u/DigiHold

Musk's entire mega lawsuit against OpenAI fell apart in less than two hours of jury deliberation, and from what I can tell the jury never even got to the actual question of whether OpenAI did anything wrong. They just decided he sued too late and that was the whole show.

For anyone who hasn't followed this circus, Musk was one of the original co-founders of OpenAI when it was a research nonprofit that was supposed to stay that way forever. He had a falling out, walked away from the board, and then watched from the sidelines as OpenAI converted to a for-profit structure, partnered with Microsoft, and somehow became the company that ate the AI industry. He's been furious about it for years, finally sued saying they basically robbed a charity, and his expert valued the wrongful gains at somewhere between 78 and 135 billion.

The judge wasn't subtle about her opinion either. During the damages hearing she told Musk's own expert that his entire analysis seemed to have nothing to do with the actual facts of the case, which is the kind of thing you don't want to hear from a federal judge while you're still on the stand trying to defend your number. Then the jury came back in basically a coffee break and said he waited too long anyway, so the damages question never really mattered.

His lawyer is talking appeal so this drags into next year probably, but appeals don't usually save you when the statute of limitations is the issue. Either the deadline had passed or it hadn't, not really a question of interpretation.

If this had gone the other way, OpenAI would have been on the hook for a massive damages judgment, Altman could have been pushed out, and the whole Microsoft structure that funds basically everything you actually use when you talk to ChatGPT would have been thrown into serious chaos. None of that is happening now.

Anyone here following the trial closely? Curious if I'm missing something on the appeal angle.

An artist on X posted a Claude Monet water lilies painting from 1915 and told everyone he generated it with AI, then asked to explain why it looked inferior to a real Monet.

Hundreds of confident people called it the kind of slop you'd expect from a high school art assignment. The painting actually hangs in a museum and has been there since long before AI existed.

This same reflex shows up everywhere online now. Write a normal post or a personal comment, and a chunk of people will scream "AI slop" without reading the second sentence. People flag a photo because the lighting looks too clean, an email because the writer used a colon, a LinkedIn caption because somebody happens to write in clear English without typos.

Most of the people doing it can't actually tell the difference, they've just decided in advance that anything they don't vibe with must be AI, and the label does all the work for their eyes. A lot of that anger isn't really about the writing or the picture either, it's about jobs and the quiet fear of AI taking over what you do for a living. Yelling "AI slop" feels like punching back at the thing that's threatening them, and it costs nothing.

Plenty of AI output really is lazy and forgettable, but if your slop detector pings on a Monet from 1915 or on a person who just happens to write in full sentences, then your detector isn't really a detector, it's a reflex dressed up in confidence.

Anyone else getting called AI lately for stuff you wrote yourself? Do you think this calms down once people realize how often they're wrong, or does it just get worse?

Original post from X: https://x.com/SHL0MS/status/2054280631807316329

Trump came back from his China trip Friday and told reporters something nobody expected. Beijing isn't actually buying Nvidia's chips, and not because the US blocked the sale, this time China itself said no.

His own Commerce Department had cleared Alibaba, Tencent, ByteDance, JD.com and a few others to buy the H200. The companies placed their orders, then pulled them after Beijing told them not to bother. Trump's exact words about why: "they want to develop their own".

That basically means Beijing wants its money going to Huawei instead of an American company that could get cut off again next time the political wind shifts.

Jensen Huang, Nvidia's CEO, said his China market share went from around 95% to essentially zero. That's the most valuable company in the world losing the entire Chinese market.

There's also a strange detail most people glossed over. Under the new export framework, every H200 sold into China comes with a 25% fee that goes straight to the US Treasury. America was about to collect a cut on every single sale, and China still said thanks but no.

To me this is the moment the AI chip war stopped being one-sided. For years Washington was the one deciding who China could buy from. Now Beijing is deciding it doesn't want to buy at all.

Anyone else surprised by how this played out?

The Musk vs Altman trial wrapped Thursday and the jury starts deliberating Monday. Musk wants 150 billion dollars clawed back from OpenAI for what he says was a stolen charity, but the case might not even get to the moral stuff. OpenAI's defense is mostly statute of limitations, and a forensic accountant testified that all of Musk's donations were already spent before the lawsuit was filed. If the jury buys that, the whole thing dies on a technicality.

Shivon Zilis, who happens to be Musk's adviser and the mother of several of his kids, sat on OpenAI's board and voted to approve contested transactions Musk is now suing over. She allegedly didn't tell the other board members about her personal relationship with him for years. So part of Musk's case rests on deals his own ally on the board approved while keeping a major conflict of interest quiet.

Then there's Musk himself, who skipped closing arguments and flew to China with Trump while the trial was wrapping. The judge had explicitly told him he was still subject to recall and could be brought back at any moment. He left anyway without asking for permission. OpenAI's lawyer used the empty chair in closing, basically pointing out to the jury that his clients showed up while Musk did not.

The verdict is technically advisory, and the judge has the final call. But if the jurors side with Musk, that could mean the end of OpenAI as a for-profit company.

Anyone else following this, and how do you think the jury votes Monday?

Last October OpenAI quietly let over 600 of its employees cash out $6.6 billion in stock. What can be interesting isn't the money itself, it's what 600 newly rich AI staffers tend to do with their next decade.

When PayPal got sold to eBay back in the early 2000s, a small group of its early employees walked away with serious money. They went on to build SpaceX, YouTube, LinkedIn, Palantir, and Yelp. They later helped fund a lot of the major Silicon Valley startups that came after. People called them the PayPal mafia.

OpenAI just did the same thing on a much bigger scale. And this isn't your average tech crowd. The group includes the engineers and researchers who built ChatGPT, trained the latest models, and figured out how the most advanced AI systems actually work on the inside.

This pattern has already started, even before this share sale. There are already around 18 startups out there founded by ex-OpenAI people: Anthropic (now one of the most valuable AI companies in the world, co-founded by former OpenAI execs Dario and Daniela Amodei), Perplexity (the AI search tool), Safe Superintelligence (Ilya Sutskever's new project), Thinking Machines (started by Mira Murati, OpenAI's former CTO), Periodic Labs (AI for finding new materials), plus a long tail of smaller ones. And this is before the deal that just made hundreds more of them generationally rich.

Now imagine hundreds of them have life-changing money in the bank, full insider knowledge, and a real choice to either stay or leave. Most will stay because the work is the most exciting thing happening in tech right now. But a meaningful chunk of them will leave. Those leavers will spread out and start the next generation of AI companies. That means more options for users, and real competition coming from outside the usual handful of labs.

If you've been frustrated by the same handful of AI tools dominating everything, this share sale is actually good news. The next wave of AI products is probably being planned right now by people who used to ship features inside OpenAI.

Anyone here watching the OpenAI alumni founder list? Anything specific you're hoping comes out of this?

Greg Brockman is the president of OpenAI, the company that makes ChatGPT. Back in 2017 he kept a private journal on his computer where he vented about Elon Musk, who at the time co-chaired OpenAI's board and was one of the early funders backing the project. That journal just got dragged into the open in federal court in Oakland, where Musk is suing OpenAI for $150 billion claiming they betrayed the nonprofit promise the whole project was built on.

Musk's lawyer pulled it up on a screen and read entries out loud to the jury. One line from a November 2017 entry: "the true answer is that we want him out". Another from the same entry: "it'd be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. to convert to a b-corp without him. that'd be pretty morally bankrupt". And this fragment from the same page: "cannot say that we are committed to the non-profit".

So the president of the company is on the record, in his own private diary, naming the exact move they were thinking about and saying out loud that it would be wrong to do, and then a few years later that's basically what happened. OpenAI did restructure last October into a for-profit public benefit corporation, though a nonprofit foundation technically still sits on top. Musk eventually walked away from the OpenAI board entirely. The "nonprofit lab to save humanity" pitch from the early days turned into a Microsoft-backed company now bigger than most public corporations on earth.

The trial is still going for a couple more weeks, Brockman's diary was just one piece of evidence. The former CTO of OpenAI also got pulled in via video deposition and the gist there was no kinder. So there's probably more of this coming.

Anyone else been following this trial? What's been the most damning thing read out so far?

If you use Claude for coding, your usage just doubled today! 🥳

Anthropic announced today that they signed a deal with SpaceX to use an entire data center's worth of compute. That's over 220,000 NVIDIA chips coming online for Anthropic within the month, those chips are basically what run Claude when you chat with it or ask it to write code.

The usage caps on Claude Code Pro and Max plans got doubled, the peak hours throttle is gone, and the API limits for the most powerful Claude models went way up.

This is on top of major compute deals Anthropic already signed with Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Nvidia. Every AI company is in a knife fight right now to lock up chips, and the customer (us) is getting better limits as a side effect.

Anyone here actually hitting the old Claude Code limits regularly? Is doubling enough, or are you still bumping into walls?

Read more at: https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex

The OpenAI vs Elon Musk trial has been running for a week in Oakland, and on Sunday OpenAI dropped a courtroom bomb that's more interesting than half the actual case.

Two days before the trial started, Musk texted Greg Brockman (OpenAI's president and co-founder) asking if he wanted to settle. Brockman wrote back suggesting both sides just drop their cases and call it a day. Musk's reply, according to OpenAI's filing: "By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be".

That's a settlement attempt that lasted a polite reply, then turned into a public-shaming threat two days before opening arguments.

The judge already ruled the jury can't see those texts but OpenAI's filing made them public anyway, which is kind of the point. Their lawyers literally told the court they want it admitted to show motive, that Musk is suing to damage a competitor, not to right a wrong.

Musk had just spent three full days on the stand telling the jury OpenAI betrayed a charity. Then it turns out he'd quietly offered to make the whole lawsuit go away if the other side gave up too. If you actually think a company stole a charitable mission, you don't text them and offer to drop your case for a handshake.

The trial runs through mid-May, and Brockman is taking the stand this week. The jury technically won't hear about the texts, but every reporter has, which means everyone outside the courtroom has too. So whichever way the verdict goes, the public version of this story is already kind of decided.

What do you think happens next, does this swing the jury anyway, or do they buy the charity betrayal version?

OpenAI is reportedly making its own phone, and there are no apps on it. The whole pitch is one AI agent that handles everything you'd normally bounce between all your apps to do. Want to book a flight or pull up your bank balance, you just tell the AI and it gets it done. The agent runs the show, the screen mostly disappears.

This isn't OpenAI talking, it's coming from an analyst who leaks Apple stuff months before it ships. He says OpenAI has lined up two of the biggest mobile chip designers and one of the factories that assembles iPhones, so the people putting it together actually know how to make a phone. Mass production is supposed to start in 2028.

Since the iPhone launched, your phone has been a screen full of square icons you tap, and Apple basically defined what a phone is. If this thing ships and people like it, that whole model is up for grabs. Imagine never opening Uber, your bank, or Spotify again, you just talk to one thing and it talks to all of them.

A phone with no apps means OpenAI sits between you and every service you use online. Apple currently takes a cut on every app sale, and in this version OpenAI becomes the new gatekeeper, deciding which services the agent calls when you ask for a ride or a meal. That's a lot of power for one company to hold!

To be clear, nothing is confirmed, OpenAI has only said publicly that they're shipping some hardware later this year, probably earbuds, and everything about a phone is rumor based.

But every big AI lab is pushing toward agents that do stuff for you, and a phone built around that idea was always coming. Question is whether OpenAI gets there first, or Google or Apple bake it into what's already in your pocket.

Anyone here actually want a phone with no apps? Or does that sound like a nightmare?

The standard launch playbook gives you 3 options for finding your first customers: SEO content, paid ads, or cold outreach, all 3 are broken for new SaaS founders.

SEO does not rank a brand new domain for 6 to 12 months, paid ads at $50 to $100 cost make no sense when you have no idea what your customer lifetime value is, and cold emails don't work well because every prospect easily spots AI-written content. I get like 5 emails a day that try to sell me something, it is so generic and nothing personal that I delete them instantly.

What works for new SaaS is the opposite of broadcast outreach. It is one prospect at a time, contacted with a message that opens around something specific from their actual profile, not a generic compliment.

Because let's be honest, who still fell for crappy AI cold emails like :

Hey Nicolas,
Saw your product, nice work by the way.
Did you know that my amazing and never done before SaaS can help you get more customers?
Let's talk about it!

That goes directly to trash!

The correct way is signal-based outreach, the industry data shows a 20x improvement related to cold outreach like above.

The reason most founders never run it is that doing it manually takes too long per prospect, which is unsustainable when you need 25 conversations a week to find 3 customers. So they give up and go back to templates that do not work.

The unlock is using AI to compress the manual work without compromising the personalization. Here is the 4-step process that takes about 30 minutes total instead of 6 hours.

The first step is defining your ICP precisely (ICP stands for Ideal Customer Profile for people who don't know), which is a structured brief covering job titles, industries, company size, company stage, and the in-market headline signals your prospects actually use.

The second step is finding your ICP in LinkedIn.

The third step is extracting and scoring profiles via Claude. It parses out each profile, scores them 0 to 10 on ICP fit, and returns a ranked table with the top 25 names to message.

The fourth step is writing the 25 messages, you paste the top 25 profiles into a final Claude prompt that produces 25 unique DMs, each one opening with something specific from that prospect's profile and ending with one open question. No pitch or calendar link in the first message, the goal is a conversation, not a close.

I wrote up the actual prompts I use at each step, with example outputs into a free playbook for LinkedIn, here if anyone wants it: Claude Playbook for LinkedIn Outreach

For the people who got past their first 10 customers without paid ads or a pre-existing audience, what channel finally worked for you?

A guy named Zhou in Hangzhou got demoted to a lower role with a 40% pay cut after AI took over his work. He sued his company and won. The judges ruled the dismissal illegal and ordered compensation, and a higher court upheld it on appeal.

The court said adopting AI is a voluntary business decision. If a company wants to automate to stay competitive that's fine, but it has to negotiate with the worker, retrain them, or find them another role before pulling the plug. Firing someone and pocketing the savings doesn't fly.

A second case in Beijing went the same way at the end of last year. A guy who'd been hired years ago to do manual map data entry was let go when his company switched to AI-based data collection. The labor bureau called it deliberate and predictable, not some surprise the worker should have to absorb. He won and got compensated too.

What's interesting is China didn't pass a law for this. The courts did it case by case using existing labor law, no new AI regulations required. That's a much faster path than waiting for legislation to catch up.

The US has nothing like this and probably never will. The legal default here puts way more weight on the employer's right to restructure. So if you're working in a US job that AI can plausibly do, you don't have a court that's going to go to bat for you.

But that's not where this story ends. A bunch of countries have stronger labor protections by default already, with collective bargaining, mandatory consultation before layoffs, and severance rules that make mass firings expensive. The legal architecture is there. What's missing in those places is a specific automation-replacement precedent, and the Hangzhou ruling gives their courts a model to point at the next time a worker walks in with the same fact pattern.

Personally, I think this is going to spread. Not because Chinese precedent has any direct authority elsewhere, but because the legal logic is clean and reusable: automation is the company's voluntary choice, so the company can't shift the cost onto the employee. That argument works in any country with a serious labor code.

What this means for everyone else is geography just became part of your career risk. A junior backoffice job in a country with strong labor protection is way safer than the same job in the US, and the gap is going to widen if the Hangzhou logic spreads.

Anyone here in a country with strong labor laws? Curious if your company is talking about AI replacement openly or quietly hoping nobody asks.

Elon Musk took the stand yesterday and admitted that xAI (the company behind Grok) trained their AI by copying OpenAI's models. He didn't fully admit it, he said "partly", but on record, in federal court.

This is the exact thing OpenAI and Anthropic have been raising alarms about for months, especially when Chinese companies do it. The technique is called distillation, and in plain English it means you ask another company's AI a million questions, save all the answers, and then use those answers to train your own cheaper AI. You skip the years of research and the billions of dollars they spent.

OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google even teamed up to fight this. They built shared tools to spot when someone is hammering their AI with thousands of weird questions, so they can shut them down before they copy enough.

And now one of their own American competitors just confirmed in court that yes, US labs do this to each other too. From what I've read it's not technically illegal, more of a terms-of-service violation, but the optics are rough for the "we're being copied unfairly" story.

The reason Musk was even on the stand is that he's suing OpenAI and Sam Altman because OpenAI was supposed to be a nonprofit and turned into a for-profit company. Different fight, but his admission is the bigger story for anyone trying to figure out who's playing fair in this race.

The "us vs China" framing the big labs have been using is going to be harder to sell now that one of them just admitted to doing it to its American rivals.

Anyone else watching this trial? Curious if I'm reading too much into a one-word answer or if this is actually a big deal.

Anthropic has an AI called Mythos that even Anthropic itself doesn't want to release publicly. It can find security holes in software on its own, the kind that hackers normally spend years hunting for. Right now only about 50 companies have access to it.

Anthropic wanted to expand that to roughly 120 companies but the Trump administration just blocked the move.

What's interesting is the reasoning behind the block. It's not only security worries, the White House also said Anthropic doesn't have enough computing power to serve that many companies without slowing down the government's own access. Basically the government is already using it and doesn't want its access slowed down.

This is happening on top of a months-long fight between Anthropic and the Pentagon. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth labeled the company a "supply chain risk" earlier this year after Anthropic refused to let the military use its AI for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. A new White House memo is reportedly going to address parts of that dispute too.

For regular people this can feel kind of academic. None of us are getting Mythos access either way. But it's the first real test of how the next generation of super-powerful AI tools actually get distributed, who controls the dial, who sits at the front of the line, who has to wait.

Either way this freeze probably has a short shelf life. People who follow this stuff figure the other top AI labs will catch up within six months. You can lock down one tool, but you can't really lock down a capability that's about to be standard across the whole industry.

How do you think this plays out, more access, less access, or something else entirely?

Mark Zuckerberg's research nonprofit just put $500 million on the table to build AI models that can simulate human cells. Not chatbots, not image generators, actual predictive models of how the cells in your body behave when something goes wrong.

Biohub is the science arm of CZI, the philanthropy Zuckerberg runs with his wife Priscilla Chan. Yesterday they announced a five-year plan to bankroll the data and tools needed to build what they're calling "virtual biology". Most of the money goes into actually generating new biological data and building the imaging tech to capture cell behavior at a scale that doesn't exist today, and the rest funds outside research labs joining the global effort. Nvidia is in on the compute side, and the Allen Institute plus a few other major biology orgs are joining on the data side.

The bet is that the same scaling trick that made ChatGPT good at language and made Google's protein-folding AI good at biology can also work on cells, if you feed it enough data. Right now the biggest cell datasets the AI biology field has cap out around a billion cells, and the guy running the project says they need way more than that before the models really get good. So a chunk of the money is literally paying to grow cells and image them on an industrial scale.

If it works, the payoff is huge. Demis Hassabis, who runs Google's AI lab, has been saying for years that AI could eventually help cure most diseases, and this Biohub thing is the same idea with real money behind it.

The honest question is whether biology actually scales the same way language did. Cells are way messier than text, because a typo in a sentence doesn't cascade through your whole body but a misfiring protein does. Throwing more data at the problem might not be enough if the data we already have is the wrong kind of data. Five years from now we'll either have models that predict drug responses before a single human trial, or we'll have a very expensive imaging archive and a few interesting papers.

For now it looks like a smart bet. Biology is one of the few areas where more data probably is the actual bottleneck, and pushing it all into the open instead of locking it up is the kind of thing only philanthropy can really do at this scale.

What do you think, is this where AI actually starts changing lives, or is the cell too complicated for the scaling playbook to work?

Jensen Huang runs Nvidia, the chip company that basically powers every AI tool you've heard of, and he just told a Stanford audience that AI agents aren't going to fire anyone. They'll just turn into an annoying manager who won't shut up.

His exact words: "Your agents are harassing you, micromanaging you, and you're busier than ever".

Honestly that tracks with what already happens to me. I've got a setup with multiple AI agents handling marketing stuff for my SaaS, and most days they ping me with "hey, this draft is ready, go review it" or "I noticed engagement dropped, want me to test something" or "you have 4 outreach replies needing approval". It's useful, but it's also nonstop. The bottleneck isn't the AI doing the work anymore. The bottleneck is me clicking yes on what the AI just did.

Huang's bigger point is that the whole "AI is going to take your job" panic has the wrong shape. He thinks more people will be working after this shift than before it, just with different tools. He said something on a recent podcast about how the purpose of your job and the tools you use to do your job aren't actually the same thing. So the tools change, the work changes, the title might even change, but a human still sits somewhere in the loop.

And remember, Nvidia has more financial reason to hype AI than any company on earth. Huang could've gone full "AI will replace half of white-collar work in 5 years" and his stock would've jumped. Instead he picks the most boring possible vision, AI agents are just going to make your inbox worse.

I think he's mostly right. The people I see actually using AI agents day to day aren't sitting on a beach. They're context-switching between 6 agents that all want a decision from them. If you imagined AI as your assistant, surprise, you're now a middle manager and the assistant is the team.

Anyone else noticing this in their own setup? Are your AI tools actually saving you time, or just creating a different kind of busy?

While the Musk vs Altman trial was sucking up all the AI news this week, another story broke that's arguably bigger. More than 600 Google employees, including senior DeepMind people, sent CEO Sundar Pichai an open letter on Monday begging him not to sign a classified AI deal with the Pentagon, Google signed it anyway.

The deal lets the US military use Google's AI for "any lawful government purpose" on classified networks. The contract reportedly includes some language saying Google doesn't intend its AI to be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons, but reporters who saw the deal said it's unclear if those restrictions are even enforceable, and Google has no contractual right to veto lawful government decisions about how the AI gets used.

Quick history for newer Reddit folks. Back in 2018, Google had almost exactly the same fight, employees discovered the company had quietly signed a Pentagon contract called Project Maven to help analyze drone footage with AI. Thousands signed an internal petition, about a dozen people quit in protest, and Google eventually let the contract expire. After that, the company published a list of AI principles that included specific things it promised not to build, including weapons and surveillance applications.

That pledge was quietly removed in early 2025. Almost no one noticed at the time, and now we know why.

There's another wrinkle that makes this look messier. Anthropic, the company behind Claude, was offered a similar Pentagon deal earlier this year. They asked for the same kind of restrictions Google's old pledge used to have. The Pentagon refused, then declared Anthropic a "supply chain risk" and effectively blacklisted them from the US government (though White House officials are reportedly drafting a workaround for that now). OpenAI and xAI both already have their own Pentagon deals in place, and Google just made it three out of four big labs.

So this isn't really about one company changing its mind. It's about every major AI lab being told the same thing: drop your safety lines or lose access to the biggest customer in the world. The labs that cave get the contract. The ones that don't get blacklisted.

I work on AI tooling for a living, so take that for what it's worth. But there's something genuinely uncomfortable about watching the same company that used to print "Don't be evil" on its corporate values quietly drop its weapons pledge and sign a contract with no enforceable restrictions on what the Pentagon can do with the technology. Not because Google is the bad guy here. Because the rules changed, and only Anthropic refused to play.

Curious how the rest of you read this. Does it change how you feel about using Gemini, or is "the military uses your AI" just something we accept now along with ads in ChatGPT and Meta scraping every keystroke?

Meta just told its US employees that everything they type and click on their work laptops is now training data for AI agents being built to take over those tasks. There's no opt out unless you move to Europe.

The program is called Model Capability Initiative, or MCI for short. It records keystrokes, mouse movements, every click, and takes periodic screenshots of whatever's on screen. It runs on a designated list of work apps and websites, including Gmail, with hundreds of tools tracked in total. The whole point is to teach Meta's AI agents how a real human clicks through menus and does the boring stuff that's hard to fake with synthetic data.

When employees pushed back internally about whether they could opt out, Andrew Bosworth (Meta's CTO) said the quiet part out loud: "No there is no opt out on your work provided laptop". The only thing people have found is that GDPR blocks the program in Europe, so technically, you can dodge it by relocating across the Atlantic.

Meta is rolling MCI out at the same time it's laying off about 8,000 people and not filling another 6,000 open positions. Zuckerberg has committed up to 135 billion dollars on AI infrastructure this year alone. So the equation looks something like: cut your headcount, install software that turns the remaining staff into a free data set, then use that data to build the agents that handle the next batch of tasks.

A Meta spokesperson said the data is only used for training the models, never for performance reviews. That may all be true, but the moment you install software that records every keystroke and grabs periodic screenshots, you've created a long list of ways things can go wrong by accident. A password typed in the wrong window, a personal message that wasn't meant to be seen, anything sensitive that happened to be on your screen when the next snapshot fired.

The people who were once entrusted with building the machine have now become raw materials for it. That's the whole story in one sentence. Knowledge workers used to be the ones holding the pen, now they're the ink that fills it.

The question isn't whether this is legal, because it probably is, it's whether this becomes the new normal. If Meta gets away with it without a revolt, every other big company also dumping billions into AI is watching. Your last few years of work emails, slack messages, spreadsheet workflows, and weird little Excel hacks could all quietly be doing double duty as training data without you signing anything new.

Would you keep working there if you found this out? Or is this the kind of thing that finally pushes people out the door?

Meta's Superintelligence Labs is reportedly building a photorealistic 3D AI version of Mark Zuckerberg. It's being trained on his voice, image, mannerisms, public statements, and his thinking on company strategy. The plan is to let it talk to Meta employees so they feel "more connected to the founder" without the actual founder having to be there.

Reports also say Meta plans to offer the same technology to creators and influencers for fan engagement at scale, which is the bigger story. The Zuck clone is the proof of concept for an entire product line.

The current AI era was about generating text. The next era is about generating presence. Voice clones, animated faces, real-time video that looks like the actual person, all running on autopilot. You're not chatting with a generic AI anymore, you're "talking to" a specific human who never logs on and doesn't know you exist.

Meta is also reportedly building a separate AI agent to help Zuckerberg do his actual CEO job, such as research and pulling data. Two parallel projects, one to handle his work, one to handle his face.

For regular people this matters because it normalizes a relationship that's fundamentally fake. If a creator with millions of followers replies to your DM today, you know it's probably a manager doing it. Soon, it'll be an animated AI trained on their tweets, their interviews, and their voice. They might never see your message, but the interaction will feel personal because it's wearing their face.

And Meta's not the only company that'll do this. Once the tooling exists, every politician, every CEO, every podcast host gets a digital twin. The scarce resource stops being attention and starts being actual human contact.

Anyone here actually want to talk to an AI version of their boss?

A small group of people in a private Discord got into Anthropic's newest and most powerful AI, called Mythos, and the story came out this week. The twist is that Anthropic had decided NOT to release this model publicly because they said it was too dangerous. They shipped it quietly to a handful of partners like Apple, Google, Microsoft, JPMorgan, and some cybersecurity firms. The Discord crew was inside the same day the model was announced.

The way they did it isn't some elite hacking movie. The group used login credentials belonging to an employee at a third-party contractor for Anthropic, and basically guessed the URL because Anthropic uses a predictable naming format for its internal models. No exploits, no malware, just a credential and a lucky guess.

What makes Mythos different from regular AI is that it hunts security holes in software by itself, with nobody telling it where to look. Anthropic says their internal testing turned up thousands of previously unknown bugs across real products, including one sitting in OpenBSD for 27 years. Their stated reason for holding it back was that releasing it publicly would hand attackers a weapon before defenders had a chance to build the countermeasures.

Anthropic's official line is that no actual company systems were touched, only the vendor environment. The people who got in said they were "interested in playing around with new models, not wreaking havoc with them". Could be true, but that's also exactly what you'd say whether it was true or not.

All these Mythos stories landing one after another, marketing materials leaking in late March, the "too dangerous to release" framing, now a hack where the impact stayed contained according to Anthropic. It feels a little too convenient for a company trying to build hype around a model they're technically refusing to sell. It could be a coincidence, or it could be a very effective news cycle.

Where it matters for normal people, a lot of the security software your bank and your workplace run on depends on smaller vendors and contractors. If a top-tier AI lab can't keep its crown jewels behind a proper lock, the odds your HR portal is doing better are slim.

Can labs actually keep a dangerous model locked up, or is this just a very convenient leak?