News
Could Elon Musk tweet for all of eternity? Digital avatar technology could make it happen
Digital avatars are a blend of science fiction and our current reality, but where is that line drawn, really? Imagine the current minds behind today’s most promising technologies and businesses leaving electronic copies of themselves so that, rather than just existing in nostalgic memories, they could continue contributing to the global conversation for all of digital eternity.
That’s right. The tweets of Elon Musk wouldn’t just be archived for historic perusal. He’d still be tweeting (or opining on a similar platform) long after his great-great-great-grandchildren were graduating from high school on Mars.
Of course, that particular goal could likely be achieved with minimal coding effort utilizing a dataset of his public comments, but that’s not all digital avatar technology is proposing. Imagine being able to approach Elon for personalized business advice, his opinion on a proposed carbon regulation, or thoughts on the name of an off-planet colony, all without the real magnate (magnet?) being directly involved in the conversation – or even alive, for that matter.
MIT Technology Review recently published an article featuring Augmented Eternity, a company developing an application which will host digital personas based on its customers that can be interacted with posthumously. For example, a customer’s business persona could give advice on a corporate deal, and a private persona could be involved with family matters. Utilizing personal data analyzed by artificial intelligence to achieve its goals, Augmented Eternity isn’t the only business on the market for this kind of digital interactivity.
Eternime wants you to live forever as a digital version of your after you die. [Credit: Eterni.me]
The company Eterni.me describes its services as a collection of “your thoughts, stories and memories, curate[d] [into] an intelligent avatar that looks like you…[because]…we all pass away, sooner or later…eventually, we are all forgotten.” Another company with a focus on the living over the dead, ObEN, describes its product as “Personal Artificial Intelligence (PAI)” comprising “personalized digital avatars [that] look, sound, sing, and behave like you…capable of performing a variety of useful tasks.” With its product being a “verified intelligent 3D avatar…perform[ing] activities on your behalf”, ObEN takes direct aim at increasing present day productivity, i.e., benefitting the customer while they are alive.
Admittedly, the idea of storing personal data for use in an artificial intelligence environment isn’t a new one. The concept of creating an avatar embodying the personality of any person has at least been floating around since science fiction envisioned separating human minds from their bodies. One of the notable recent imaginings in entertainment of this concept was seen in the episode, “Be Right Back” from the British science fiction series, “Black Mirror”. In the episode, a widow is able to recreate her dead partner, first as a type of chat box, then a telephone personality, and finally a corporeal being, all by using data obtained via his public electronic records.
Another recent and compelling imagining of this scenario is found in the series, “Caprica”, wherein a teenage girl’s father uploads a sentient avatar of his dead daughter into an advanced robot. The sentience, perhaps, is the factor that makes the software most dangerous, and the avatar’s actions throughout the series confirm this concern. Danger and advanced artificial intelligence are two concepts that seem to come wrapped up in one another, and here we come full circle back to Elon Musk.
When asked what he sees about AI that others with less concern about its future do, Elon replied, “Smart people…define themselves by their intelligence and…they don’t like the idea that a machine could be way smarter than them, so they discount the idea…it’s the wishful thinking situation.” Having also posited that AI is more dangerous than nuclear warheads, there’s no mistaking his position that more care is needed towards the safety of its advancement.
Another major concern of Elon’s, however, is an extinction-level event which will end humanity, and this concern is part of what drives his and SpaceX’s mission towards colonization of Mars. Could digital avatars be a place where concerns and prospects find common ground? Aside from physically relocating part of humanity to another planet to ensure its long-term survival, encapsulating humanity in digital (smarter?) form as proposed by avatar companies might be another way to ensure the legacy of the species, not just individual customers.
Then again, if we’re all living in a simulation to begin with, digitizing our personas may just be completing the predicted circle of life. Stay tuned – the future of tech moves fast.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
