News
Elon Musk left OpenAI due to conflict of interest with Tesla
OpenAI, the nonprofit research firm co-founded by Elon Musk, announced that the serial tech entrepreneur is stepping down from the organization’s board of directors. According to an official announcement by the nonprofit, Elon’s departure is partly due to Tesla’s AI projects, which could result in a potential conflict of interest for the CEO.
Musk’s departure from OpenAI’s board does not mean that he is relinquishing ties with the nonprofit, however. In a blog post about its new supporters, the research firm asserted that the Tesla CEO will be staying on as a benefactor and advisor for the organization.
“Elon Musk will depart the OpenAI Board but will continue to donate and advise the organization. As Tesla continues to become more focused on AI, this will eliminate a potential future conflict for Elon.”
As Tesla continues to evolve its Autopilot suite of features and aims to complete its first coast-to-coast fully autonomous drive this year, the Silicon Valley electric carmaker is said to be working on its own AI-based chips that will power the company’s future fleet of driverless cars. Musk revealed his efforts to produce a custom AI chip during a machine learning conference held last year, telling event attendees that Tesla is developing specialized AI hardware that will be the “best in the world.” According to The Register, Musk told event attendees, “I wanted to make it clear that Tesla is serious about AI, both on the software and hardware fronts. We are developing custom AI hardware chips”.
Stepping down from OpenAI’s board seems to be a logical step for Musk as his focus on developing advanced artificial intelligence systems can be misconstrued by a non-profit that aims to be the watchdog for friendly AI development. Prior to the announcement of Elon Musk’s departure from OpenAI’s board, the nonprofit published a paper discussing the possible dangers of AI-based attacks. According to OpenAI’s study, it is now time for policymakers and individuals to be aware of ways that AI-based systems can be used maliciously, especially considering the ever-evolving artificial intelligence landscape.
To conduct the study, OpenAI collaborated with a number of researchers from other organizations, including the Future of Humanity Institute, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, the Center for a New American Security, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Discussing the findings of their research, the authors of the study wrote that while investigations on the benefits of AI are widespread, studies on the dangers of advanced, intelligent machines are relatively few. As the field of artificial intelligence begins to expand and evolve, OpenAI’s researchers believe that threats associated with the technology would also start to grow and develop.
As noted in the study, artificial intelligence can expand existing threats, since the scalable use of AI technology can be utilized to lower the cost of attacks. With AI, even real-world attacks requiring human labor can be accomplished by machines that could think within and beyond their programming.
OpenAI’s new paper also discussed the emergence of new threats, which could rise through the use of systems that engage in tasks that are impractical for humans. The researchers also advised that the time might soon come when the AI-focused attacks can be finely targeted and challenging to attribute. With these in mind, the OpenAI researchers, together with co-authors of the study, recommended a series of contingencies that policymakers, as well as those involved in the research field, can implement to prevent and address scenarios when intelligent systems can be used maliciously.
RELATED: China is building a massive campus for AI development
According to the recently published OpenAI paper, the time is right for policymakers to collaborate with technical researchers to investigate, prevent, and mitigate potential malicious uses of artificial intelligence. OpenAI also advised engineers and researchers to acknowledge the dual-use nature of their work, allowing misuse-related considerations to be part of their research priorities. Furthermore, the nonprofit called for more mature methods when addressing AI’s dual-use, especially among stakeholders and domain experts involved in the field.
In conclusion, the OpenAI researchers and their peers admitted that while uncertainties remain in the AI industry, it is almost certain that artificial intelligence will play a huge role in the landscape of the future. With this in mind, a three-pronged approach — consisting of digital security, physical security, and political security — would be a great way to prepare for the upcoming use and possible misuse of artificial intelligence.
Co-founded by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk back in 2015, OpenAI is a nonprofit research firm that aims to create and distribute safe artificial general intelligence (AGI) systems. As we noted in a previous report, OpenAI seems to be giving clues that it is ramping up its activity this year, as shown in a recent job posting for a Recruiting Coordinator who will be tasked to train and onboard the company’s new employees.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
