical robot that implants threads directly into the brain.

Why? If the intravascular approach can restore key functioning to paralyzed patients, and also avoids some of the safety risks that come with crossing the blood-brain barrier, such as inflammation and scar tissue buildup in the brain, why opt for something more invasive than necessary?

The company isnt saying. But according to Hirobumi Watanabe, who led Neuralinks intravascular research team in 2018, the main reason was the companys obsession with maximizing bandwidth.

The goal of Neuralink is to go for more electrodes, more bandwidth, Watanabe said, so that this interface can do way more than what other technologies can do.

After all, Musk has suggested that a seamless merge with machines could enable us to do everything from enhancing our memory to uploading our minds and living forever staples of Silicon Valleys transhumanist fantasies. Which perhaps helps make sense of the companys dual mission: to create a generalized brain interface to restore autonomy to those with unmet medical needs today and unlock human potential tomorrow.

Neuralink is explicitly aiming at producing general-purpose neural interfaces, the Munich-based neuroethicist Marcello Ienca told me. To my knowledge, they are the only company that is currently planning clinical trials for implantable medical neural interfaces while making public statements about future nonmedical applications of neural implants for cognitive enhancement. To create a general-purpose technology, you need to create a seamless interface between humans and computers, enabling enhanced cognitive and sensory abilities. Achieving this vision may indeed require more invasive methods to achieve higher bandwidth and precision.

Watanabe believes Neuralink prioritized maximizing bandwidth because that serves Musks goal of creating a generalized BCI that lets us merge with AI and develop all sorts of new capacities. Thats what Elon Musk is saying, so thats what the company has to do, he said.

The intravascular approach didnt seem like it could deliver as much bandwidth as the invasive approach. Staying in the blood vessels may be safer, but the downside is that you dont have access to as many neurons. Thats the biggest reason they did not go for this approach, Watanabe said. Its rather sad. He added that he believed Neuralink was too quick to abandon the minimally invasive approach. We could have pushed this project forward.

For Tom Oxley, the CEO of Synchron, this raises a big question. The question is, does a clash emerge between the short-term goal of patient-oriented clinical health outcomes and the long-term goal of AI symbiosis? he told me. I think the answer is probably yes.

It matters what youre designing for and if you have a patient problem in mind, Oxley added. Synchron could theoretically build toward increasing bandwidth by miniaturizing its tech and going into deeper branches of the blood vessels; research shows this is viable. But, he said, we chose a point at which we think we have enough signal to solve a problem for a patient.

Ben Rapoport, a neurosurgeon who left Neuralink to found Precision Neuroscience, emphasized that any time youve got electrodes penetrating the brain, youre doing some damage to brain tissue. And thats unnecessary if your goal is helping paralyzed patients.

I dont think that tradeoff is required for the kind of neuroprosthetic function that we need to restore speech and motor function to patients with stroke and spinal cord injury, Rapoport told me. One of our guiding philosophies is that building a high-fidelity brain-computer interface system can be accomplished without damaging the brain.

To prove that you dont need Muskian invasiveness to achieve high bandwidth, Precision has designed a thin film that coats the surface of the brain with 1,024 electrodes the same number of electrodes in Neuralinks implant that deliver signals similar to Neuralinks. The film has to be inserted through a slit in the skull, but the advantage is that it sits on the brains surface without penetrating it. Rapoport calls this the Goldilocks solution, and its already been implanted in a handful of patients, recording their brain activity at high resolution.

Its key to do a very, very safe procedure that doesnt damage the brain and that is minimally invasive in nature, Rapoport said. And furthermore, that as we scale up the bandwidth of the system, the risk to the patient should not increase.

This makes sense if your most cherished ambition is to help patients improve their lives as much as possible without courting undue risk. But Musk, we know, has other ambitions.

What Neuralink doesnt seem to be very interested in is that while a more invasive approach might offer advantages in terms of bandwidth, it raises greater ethical and safety concerns, Ienca told me. At least, I havent heard any public statement in which they indicate how they intend to address the greater privacy, safety, and mental integrity risks generated by their approach. This is strange because according to international research ethics guidelines it wouldnt be ethical to use a more invasive technology if the same performance can be achieved using less invasive methods.

More invasive methods, by their nature, can do real damage to the brain as Neuralinks experiments on animals have shown.

Some Neuralink employees have come forward to speak on behalf of the pigs and monkeys used in the companys experiments, saying they suffered and died at higher rates than necessary because the company was rushing and botching surgeries. Musk, they alleged, was pushing the staff to get FDA approval quickly after hed repeatedly predicted the company would soon start human trials.

One example of a grisly error: In 2021, Neuralink implanted 25 out of 60 pigs with devices that were the wrong size. Afterward, the company killed all the affected pigs. Staff told Reuters that the mistake could have been averted if theyd had more time to prepare.

Veterinary reports indicate that Neuralinks monkeys also suffered gruesome fates. In one monkey, a bit of the device broke off during implantation in the brain. The monkey scratched and yanked until part of the device was dislodged, and infections took hold. Another monkey developed bleeding in her brain, with the implant leaving parts of her cortex tattered. Both animals were euthanized.

Last December, the US Department of Agricultures Office of Inspector General launched an investigation into possible animal welfare violations at Neuralink. The company is also facing a probe from the Department of Transportation over worries that implants removed from monkeys brains may have been packaged and moved unsafely, potentially exposing people to pathogens.

Past animal experiments [at Neuralink] revealed serious safety concerns stemming from the products invasiveness and rushed, sloppy actions by company employees, said the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit that opposes animal testing, in a May statement. As such, the public should continue to be skeptical of the safety and functionality of any device produced by Neuralink.

Nevertheless, the FDA has cleared the company to begin human trials.

The company has provided sufficient information to support the approval of its IDE [investigational device exemption] application to begin human trials under the criteria and requirements of the IDE approval, the FDA said in a statement to Vox, adding, The agencys focus for determining approval of an IDE is based on assessing the safety profile for potential subjects, ensuring risks are appropriately minimized and communicated to subjects, and ensuring the potential for benefit, including the value of the knowledge to be gained, outweighs the risk.

Beyond what the surgeries will mean for the individuals who get recruited for Neuralinks trials, there are ethical concerns about what BCI technology means for society more broadly. If high-bandwidth implants of the type Musk is pursuing really do allow unprecedented access to whats happening in peoples brains, that could make dystopian possibilities more likely. Some neuroethicists argue that the potential for misuse is so great that we need revamped human rights laws to protect us before we move forward.

For one thing, our brains are the final privacy frontier. Theyre the seat of our personal identity and our most intimate thoughts. If those precious three pounds of goo in our craniums arent ours to control, what is?

In China, the government is already mining data from some workers brains by having them wear caps that scan their brainwaves for emotional states. In the US, the military is looking into neurotechnologies to make soldiers more fit for duty more alert, for instance.

And some police departments around the world have been exploring brain fingerprinting technology, which analyzes automatic responses that occur in our brains when we encounter stimuli we recognize. (The idea is that this could enable police to interrogate a suspects brain; their brain responses would be more negative for faces or phrases they dont recognize than for faces or phrases they do recognize.) Brain fingerprinting tech is scientifically questionable, yet Indias police have used it since 2003, Singapores police bought it in 2013, and the Florida state police signed a contract to use it in 2014.

Imagine a scenario where your government uses BCIs for surveillance or interrogations. The right to not self-incriminate enshrined in the US Constitution could become meaningless in a world where the authorities are empowered to eavesdrop on your mental state without your consent.

Experts also worry that devices like those being built by Neuralink may be vulnerable to hacking. What happens if youre using one of them and a malicious actor intercepts the Bluetooth connection, changing the signals that go to your brain to make you more depressed, say, or more compliant?

Neuroethicists refer to that as brainjacking. This is still hypothetical, but the possibility has been demonstrated in proof-of-concept studies, Ienca told me in 2019. A hack like this wouldnt require that much technological sophistication.

Finally, consider how your psychological continuity or fundamental sense of self could be disrupted by the imposition of a BCI or by its removal. In one study, an epileptic woman whod been given a BCI came to feel such a radical symbiosis with it that, she said, It became me. Then the company that implanted the device in her brain went bankrupt and she was forced to have it removed. She cried, saying, I lost myself.

To ward off the risk of a hypothetical all-powerful AI in the future, Musk wants to create a symbiosis between your brain and machines. But the symbiosis generates its own very real risks and they are upon us now.

Will you support Voxs explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what were trying to do at Vox, there are a couple reasons that we can't rely only on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on.

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, were not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe thats an important part of building a more equal society. We cant do that if we have a paywall.

Thats why we also turn to you, our readers, to help us keep Vox free. If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today?

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Read this article:

Elon Musks Neuralink wants to merge your brain with AI at what cost? - Vox.com

Benzinga - by Bibhu Pattnaik, Benzinga Staff Writer.

Two of the tech industry's most influential figures, Elon Musk and Steve Jobs, have been the subject of intense scrutiny and admiration.

What Happened: A biography of Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson sheds light on their similarities, differences and the nuances that defined their leadership styles, according to Insider.

Both leaders, according to Isaacson, exhibited a certain "dark streak" in their personalities. This often manifested as brutally candid feedback, pushing their respective teams toward perfection. However, this approach, while driving innovation, sometimes bordered on being excessively critical, Isaacson noted.

Another shared trait was their tendency to overshadow their co-founders (Steve Wozniak at Apple Inc. and Martin Eberhard at Tesla Inc), according to Isaacson.

Also Read: Steve Jobs Shares Words of Wisdom: 'You've Got To Find What You Love, Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish'

Musk's and Jobs' ambitious nature also reportedly led them to set challenging deadlines, driving rapid progress but at times straining team morale.

However, Isaacson noted one stark contrast between the two was Musk's deep involvement in engineering. Unlike Jobs, who was more design-centric, Musk delved into the intricacies of manufacturing, emphasizing continuous innovation.

"Musk spends about 10 times more of his mental and physical presence on the factory lines as he does in the design room, and he believes that designing the machine that makes the machine is more important than designing the original product," Isaacson said at an event organized by the Economic Club of New York last month. "He feels that you can't be innovative unless you're iterating on an hourly basis."

Now Read: Elon Musk Says You Need 2 Things To Be 'Fully Happy,' If You Lack 1 You'll Be 'Half Happy'

This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.

Photo: Shutterstock

2023 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Read the original article on Benzinga

See the original post here:

Elon Musk Vs. Steve Jobs: Walter Isaacson Delves Into The Minds Of Two Tech Titans By Benzinga - Investing.com UK