Technology

Nvidia is set to bring artificial intelligence to laptop and desktop computers with brands like Microsoft and Dell later this year as the US tech giant broadens its AI presence.

The Santa Clara, California-based AI chipmaker unveiled on Monday at its annual Nvidia GTC event in Taipei new powerful chips that would bring advanced AI functions to laptops and desktop computers.

CEO Jensen Huang said that the new development is “going to reinvent the PC [personal computer]”.

The changes come amid three years of collaboration between Microsoft and Nvidia and pit the latter against companies like chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices and personal computer brands Intel and Apple.

“This is going to be the new PC,” Huang said as he unveiled Nvidia’s RTX Spark superchip — which combines CPU, or central processing unit, and GPU, or graphics processing unit, capabilities — that would power new Windows laptop and desktop computer models in what the company called “AI personal computers”, expected to debut in the fall of this year.

The chip, developed with Taiwan’s MediaTek, will be in compact desktops from Dell, HP, Lenovo, ASUS, Microsoft Surface and MSI, with models from Acer and GIGABYTE to follow.

Nvidia, which is already the world’s most valuable company, said the reinvention will be for creating and gaming.

“When it has an autonomous [AI] agent, an agent that’s helping you, that understands you, you could talk to it. It could look at you. You could ask it to read files, go help you do some research. It could do a lot more,” Huang said.

Microsoft said in a separate statement that the personal computers running on Nvidia’s RTX Spark superchips would be able to support “highly capable AI models” and complex workloads. With the new superchips, these personal computers can run AI agents locally, Nvidia said.

“This is the first across the lineup of PC reinvention for 40 years,” Huang said.

Nvidia’s move is significant at a time when demand is growing for the use of personal AI agents, said Lian Jye Su, chief analyst at the technology research and advisory group Omdia.

“For consumers, it means more choices, which is always a good thing,” Su said.

Neil Shah, analyst and co-founder of Counterpoint Research, described Nvidia’s announcement as a move that’s “revolutionising how PCs would look like in the next 10 years”.

The new laptops and desktop computers “will drive agentic AI applications in every home”, Shah said, with an aim of having an “AI supercomputer” in each household.

Also during Monday’s speech, Nvidia’s Huang said its new Vera CPUs for data centres are in full production and are “going to be our new major growth driver” on the boom of AI agents, with early customers including Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceXAI.

Huang also revealed a humanoid robot reference design that could act as a blueprint for future research, especially within the higher education sector. Nvidia said its “Isaac GR00T” stands nearly 1.83 metres (6 feet) tall and has the humanoid chassis of Chinese robot maker Unitree’s H2. It is equipped with five-fingered dexterous hands, made by Singapore-based robotics startup Sharpa, that are capable of finely controlled movements.

Reception for AI PCs has been mixed so far. HP reported last week that the devices helped prop up quarterly sales, but Dell said earlier this year that demand had fallen short of initial expectations. Qualcomm, looking to capitalise on AI demand, has also been offering AI PCs with Microsoft.

On Wall Street, Nvidia stock rose nearly 4 percent on the news in midday trading. Microsoft ticked up 2.5 percent and Dell surged 9.3 percent. Competitors AMD and Intel, on the other hand, are on the decline. AMD is down 0.1 percent from the market open, and Intel is down by 2.5 percent.

Department of Commerce issues guidance on chip restrictions amid concerns about loopholes in export control regime.

The United States has issued a notice affirming its restrictions on shipments of semiconductors to subsidiaries of Chinese companies located outside China amid concerns about loopholes in Washington’s export control regime.

The Department of Commerce said in the guidance issued on Sunday that its licensing requirements for the export of advanced AI chips applied to all businesses with headquarters or a parent company in China.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which falls under the Commerce Department, said it issued the clarification in response to questions about whether it was enforcing preexisting licence requirements after it had overturned former President Joe Biden’s AI Diffusion Framework.

“The answer is yes,” the BIS said in the notice.

Unveiled in the final days of the Biden administration, the AI Diffusion proposed the implementation of a globe-spanning framework to control access to AI chips, including export caps for all but the closest US allies.

The framework drew backlash from tech firms, including Nvidia, the world’s most valuable chip company, which cast the proposal as a threat to innovation and cross-border collaboration.

President Donald Trump’s administration scrapped the framework last May, ahead of its implementation, citing the “burdensome new regulatory requirements” and the harm it would do to Washington’s diplomatic relations with other countries.

Chip giant Nvidia, whose top-of-the-line Blackwell GPUs are banned for export to China, said it had already been operating in keeping with the clarified rules.

“The guidance reaffirms that NVIDIA’s sales and vetting process is correct – consistent with our existing approach, licences are required to ship controlled products to PRC headquartered companies,” a Nvidia spokesperson told Al Jazeera, using the acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

AMD and Intel, Nvidia’s main competitors in the GPU space, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

TSMC, which manufactures the most advanced chips on behalf of clients such as Nvidia, did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The BIS also did not respond to inquiries.

Chris McGuire, a former State Department official who worked on technology policy in the Biden administration, accused the Trump administration of providing Chinese companies a loophole to buy export-controlled chips.

“Chinese companies have been buying these chips, very likely at scale. And because BIS has not updated export control regulations to clearly state what it IS enforcing, all of this was legal,” McGuire said in a post on X.

“This clarification does make clear that Blackwell shipments to China-headquartered companies outside of China are now illegal again – which is good, although obviously we have to see how many shipments have already gone to assess how much damage was done,” McGuire said.

“BIS’ statement acknowledges these shipments have been happening when it says companies who bought chips under this loophole don’t have to stop using them.”

The US has rolled out numerous restrictions on the supply of high-end technology to China, as Washington and Beijing battle for dominance in AI.

In December, Trump announced that he would allow Nvidia to sell its H200 chip to China, in a major loosening of Washington’s export controls.

While not Nvidia’s most advanced chip, the H200 is about six times as powerful as the H20, the most advanced chip previously allowed for export to China.

Lawmakers in the United States are quietly advancing a proposal that could deepen military ties between the US and Israel in unprecedented ways, at a time when public support for Israel among Americans is increasingly fractured.

Among the provisions included in the 2027 National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) released this week is Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defence Technology Cooperation Initiative”.

The NDAA, which Congress passes annually to set military policy and authorise defence spending, will undergo further debate and amendments before becoming law. Some legislators have already signalled opposition, with Representative Thomas Massie saying he would seek to remove the provision if it reaches the House floor.

The measure remains at an early stage, but analysts say if passed, it would limit political oversight over the defence relationship.

Analysts added that it could mark a significant shift in the US-Israel relationship, moving beyond a model centred on American military aid towards deeper institutional integration between the two countries’ defence industries and militaries.

Critics argue that such a move would make support for Israel less a matter of political choice and more a structural feature of US national security policy, embedding the relationship within joint military and industrial programmes that would be difficult to unwind.

What does the proposal include?

Section 224 incorporates elements of the US-Israel Future of Warfare Act legislation introduced by Representative Ronny Jackson, according to Track AIPAC. While the legislation did not advance as a standalone bill, key elements of it were instead folded into the NDAA.

The provision would require the US defence secretary to designate an official responsible for coordinating military cooperation between the two countries. According to the text, that official would be tasked with “synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”, including “bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation”.

The legislation envisages cooperation across a wide range of military technologies. It specifically identifies as priority areas; “counter-unmanned systems including aerial, maritime and ground platforms”, “anti-tunnelling and subterranean threats”, and “missile and air defence technologies”.

The proposal also seeks to deepen collaboration on emerging technologies, including “artificial intelligence, quantum machine learning and autonomous systems”, as well as “directed energy and advanced sensing”, “cyber defence, electronic warfare and digital resilience”, and “biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defence”.

The inclusion of “network integration” and “data fusion” has drawn particular attention because it suggests significantly closer integration of military information systems between the two countries.

The United States and Israel already cooperate on defence projects, including missile defence systems such as Iron Dome. However, analysts say that Section 224 would expand cooperation into nearly every major area of emerging military technology, and could create a “lock-in” between the two countries military infrastructure.

Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer, the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the proposal goes well beyond the traditional foundations of the US-Israel defence relationship.

“While historically, the US-Israel defence relationship has included US military aid and weapons transfers, joint missile defence programmes such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, and intelligence and operational cooperation, the proposed agreement increases cooperation to include a wider set of emerging technologies,” he said.

“So this all suggests a much tighter integration – less about provision and perhaps sharing technologies and capabilities, and more about jointly developing these.

“It would point to a more institutionalised relationship, and perhaps one that might survive changing administrations in the US, as some of the development cycles could be very long and would become entrenched,” he said.

Why is it controversial?

The proposal comes amid growing debate in the US over military support for Israel, particularly as Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza continues, and concerns mount over the use of US-made weapons.

Human rights organisations and United Nations experts have repeatedly raised concerns about Israeli military actions in Gaza, where despite a so-called ceasefire in place since last October, at least 850 Palestinians have been killed. Israel is also advancing into southern Lebanon, where it has killed more than 3,000 people since the beginning of March.

These wars have led to increasing scepticism among Americans towards unconditional support for Israel, recent opinion polls suggest.

A New York Times poll in May found that only 30 percent of respondents believed Donald Trump made the right decision in ordering military strikes against Iran, while 64 percent said it was the wrong decision.

An Institute for Global Affairs poll released last week found that only 16 percent of Americans support continuing weapons transfers to Israel without additional restrictions. Thirty-eight percent said the US should stop supplying weapons entirely, while 24 percent said military aid should be conditioned on how the weapons are used.

Opposition has also emerged from parts of the Republican Party, which traditionally has always been aligned with Israel.

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticised the proposal on social media, writing: “This is what complete capture to a foreign government looks like, and there hasn’t been a single shot fired.”

Massie, who has opposed military aid to Israel, likewise pledged to introduce an amendment removing the provision from the NDAA. The Republican senator was defeated in the primary elections last month, highlighting the financial and political influence of pro-Israel lobby groups in the US.

Influential conservative commentator, Tucker Carlson, has increasingly criticised US support for Israel, reflecting divisions within the broader MAGA movement. Criticism has also intensified among left-wing Democrats, with many calling for restrictions on military aid to Israel.

What could it mean in practice?

Critics of the measures warn that the proposal could create a form of institutional “lock-in” that makes both countries simultaneously reliant on each other for military development and procurement.

Some analysts say such integration would move key aspects of the US-Israel relationship away from highly visible aid votes or commercial contracting, and into the less transparent world of defence procurement and industrial partnerships at a state-to-state level.

Hilborne from the King’s College said the initiative could also have direct implications for Palestinians. “If joint R&D produces more effective technology, then systems related to surveillance, autonomous vehicles, AI and targeting, and various counter-drone or counter-missile technology would be improved, providing a capability boost to Israeli forces operating in Gaza or the West Bank,” he said.

“This enhanced integration would further embed US technology into Israeli forces. These would all be concerns from a Palestinian perspective.”

Critics also point to the economic implications, where expanded co-production agreements could lead to new manufacturing facilities and defence jobs in the United States, creating a further reliance on Israel.

Hilborne also argued that deeper integration could reduce Washington’s leverage over Israel. “The deeper integration may also mean that the US loses some degree of leverage over Israel, as it would be less able to withhold certain capabilities from Israel,” he said.

“As a consequence, Israel might be emboldened in its policies.”

The proposal could also have implications beyond the US-Israel relationship, according to Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University. “The proposed US-Israeli defence integration can be seen as the next phase of the Abraham Accords: moving from normalisation toward a US-backed regional security regime centred on Israel as the dominant military and technological hub,” he told Al Jazeera.

Such a framework would strengthen efforts to contain Iran, limit Turkiye’s independent regional influence and deepen security cooperation with Arab partners, he said.

“For Lebanon and Gaza, it may translate into greater pressure to accommodate Israeli-led security arrangements as part of a broader emerging Middle Eastern order.”

Whether Section 224 survives the legislative process is uncertain.

But its inclusion in the NDAA shows how some politicians, many backed by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, are attempting to bind the two countries’ militaries closer together, creating long-term industrial links that future administrations may find difficult to reverse.

The incident is the latest setback for Jeff Bezos’s space venture as it seeks to narrow the gap with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket has exploded on the launchpad during a test in the US state of Florida.

The incident on Thursday evening is the latest setback for Jeff Bezos’s space venture as it seeks to narrow the gap with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Footage of the incident shows smoke emerging from underneath the rocket before it erupts into a massive fireball that billows skyward, sending a towering plume of flames and smoke into the air.

Emergency crews remained at the scene more than an hour later, but officials said there was no threat from fumes or other potential hazards.

No injuries have been reported.

“We experienced an anomaly during today’s hotfire test,” Blue Origin said in a brief statement posted on X, adding that “all personnel have been accounted for”.

A hot-fire test is where a rocket engine is fired up while anchored to the ground.

In a separate X post, Bezos said it was “too early to know the root cause” of the incident.

“Very rough day, but we’ll rebuild whatever needs rebuilding and get back to flying. It’s worth it,” Bezos added.

US House Representative Mike Haridopolos, whose Florida district includes the launch site at Cape Canaveral, said in a statement on X that he has been in contact with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman regarding the explosion.

“I am grateful there were no reported injuries and thankful for the first responders, engineers, and launch crews who acted quickly,” Haridopolos said.

Blue Origin is preparing the New Glenn rocket to launch 48 Amazon Leo satellites into low-Earth orbit, part of efforts to build a broadband constellation to rival Musk’s Starlink network.

Musk responded on X to a video of the New Glenn explosion, saying: “Most unfortunate. Rockets are hard.”

Last month, the New Glenn rocket failed a mission to deliver a communications satellite into the correct orbit, prompting an investigation.

Perplexity unlawfully copied thousands of CNN stories, videos and images to power its products, CNN said in its lawsuit.

United States news channel CNN has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity in New York federal court, alleging the AI search engine provider is unlawfully distributing its copyrighted content, marking the latest legal tussle between the AI firm and a news publisher.

The complaint, filed on Thursday, said that Perplexity unlawfully copied thousands of CNN stories, videos and images to power its products and distribute “identical or substantially similar” competing content.

“You can’t copyright facts,” Perplexity spokesperson Jesse Dwyer said in response to the lawsuit.

CNN is asking for an unspecified amount of monetary damages and a court order blocking Perplexity from violating its intellectual property rights.

“CNN’s lawsuit stands for the proposition that Perplexity, a company valued at tens of billions of dollars, should not be able to steal from entities that create the original content Perplexity exploits,” the Warner Bros-owned news company said in a statement.

“By exploiting CNN’s reporting in this manner, Perplexity violates the protections afforded by copyright law and undermines the economic incentives that make original newsgathering possible,” CNN said in the complaint.

Since the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in 2022, news publishers and writers have worried about their content being repurposed to appear in the results of a chatbot query, triggering battles over copyright, compensation and ownership.

CNN’s lawsuit is one of dozens of high-stakes US cases brought by copyright owners, including news outlets, authors and publishers, against tech companies over alleged misuse of their work to train large language models. Anthropic was the first AI company to settle one of these cases last year, agreeing to pay $1.5bn to resolve a class action lawsuit from a group of authors.

The CNN suit is the latest in a series of legal challenges brought against Perplexity, which uses AI to scour websites and answer users’ queries, alleging the company has infringed copyrights and unlawfully scraped data to train its technology.

Perplexity is also facing lawsuits from The New York Times, Reddit and Dow Jones, among others.

Several news firms have now signed licensing deals and partnerships with Big Tech and generative AI companies to ensure that their models have access to verified sources of news, while also compensating publishers and linking back to original articles.

On Wednesday, the US Department of War confirmed it had awarded Dell Federal Systems, the government-focused unit of Dell Technologies, a five-year, $9.7 billion (€8.3bn) contract to supply the Pentagon.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

As part of the Core Enterprise Technology Agreement (CETA), a Pentagon-wide Microsoft licensing and software procurement framework, the company will provide and manage Microsoft software licences, cloud subscriptions and on-premises software licensing across the US military, intelligence agencies and the US Coast Guard.

Dell Technologies’ shares were up around 5% in pre-market to $320 due to the announcement after closing Wednesday’s session at roughly $305.

The company is set to report its earnings for the first quarter of this year on Thursday, with analysts from Zacks Investment Research forecasting revenues of approximately $35 billion (€30bn), representing annual growth of about 50%.

According to US DoW Chief Information Officer Kirsten Davies, who briefed reporters at the Pentagon, the CETA is expected to save the department roughly $422 million (€360.9mn) annually by consolidating fragmented technology budgets from across the military services into a single purchasing structure.

The contract was granted less than three weeks after US President Donald Trump stood at a White House event and urged Americans to “go out and buy a Dell. They’re great.”

Davies and acting US Navy Chief Information Officer Barry Tanner were both clear that the award followed a competitive process.

“The vendors were all evaluated based on competition, comparison to GSA schedule pricing and overall chain of value to the department,” Tanner noted.

Dell holds a long-standing commercial partnership with Microsoft and is one of its major buyers of Windows licences. Nonetheless, the contract arrives at the culmination of a period of visible alignment between CEO Michael Dell and the Trump administration.

In December 2025, Dell and his wife Susan appeared alongside Trump at the White House to announce a $6.25 billion (€5.3bn) donation to “Trump Accounts,” a tax-advantaged investment programme for children created under the “One Big Beautiful Bill”.

The pledge will provide $250 (€214) to roughly 25 million American children aged 10 and under from households with a median income below $150,000 (€129,000) and was described by Invest America, the nonprofit organisation spearheading the initiative, as the largest ever private commitment devoted to American children.

Michael Dell also sits on Trump’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, informing public policy regarding the economy, public health, national security, energy and emerging technologies.

The convergence of public presidential endorsements and subsequent federal contract awards is attracting scrutiny beyond Dell.

Financial disclosures released this month by the US Office of Government Ethics showed that investment accounts associated with President Donald Trump held Dell Technologies shares during the first quarter of 2026. The disclosures indicate some purchases were made before Trump publicly praised the company at a White House event.

The Trump Organisation has said the accounts are managed independently by third-party financial institutions and that neither Trump nor his family directs individual trades.

Last week, responding to questions about Trump’s financial disclosures at a White House briefing, Vice President JD Vance said the president’s investments are handled by independent wealth advisers and rejected suggestions that Trump personally directs individual stock trades. “He’s not making these stock trades himself,” Vance said.

Commentators and ethics critics have also pointed to trading activity involving companies such as Intel and Palantir, whose shares have at times moved sharply following public comments by Trump or announcements linked to government technology spending.

The Pentagon has said Dell’s selection followed a competitive procurement process.

Even so, the timing of the award alongside Trump’s public praise of the company and financial disclosures showing investments linked to Dell is likely to draw renewed scrutiny from ethics observers and political critics.

Michele Spagnuolo allegedly used insider information to profit from bets on people on Google’s most-searched list.

A Google software engineer has been charged with fraud by US authorities after allegedly using insider information to win more than $1.2m in bets on the prediction market platform Polymarket.

Michele Spagnuolo, an Italian citizen residing in Switzerland, is accused of using confidential information to wager on the results of Google’s annual most-searched list, according to a criminal complaint unsealed on Wednesday.

US prosecutors accuse Spagnuolo of using an account named “AlphaRaccoon” to make trades on various markets linked to the results of Google’s 2025 Year in Search.

The total sum of the bets was approximately $2.75m, according to the complaint, filed in federal court in New York.

Among the bets, Spagnuolo successfully predicted that indie pop musician d4vd would top the list for the most-searched for person last year, hours after accessing confidential data at Google, according to prosecutors.

Spagnuolo, 36, faces charges of commodities fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.

“Today’s charges reinforce a decades-old message: corporate insiders cannot use confidential business information to turn a profit in our markets,” US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton said in a statement.

“Insider trading compromises the integrity of our markets, and the American people want this greed-driven conduct investigated and prosecuted,” Clayton added.

Bets on Maduro’s capture

Google said in a statement that it is working with law enforcement and that using confidential information to place bets is a serious breach of company policy.

Spagnuolo has been placed on leave, according to a Google spokesperson.

A Polymarket spokesperson said the company had worked closely with the US Attorney’s Office on the investigation and that the firm “is the only prediction platform to date whose cooperation has led to insider trading charges in the United States”.

“We are committed to maintaining accurate, fair, and transparent markets as well as enforcing our rules and working with our regulators and law enforcement,” the spokesperson added.

Last month, a US soldier was charged with using classified military information to place bets on Polymarket regarding the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Prosecutors accuse Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, of cashing in on the US operation against Maduro, to the tune of more than $400,000.

May 27 (UPI) — The Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday ordered SpaceX to investigate why a booster for its Starship rocket system failed during a test flight Friday, grounding the megarocket for a time.

The FAA declared the incident a “mishap” that involved the Super Heavy first-stage booster as it separated from the main ship and returned to the Gulf of Mexico after launch. The booster was supposed to perform a sustained burn to a controlled landing in the gulf, but a possible engine failure meant it fell back to Earth instead in a “hard splashdown,” SpaceX said in its launch report. The FAA said there were no reports of public injury or damage to public property from the mishap.

“The FAA will oversee the SpaceX-led investigation, be involved in every step in the process, and approve SpaceX’s final report, including any corrective actions,” the agency statement said.

“A mishap investigation is designed to enhance public safety, determine the root cause of the event, and identify corrective actions to avoid it from happening again,” the statement continued. “A return to flight of the Starship-Super Heavy vehicle is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not effect public safety.”

This means that another launch is less likely before the company’s planned initial public offering in June, TechCrunch reported.

The Starship system has two parts: the Super Heavy booster and the spacecraft itself, also called Starship. This was the first launch of the third version of the system, which is the first capable of deep-space flight. Plans call for Starship to carry Artemis 4 astronauts to the surface of the moon in a mission set for late 2028.

The Starship portion of the overall system did make it to space during this test launch, although it also lost one of its Raptor 3 vacuum engines there. Overall, this and other portions of the launch, including deployment of satellites and simulators, were considered a success.

Taipei, Taiwan – For Li, an engineer at Taiwanese computer giant ASUS, the AI boom sweeping Taiwan has made it an exciting time to work in tech.

Taiwan is a semiconductor powerhouse, producing about 90 percent of the most advanced chips used to power leading AI models such as ChatGPT and Claude.

“I’ve felt Taiwan’s tech and computer industry becoming more vibrant,” Li, who asked not to be identified by his real name, told Al Jazeera, pointing to events such as the upcoming Computex tech and AI expo running from June 2 to 6.

Still, Li worries that the spoils of Taiwan’s AI windfall are not being shared equally.

“Most industries unrelated to tech don’t seem to be feeling the benefits, so it doesn’t feel evenly distributed at the moment,” Li said, explaining that many of his former classmates working outside of tech do not appear to be doing as well.

“It’s mainly the industries at the front of this tech wave that are benefitting.”

Taiwan’s economy is growing at a pace that would be the envy of any country.

Gross domestic product (GDP) rose 8.63 percent in 2025, followed by a heady 13.69 percent expansion in the first three months of this year.

Exports surged 34.9 percent last year to $640.7bn, with more than two-thirds of the total being tech-related goods and services.

Semiconductors alone account for more than 20 percent of Taiwan’s GDP, according to US trade data, with the vast majority of production handled by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), whose top customers include Nvidia and Apple.

TSMC by itself accounts for more than 40 percent of the value of the island’s stock market.

While impressive, the rapid economic expansion has raised concerns about being overreliant on the growth of AI.

Taiwan’s Central Bank Governor Yang Chin-lung has sounded the alarm about an emerging “K-shaped economy,” where certain sectors grow rapidly while others fall into stagnation.

While critical to Taiwan’s economy, the semiconductor industry is far from the largest source of jobs.

The sector employs only about 300,000 people in a workforce of 11 million, according to data compiled by Dachrahn Wu, director of National Central University’s Research Center for Taiwan Economic Development.

The broader electronics and IT manufacturing industry employs about one million people, compared with about seven million working in the service sector, according to Wu’s data.

The heavy reliance on a single industry for growth marks a shift from the Asian Tiger era of the 1960s to 90s, when Taiwan’s economy was driven by hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), according to James Lin, a historian who specialises in Taiwan’s post-war economic transformation.

“From the 1970s to 1990s, economic growth was concentrated in the hands of small and medium family enterprises that exemplified the ‘living room factory’ model, where family-owned businesses focused on producing one part for a consumer product,” Lin told Al Jazeera.  

“The benefits of this period were thus more widely distributed across Taiwanese society,” Lin said.

“By contrast, today, wealth inequality is growing in Taiwan as land is becoming more expensive and large corporations like TSMC attract the lion’s share of foreign capital investment rather than small corporations.”

Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief economist for Asia Pacific at French investment bank Natixis, said Taiwan’s economic model has left it at risk of becoming a “dual society” where tech sweeps up talent, funding and resources at the expense of other industries.

“It’s very hard if you’re not in [the semiconductor] sector in Taiwan right now,” Garcia Herrero told Al Jazeera, pointing to low wages for workers in non-tech roles and rising costs for businesses.

Some of Taiwan’s challenges are out of its control, said Chao-Hsi Huang, associate dean at the Taipei School of Economics and a former director at Taiwan’s central bank.

Those challenges include US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which have partially exempted semiconductors but hit exporters in non-tech industries.

“The traditional [manufacturing] sector suffers higher tariffs than other competing countries like Korea or Japan, or even Southeast Asian countries, due to the fact we are not able to sign free trade agreements,” Huang told Al Jazeera.

“We are treated differently, and that’s a difficulty we are facing.”

Critics have placed other issues on the shoulders of the government, including a weak currency that has made exports more competitive but chipped away at consumers’ purchasing power.

Taiwan’s government denies engaging in currency manipulation, though it acknowledges intervening in the market to smooth out “volatility” when the new Taiwan dollar falls or rises sharply against other currencies.

After two decades of stagnation through the 2010s, wages are growing again – albeit unevenly.

Real average wages grew 1.4 percent in 2025, while median wages rose 1.35 percent, according to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS).

Still, 70 percent of Taiwanese earned less than the average, a statistic attributable to the distorting effect of much higher salaries in the tech sector, where pay is nearly double the national average.

For Taiwanese frustrated with stagnant pay, Taiwan’s soaring stock market has offered some consolation.

Riding the AI boom, the Taiwan Stock Exchange (TWSE) more than doubled in value between 2019 and 2025 to $2.2 trillion, according to HSBC.

Regulatory changes introduced in 2020 made it easier for small-time investors to buy single stocks, encouraging a rush of everyday Taiwanese into the market.

In January, the TWSE reported that the number of trading accounts had reached 13.77 million – equivalent to 60 percent of Taiwan’s population – while hailing the bourse as a “cornerstone for inclusive prosperity and shared growth”.

Though more equal than neighbours such as Singapore, Hong Kong and China, Taiwan’s wealth divide has grown over the decades.

In 1980, Taiwan had a Gini coefficient of 0.308 – a measurement of wealth distribution where 0 indicates perfect equality – putting it on par with contemporary Norway, according to the DGBAS.

By 2024, Taiwan’s Gini coefficient had grown to 0.341 – lower than many countries but still a significant rise.

“I feel that the benefits of economic growth haven’t been distributed evenly,” Ryan, an engineer in the local tech sector who asked not to be identified by his real name, told Al Jazeera.

“Some industries or asset holders benefit significantly, but ordinary office workers often experience a rise in prices and housing costs, rather than an easier life,” he said.

Wei-ting Yen, an assistant research fellow at the research institution Academia Sinica, said while the semiconductor and stock market booms have helped some Taiwanese, they have heightened the angst of others.

In a survey of 1,195 Taiwanese voters carried out last month, 40 percent said their household was financially either “anxious” or “very anxious” due to rising living costs, particularly housing.

“I think subjectively, they’re anxious that they’re not accumulating wealth and it’s not enough to help them buy a house or an apartment,” Yen told Al Jazeera.

“Housing prices have been going crazy worldwide, and the stock market has been going crazy, [but] for people who do not have extra money to invest in those two options, it creates even more frustration and anxiety around them,” she said.

Samsung Electronics Co. topped the smartphone markets in Central and South America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia in the first quarter on steady sales of its premium Galaxy S26 and budget Galaxy A series smartphones, industry data showed Monday.

According to the data compiled by industry tracker Omdia, Samsung Electronics sold some 12.9 million units of smartphones in the Central and South American market in the January-March period, accounting for 37 percent of the total 34.8 million smartphones sold there over the cited period.

Omdia said the performance was driven by solid sales of Galaxy A series smartphones as Samsung Electronics responded to market demand with a diversified product lineup.

In the Middle East market, where smartphone sales fell 6 percent on-year to 11 million units in the first quarter, Samsung Electronics led the market with a market share of 34 percent on strong demand for the latest Galaxy S26 and Galaxy A series smartphones.

The company also sold 4.6 million smartphones in the Southeast Asian market, accounting for 21 percent of all smartphones sold there in the first quarter.

Omdia said strong sales of the Galaxy S26 series, launched in January, and steady demand for the Galaxy A series helped Samsung Electronics expand its market share in Southeast Asia, where quarterly smartphone sales fell 9 percent from a year earlier.

Earlier, Omdia said Samsung Electronics ranked No. 1 in the global smartphone market in the first quarter with a 22 percent market share.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

There are moments in history when civilizations continue to advance materially while progressively losing confidence in the values  and structures that once gave direction and coherence to collective life. Institutions continue to function, markets continue to expand, and technological progress accelerates uninterruptedly, yet beneath this movement emerges a quieter uncertainty.

As Simone Weil observed, “to be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized

need of the human soul.”[1] Yet contemporary societies often struggle to sustain those forms of

belonging and shared meaning that once anchored human communities. The crisis is

therefore not simply political or economic. It concerns meaning itself.

Artificial intelligence has appeared precisely within such a historical juncture. Most contemporary discussions approach AI primarily as a technological revolution, or as an element of economic and geopolitical competition between great powers. Governments now frame it as a strategic race, corporations present it as the next engine of productivity, and Silicon Valley often speaks of AI in the language of inevitability and destiny, recalling Aldous Huxley’s fear that technological progress might ultimately weaken rather than deepen human civilization.[2]

 But such interpretations may ignore something deeper still. AI may be less the cause of a civilizational transformation than one of its clearest symptoms. It reflects a broader historical transition in which inherited moral and symbolic frameworks are dissolving faster than new forms of collective meaning can emerge.

Slouching Towards Bethlehem[3]

This condition closely resembles what Antonio Gramsci described as an interregnum: a period in which the old world is dying while the new world struggles to be born. [4] Such periods produce not only political instability, but also moral exhaustion, the erosion of shared narratives, and declining confidence in beliefs once considered self-evident. Civilizations have passed through similar moments before.

The enduring fascination of Edward Gibbon’s monumental The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire lies not merely in its account of imperial decline, but in its portrayal of the slow weakening of the moral and symbolic foundations that once sustained an entire civilization.[5] Rome did not collapse overnight. Its institutions remained impressive long after few still believed in the civilization they were meant to serve. Administrative power survived even as collective meaning and aspirations deteriorated.

That pattern feels strangely familiar.

Never before have technological capacities appeared so extensive while social distrust, political fragmentation, and loneliness have become so pervasive. Hyperconnectivity was supposed to bring societies closer together. In many cases, it has done the reverse.

AI in the Anthropocene

AI emerges from within this historical condition . It appears perfectly suited to societies organized around abstraction, speed, quantification, and technological mediation. In this sense, AI is profoundly historical. It results from a long civilizational development in which rationalization, efficiency, and technical calculation have come to replace older moral, religious, and symbolic frameworks as primary sources of legitimacy and meaning. What distinguishes AI from previous technologies is that it extends these same principles into domains traditionally considered irreducibly human. Activities once understood as distinctly human, such as reasoning, creativity, interpretation, and even emotional interaction, are now becoming technologically mediated.

The deeper unease therefore concerns anthropology as much as technology. What remains distinctively human when machines become capable of imitating reasoning, generating art, and mediating human relationships?

Such moments of civilizational disorientation are not entirely unprecedented.

The Renaissance confronted a similar rupture. Medieval Europe had long possessed a relatively coherent worldview capable of organizing religion, politics, morality, and human identity within a common order. By the late fifteenth century, however, this equilibrium was beginning to fracture under the pressure of new scientific discoveries, religious wars, and the weakening of older political and spiritual authorities. Thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola sought, in radically different ways, to redefine humanity’s place within a rapidly changing world.[6] Pico celebrated human beings as creatures capable of shaping themselves through freedom and intellect, while Machiavelli recognized more soberly that periods of transition dissolve inherited certainties and force societies to confront instability and power directly.

Both understood that historical transformation is ultimately existential before being institutional. Our own transition may prove even more radical because technology no longer transforms only economic or political life, but cognition itself.

AI now mediates everyday experience itself: how people search for information, communicate, work, and make sense of the world around them.

Algorithms no longer merely distribute information. They shape attention, influence perception, and affect how individuals relate emotionally to public life and to one another. Under such conditions, the distinction between human judgment and technological mediation becomes far less clear.

The Price of Nostalgia

One striking feature of the contemporary digital environment is the degree to which individuals now participate voluntarily in their own data extraction. Recent Instagram trends such as the viral “What Were You Like in the ’90s?” challenge encourage users and celebrities alike to upload curated archives of personal photographs spanning decades of their lives. Presented as nostalgia and entertainment, these trends also generate immense quantities of highly valuable visual and behavioural data: faces across time, emotional reactions, aesthetic preferences, social interactions, and patterns of self-presentation. Whether or not such material is directly incorporated into future AI systems, the broader objective remains significant. Human memory, identity, and even nostalgia itself increasingly becomes raw material for computational analysis and commercial platforms.

Reactions to AI therefore oscillate easily between fascination and anxiety. Beneath both lies a deeper uncertainty about whether modern societies still possess a coherent understanding of what human beings are for, beyond economic productivity and consumption.

Friedrich Nietzsche anticipated aspects of this crisis more than a century ago. His declaration that “God is dead” did not merely constitute a theological provocation but signalled the emergence of a civilization in which traditional moral structures would lose authority long before new ones could replace them.[7] Nietzsche feared not nihilism alone, but the possibility that societies might become incapable of generating new forms of transcendence once older ones had collapsed. We saw how his worldview provided an intellectual base for Fascism.

I Read, therefore I Am

In increasingly mediated environments, the act of sustained reading itself begins to take on a countercultural character. To read is, in some sense, to resist. We have access to more information than any previous generation, yet physical books can still provide a sense of orientation. The books people return to, annotate, or simply keep close over time often reveal something enduring about the way they think and who they are.

The central issue, therefore, is not simply whether artificial intelligence will become more powerful. The deeper question is whether societies organized around AI can still sustain stable forms of responsibility and belonging strong enough to preserve coherent collective life. This is ultimately a political and civilizational problem before it is a purely technical one.

Much contemporary discourse still assumes that technological advancement naturally produces historical progress. History offers little evidence for such confidence.

Civilizations do not endure simply because they innovate technologically. They endure because they preserve, or reinvent, systems of meaning capable of holding societies together over time.

The Roman Empire mastered engineering yet gradually lost the moral cohesion that had once sustained it. Renaissance Europe produced extraordinary creativity precisely because it confronted existential instability directly rather than attempting to ignore it.

Contemporary Western societies appear caught between immense technological sophistication and growing uncertainty about their own civilizational narrative.

AI therefore represents more than innovation. It reflects a transformation in how human beings understand themselves, authority, knowledge, and reality itself. The danger is not simply that machines become too powerful. It is that societies now outsource judgment, imagination, and responsibility while slowly losing the cultural and moral resources required to govern these technologies wisely. Yet periods of interregnum are not necessarily periods of decline alone. They are also moments in which civilizations redefine themselves.

AI For Good ?

Historical transitions create possibilities as well as dangers. The Renaissance emerged from the crisis of medieval Europe. Modern democracy emerged from the upheavals of industrial society. Today’s uncertainty may likewise force Western societies to confront questions long obscured by economic growth and technological optimism:

What constitutes a good society? What forms of belonging remain possible in a hyper-mediated world? What aspects of human life should never be reduced to data, prediction, or optimization?

AI cannot answer these questions. But its emergence makes avoiding them increasingly difficult.

[1] Simone Weil, The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind (1949/1952).

[2] See Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (1932) and his later essays such as Brave New World Revisited (1958), where he warns that technological efficiency and social conditioning could erode authentic human experience.

[3] The phrase alludes to the final lines of W.B. Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming” (1919): “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

[4] Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks (written 1929–1935, published posthumously). The “interregnum” concept appears in Notebook 3: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

[5] Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (6 volumes, 1776–1789). Gibbon famously attributed part of the decline to the rise of Christianity and the erosion of civic virtue.

[6] Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486) — often called the “Manifesto of the Renaissance”; Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince (1532) and Discourses on Livy.

[7] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, §125 – “The Madman”) and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The full phrase is usually rendered “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

May 22 (UPI) — SpaceX successfully launched an updated version of its Starship on Friday evening, meeting all goals the company said it was aiming for.

The launch was the first of the company’s V3 version of both the booster rocket and “Ship” upper stage, which is a key part of NASA’s Artemis series of missions to the moon and, potentially, to Mars.

SpaceX commentators said during the company’s official broadcast that the updated Starship, which delivered 22 simulator Starlink satellites into orbit and converted flight adjustments it will need when it lands instead splashing down in water, “delivered.”

The company had scrubbed the first attempted launch of the megarocket, the largest ever built, on Thursday because of an engineering issue that could not be fixed in time to make the scheduled launch window.

The mission for the 408-foot-tall Super Heavy rocket, which is powered by 33 newly redesigned Raptor engines, the same as Starship, was to successfully launch, ascend, separate from the second stage — Starship — and then perform boost back and landing burns before splashing down in the Gulf of Mexico.

After separation, Starship’s goals were to light its engines, enter a sub-orbital path and release a series of dummy Starlink satellites before performing a series of maneuvers and testing its newly designed heat shield.

When Starship splashed down in the Indian Ocean after its tests, SpaceX commentators said during the broadcast that the fireball when it hit the Indian Ocean was the goal, “as weird as that sounds.”

This version of Starship is not the final one, but rather is a prototype of one of several that are planned for NASA’s return of Americans to the moon.

NASA’s planned Artemis III mission in 2028 is expected to test connecting the Orion crew capsule — which was tested on its first crew mission earlier this year — to both Starship and Blue Origin‘s Blue Moon space vessel, which has yet to take its first flight.

Watchdog instructs social media giant to strengthen moderation following circulation of ‘grossly offensive’ content.

Malaysia’s internet watchdog has ordered TikTok to take action against “offensive and defamatory” content about the country’s monarchy.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) said on Thursday that it had instructed the video-sharing platform to take “immediate remedial measures” in response to an account purporting to be linked to King Sultan Ibrahim.

The MCMC said its order requires the social media company to strengthen its moderation policies and provide a “formal explanation” for its failure to block the “grossly offensive, false, menacing and insulting” content, including AI-generated videos and manipulated images.

The regulator said it takes a “serious view” of online platforms being used to disseminate content that is false or “detrimental to public order”, particularly as it relates to the monarchy.

It added that it issued the order after finding TikTok’s response to previous notifications to be “unsatisfactory”.

TikTok, founded by Chinese tech company ByteDance, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“MCMC will continue to take firm and proportionate action where necessary to ensure digital platforms operating in Malaysia uphold their responsibilities in maintaining a safe, secure and respectful online environment,” the watchdog said in a statement.

Malaysia, a constitutional monarchy, penalises speech deemed to inspire “hatred or contempt” against the royal family under a sedition law passed in 1948.

The watchdog’s order against TikTok is the latest move by authorities in the Southeast Asian country to regulate social media platforms.

In January, the MCMC briefly blocked access to the AI assistant Grok amid a global backlash over its use to create sexually explicit images of people without their consent.

Malaysia’s government is also currently preparing to enforce legislation passed last year to prohibit social media use by under-16s, following similar moves by countries including Australia, Indonesia and France.

May 20 (UPI) — Pope Leo XIV will release the first encyclical of his papacy next week, the Vatican announced Wednesday. Magnifica Humanitas will address artificial intelligence and human dignity.

The title of the encyclical (a pastoral letter written to the church) means “magnificent humanity” in Latin. The pope will appear Monday at a press conference for the encyclical’s release, along with other speakers, including academics, cardinals and Christopher Olah, co-founder of Anthropic, a U.S. AI company. Olah is also Anthropic’s head of research on the interpretability of AI.

Pope Leo spoke about AI early on in his tenure and has mentioned the topic frequently, The Catholic Register reported. The Vatican also created a study group on AI and its use days ago.

“In our own day, the church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor,” the pontiff said only days after his election in 2025.

Some of Anthropic’s founders have spoken on ethical concerns about AI. In fact, the company gathered Christian religious leaders this year to speak to AI researchers about its AI chatbot, Claude, and how to steer its “moral and spiritual” development, including ethical questions and how to respond to those grieving, The Washington Post reported.

Also like Pope Leo, the company has run afoul of U.S. President Donald Trump. CEO Dario Amodei said in a blog post that he opposes the Defense Department’s use of Anthropic’s technology, leading Trump to call it a “radical left, woke company” and order federal agencies to stop using it, Forbes reported. Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, then called Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security, drawing a lawsuit.

Pope Leo signed the new encyclical on May 15, a day that marks 135 years since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum, which dealt with social teachings.

A visitor has filed a $5-million lawsuit against Disneyland for allegedly failing to properly disclose the use of facial-recognition technology at park and collecting sensitive data on guests.

Summer Christine Duffield of Riverside County filed the lawsuit after a May 10 visit to Disneyland and sister park California Adventure, alleging that the resort violates privacy and consumer protection laws collecting biometric data of visitors, without adequate consent.

“Disney does not adequately disclose the use of their biometric collection, so consumers — which almost always include children — have no idea that Disney is collecting this highly sensitive data,” the plaintiff noted in the lawsuit. “Guests should be able to expressly opt in to this type of sensitive facial recognition technology with written consent — the onus of privacy rights should not be on the victim.”

The suit was filed on May 15 in U.S. District Court in New York. The lawsuit cites an article from The Times on consumer reaction to Disney’s use of facial recognition.

The Walt Disney Company didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“People are getting fed up with being force-fed new tech, new AI, new tracking tools,” said Ari Waldman, Professor of Law at the UC Irvine.

Walt Disney Co. rolled out its facial recognition technology in late April across Disneyland Resort to verify tickets. The way it works is guests’ faces are scanned, converted into a numerical identifier and matched with ticket data.

Disney’s privacy policy notes that the identifiers created for identification are deleted within 30 days unless they need to be kept for legal or fraud prevention purposes.

Guests who don’t want to use the technology can enter through a separate entrance marked with a silhouette of a head and shoulders with a slash through it. However, of the dozens of lines to enter Disneyland and California Adventure, there were only four that didn’t use facial recognition, during an April visit.

The sign saying “Use of this technology is optional,” adorn the security checkpoint entrances.

“This technology facilitates ease of reentry into our parks and helps prevent fraud,” the company noted in its website.

Use of facial recognition technology for crowd management and ticketing has become increasingly commonplace.

Dodger Stadium deploys facial recognition for guests using the “Go Ahead Entry” at certain gates without producing a physical or digital ticket to enter the stadium. At Intuit Dome in Inglewood, visitors can use “GameFaceID” to quickly move through a separate lane with their face as their ID.

The lawsuit comes at a time when there is increasing concern of surveillance in public places, and privacy advocates have rallied against the normalization of surveillance. More recently, concerns of the potentially abusive use of artificial intelligence by government to analyze large quantities of data — from texts to facial scans — to surveil U.S citizens resulted in a high-profile showdown between the Pentagon and Anthropic.

On Monday morning, a jury in Oakland, California, announced its verdict in one of the most-watched tech feuds between billionaire Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The nine-member jury handed a decisive victory to Altman, saying Musk had waited too long to bring his claims against the artificial intelligence company and its top executives.

Musk, who cofounded OpenAI as a nonprofit, had filed a $150bn lawsuit against the organisation, Altman and its president, Greg Brockman, accusing them of turning it into a for-profit entity for personal enrichment.

The verdict, however, stopped short of resolving the central question at the heart of the case, whether OpenAI betrayed the nonprofit mission on which it was founded in 2015 as it transformed from a research lab focused on benefitting humanity into one of the world’s most powerful AI companies.

Instead, the case became focused on a procedural issue. After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury unanimously found that the statute of limitations had expired before Musk filed the lawsuit in 2024, meaning jurors concluded he had waited too long to bring his claims under the applicable legal deadline. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the finding and dismissed the case.

The ruling removes a major legal threat for OpenAI at a pivotal moment for the company, which is deepening its commercial partnerships, expanding its relationship with Microsoft and moving towards what could become one of the largest public offerings in Silicon Valley history; while for Musk, the ruling leaves room to argue that the case was lost on timing rather than substance.

Shortly after the verdict, Musk repeated his accusations on X. “Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!” Musk wrote on X. “Creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America.”

Musk has decided to appeal, ensuring that the increasingly bitter feud between two of Silicon Valley’s most powerful figures is unlikely to end any time soon.

How did Musk and Altman fall out?

Musk and Altman cofounded OpenAI in 2015 alongside Brockman and other researchers at a time when concerns were growing over how AI could reshape society.

The idea, according to testimony and internal discussions presented during the trial, was that the company could focus on building safe AI systems that benefitted humanity rather than prioritising shareholder returns.

Musk and Altman also believed the nonprofit structure would help OpenAI compete with technology giants such as Google by attracting top researchers and positioning the organisation as a mission-driven alternative.

Musk claims he contributed roughly $38m to OpenAI during its early years, but relations between the founders later deteriorated sharply. He resigned from OpenAI’s board in February 2018, officially citing potential conflicts of interest as Tesla became more focused on AI.

But the split deepened after OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary and Microsoft invested heavily in the company. Microsoft has since committed tens of billions of dollars to its partnership with OpenAI, helping transform ChatGPT into one of the defining products of the global AI boom.

Musk became increasingly critical of the company, arguing that OpenAI had moved far beyond the nonprofit vision on which it was founded. In 2023, he launched a rival AI company, xAI, the maker of the Grok chatbot, before filing his lawsuit against OpenAI the following year.

Why did the case collapse?

At the centre of the trial was a relatively technical legal question about when Musk became aware that OpenAI was moving towards a profit-driven structure.

Because the lawsuit was filed in 2024, Musk needed to convince jurors that the alleged wrongdoing occurred within the legal time limit for bringing his claims.

Musk argued that his concerns fully crystallised only in 2023, particularly after Microsoft’s big investments into OpenAI’s for-profit arm.

But OpenAI’s lawyers argued that Musk had known for years that the company planned to pursue a commercial structure and raise huge amounts of outside funding.

Evidence presented during the trial showed that discussions about creating a for-profit arm dated back to at least 2017. Jurors also heard testimony that Altman had sent Musk documents in 2018 outlining plans for OpenAI to raise billions of dollars through a for-profit structure.

Ultimately, the jury sided with OpenAI’s argument that Musk could have filed his lawsuit much earlier – and therefore waited too long.

That meant jurors never had to answer the more explosive question at the centre of the case about whether OpenAI had actually betrayed its founding mission.

What did OpenAI argue?

OpenAI maintained throughout the trial that there was never an agreement to remain a nonprofit indefinitely. Its lawyers argued that Musk understood from the beginning that developing cutting-edge artificial intelligence would require extraordinary levels of funding and computing power.

OpenAI also portrayed Musk’s lawsuit as partly motivated by rivalry. By the time the case reached court, Musk’s xAI had emerged as a direct competitor to OpenAI in the race to develop advanced AI systems.

Meanwhile, OpenAI had become one of the most powerful companies in the technology industry, reportedly valued at more than $800bn and moving towards what could eventually become one of the largest public offerings in history.

Lawyers for OpenAI argued that Musk became hostile only after losing influence within the company and watching Altman turn OpenAI into the dominant force in generative AI.

What questions did the trial leave unanswered?

Although the verdict was a clear legal victory for OpenAI, the trial never became the sweeping test case about the future of artificial intelligence that many had expected.

Because the case was resolved on procedural grounds, the court did not answer some of the biggest questions raised by the AI boom: how these systems should be governed, who should benefit economically from them, and whether companies developing increasingly powerful AI tools can still claim to act in the public interest while pursuing enormous commercial growth.

The trial also touched only briefly on broader concerns surrounding AI development, including transparency, labour and the extraction of data used to train AI systems.

Nicole Turner Lee, director of the Centre for Technology Innovation, told Al Jazeera that one of the central problems surrounding AI is that the technology is deeply “extractive”.

“It does undergo theft where people do not consent as to whether or not their information, their image, their voice, their text are actually being extracted,” she said, raising concerns about compensation and consent in AI training systems.

Those issues remained largely outside the scope of the trial due to it ultimately centring on procedural issues.

The ruling, therefore, also removed the possibility of a far more disruptive outcome that could have threatened OpenAI’s corporate structure, its partnership with Microsoft and the wider wave of investment pouring into the AI industry.

But the broader debate over AI’s future is far from settled. With Musk preparing an appeal, the courtroom battle between the two former allies looks set to continue alongside wider questions about how AI should be governed.

In China, Elon Musk has gained both admiration and criticism. While he is seen as a visionary, he has faced scrutiny from regulators and the public due to issues with customer complaints. The success of Musk’s SpaceX and its Starlink satellite service has also led to concerns from the People’s Liberation Army, especially as Tesla faces growing competition from Chinese electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers, which threatens Musk’s standing in the market.

Musk recently attended a summit in Beijing with U. S. President Donald Trump, alongside other CEOs like Tim Cook and Jensen Huang, focusing on resolving business issues with China. After a formal welcome, Musk expressed his desire to achieve “many good things” in the country. At the same event, Xiaomi’s CEO Lei Jun, an admirer of Musk, took a selfie with him, which became popular on social media, showcasing the public’s interest in Musk.

Despite facing competition on technology and pricing from local companies, Musk and Tesla remain influential in China. Experts note that Musk’s business goals align with China’s technological priorities, including electric vehicles, AI, and advanced robotics, making Tesla’s self-driving technology the standard in the industry. In 2018, Tesla became the first foreign automaker permitted to operate in China without a local partner, and its sales in the country reached about 626,000 vehicles last year, contributing significantly to its revenue.

Other Chinese carmakers, like Chery, draw inspiration from Tesla’s focus on innovation, blending it with Toyota’s emphasis on quality. However, Musk’s other ventures, particularly SpaceX, provoke concern among Chinese military and government officials due to its dominance in satellite communications, especially in light of geopolitical tensions, hinting at efforts to develop domestic alternatives.

Though Musk’s social media platform, X, is banned in China, he has a significant following on Weibo and has been celebrated as a global icon in the country. His recent visit pertains to an attempt to purchase $2.9 billion in solar manufacturing equipment from Chinese suppliers, although this may be affected by China’s potential export restrictions on advanced technologies to the U. S.

Musk’s company is also seeking regulatory approval for more advanced self-driving technology. However, his relationship with China has been delicate, particularly when Tesla faced backlash in 2021 over its handling of customer complaints, highlighted by a public protest at an auto show. Additionally, Teslas were previously banned from military areas due to security concerns.

Looking ahead, organizations believe that Tesla’s standing might challenge Musk’s popularity in China as local companies continue to progress. However, he is likely to remain an influential figure in China’s tech scene for his achievements in the automotive and technology industries.

With information from Reuters

Chinese President Xi Jinping is welcoming US President Donald Trump to Beijing for high-level talks. Tariffs, competition over tech, the US-Israeli war on Iran, and Taiwan are all on the agenda for the two-day visit.

In a United States court, OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has rejected claims from fellow tech mogul Elon Musk that he betrayed the artificial intelligence company’s original vision.

Tuesday marked the start of Altman’s testimony in a contentious trial unfolding in Oakland, California, between some of tech’s richest and most powerful titans.

Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, has sued Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman on the basis that they “stole a charity” by shifting its purpose.

He alleged that OpenAI’s leader persuaded him to invest $38bn, based on a goal of improving humanity, only to see the company pivot to a for-profit venture in 2019.

On the witness stand on Tuesday, Altman instead framed Musk as a competitor obsessed with exercising control over OpenAI.

“It does not fit with my conception of the words ‘stealing a charity’ to look at what has actually happened here,” Altman told the court.

The two men have long had an acrimonious relationship, driven in part by differing views about artificial intelligence.

Musk — a self-described free speech “absolutist” — currently runs his own AI chatbot, Grok, which has been accused of perpetuating right-wing conspiracy theories and offensive materials.

He is seeking $150bn in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, one of its principal investors.

Altman’s testimony comes more than two weeks into the trial, which has seen him and Musk square off against each other.

In his testimony, Altman argued that Musk knew of the plans to develop OpenAI into a for-profit enterprise when he invested, and he asserted that Musk even petitioned to have a majority stake in the company.

“An early number that Mr Musk threw out was that he should have 90 percent of the equity to start,” Altman told the jury. “It then softened, but it always was a majority.”

The outcome of the trial could determine the future of OpenAI, its leadership, and products like ChatGPT. As part of his lawsuit, Musk is pushing for the removal of Altman and Brockman.

The trial comes as OpenAI prepares for a potential initial public offering that could see it valued at $1 trillion, a historically large sum.

During earlier testimony, Musk portrayed Altman as a liar who could not be trusted with the development of the technology.

“If you have someone who is not trustworthy in charge of AI, I think that’s a very big danger for the whole world,” Musk said.

Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, also sought to undermine Altman’s reliability during questioning on Tuesday.

“Have you misled people when you do business?” Molo asked Altman.

“I do not think so,” Altman replied.

Altman, meanwhile, sought to cast doubt on Musk’s leadership; Musk ultimately left OpenAI’s board in 2018 to pursue his own AI development.

“I don’t think Mr Musk understood how to run a good research lab,” Altman said. “He had demotivated some of our most key researchers.”

The US public, for its part, has been largely unconvinced by high-minded rhetoric about the transformative potential of AI.

A March 2026 poll by the Pew Research Center suggested that a majority of respondents in the US believe AI will worsen, rather than improve, the ability to think creatively, form meaningful relationships, make difficult decisions, and solve problems.

Just 10 percent of respondents said they were more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life.

But the industry has been quick to translate its substantial economic power into political influence as lawmakers consider how best to regulate the technology.

The use of AI has emerged as an election-season issue as the US midterms approach in November, and the administration of President Donald Trump has proposed a “national policy framework” for the technology to avoid a patchwork of state regulations.

The AI industry has become a driver of eye-watering investment in recent years, with the United Nations estimating that the global market could be worth $4.8 trillion by 2033.

May 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump will be accompanied by 16 senior executives of U.S. companies for his trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The White House on Monday shared a list of the executives, which include Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, BlackRock’s Larry Fink and Boeing’s Kelly Ortberg, among others.

Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins was unable to join the trip, however executives from Blackstone, Cargill, Citigroup, Coherent, GE Aerospace, Goldman Sachs, Illumina, Matstercard, Meta, Micron Technology, Qualcomm and Visa will also travel to China with Trump.

Trump is expected to discuss trade, artificial intelligence, Taiwan and the Iran War, with the creation of a board of investment and a board of trade with China high on his list of goals for his meetings with Xi.

“We’re doing a lot of business [with China], but it’s smart business,” Trump told reporters during a press briefing in the Oval Office on Monday.

“We used to be taken advantage of for years with our previous presidents,” he said. “And now we’re doing great with China. We make a lot of Monday with China.”

The U.S. caravan will depart for Beijing on Tuesday, with meetings scheduled for the rest of the week between the two delegations.

Each of the executives traveling for the meetings has significant business interests in China, which is why they were asked to join Trump for the trip, White House officials have said.

May 11 (UPI) — Google announced Monday that it identified a cyber threat it believes hackers developed using artificial intelligence, meant to exploit networks on a large scale.

Google Threat Intelligence Group said the hackers were using a zero-day exploit, a security vulnerability that is unknown to security companies, and planned to use it for mass exploitation.

Google said this is the first time it has identified a threat with evidence that AI was used to develop it.

“AI-enabled malware, such as PROMPTSPY, signal a shift toward autonomous attack orchestration, where models interpret system states to dynamically generate commands and manipulate victim environments,” Google Threat Intelligence Group said in a news release.

Google’s AI Gemini and Claude Mythos were highlighted as AI models it does not believe were used in this threat attempt.

If the threat was successful, hackers would have been able to bypass two-factor authentication on “a popular open-source, web-based system administration tool,” Google said. The attempt occurred within the last couple months but Google did not specify when exactly.

AI is also being used for cybersecurity, as a tool to identify potential security risks. Google says Monday’s report shows criminal hacker groups are also interested in using AI for their goals.

“For every zero-day we can trace back to AI, there are probably more out there,” John Hultquist, chief analyst at Google Intelligence Group, said in a statement. “Threat actors are using AI to boost the speed, scale, and sophistication of their attacks.