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 had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
