News
Elon Musk’s Neuralink brain-machine interface is turning sci-fi into reality
Besides giving the world the option to switch to Tesla emissions-free electric cars and hopes of sending humans to Mars and beyond, Elon Musk also dreams of giving humans symbiosis with artificial intelligence through an implantable brain-machine interface created by Neuralink, a company he founded in 2016.
Neuralink is working on improving the basic structures of high-density Utah Array, a tiny chip that has become the industry benchmark for recording large populations of neurons. Dr. Richard Norman from the University of Utah invented the chip in 1997, which acts as an ultra-thin, flexible, and biocompatible polymer that connects the human brain to a tiny chip. During an event last year, Neurallink explained that the implant can be placed behind the ear and can interpret brain signals. Musk’s neural tech company has also invented a robot that can sew the implant to the brain with better precision than any human surgeon.
Wait until you see the next version vs what was presented last year. It’s *awesome*.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 3, 2020
So far, the brain-machine interface by Neuralink has reportedly helped a primate communicate with a computer interface. There are plans to install a prototype this year into a human. According to Musk, they are still on track to do this.
“It will ultimately be used to make up for entire lost sections of the brain due to stroke/accident/congenital. Don’t want to get too excited, but the potential is truly transformational for restoring brain & motor functions. There is no other way to do it imo,” Musk also wrote on Twitter.
The possibilities for Neuralink’s implant are endless. The symbiosis between humans and AI will be a long shot but Neuralink’s implantable device can pave the way for medical advancements that can help people with chronic neurological problems. Possible medical uses for Neuralink’s device in the future include controlling devices, restoring sensation, and synthetic speech.
CONTROLLING DEVICES
The brain is a complex network of nerves that uses impulses to sense the outside world and to control the human body. Neuralink will use these signals and amplify them so a patient can use them to be more functional. For example, someone with paralyzed upper extremity due to a stroke can have a brain-machine interface on the center of the brain that controls movements of the arm and hands which will help patients feed, dress, and generally function on their own.
Likewise, for someone who has an amputated limb, the Neuralink brain-machine interface will be able to communicate with a robotic arm to help someone use an artificial hand to write or use a computer. It can also be perfect for someone who needs to control a robotic leg to prop one up to stand without the help of anyone.
With a smart home setup, a paralyzed person who cannot clearly or is unable to speak and move can simply command a computer to dim the lights, turn on the air conditioner, or call someone if they need urgent attention.
While it might be a very long shot, these brain-machine interfaces interacting with other future technologies can also serve as bridges to parts of the body that are medically “disconnected”. For example, a patient with spinal cord injury has severed connections between the brain and parts of their body corresponding to the level their spinal cord was injured. The Neuralink implant can play pseudo stem cells that will provide the artificial connection so one can better function. Same for someone with multiple sclerosis whose nerves basically lose the sheath that makes them transmit electrical signals optimally.
“RESTORE” SENSATION
Just like how Neuralink can be exploited to help the brain control movement of a robotic arm, it is highly possible to tap into the sensory cortex of the brain. Sensation allows better manipulation of one’s environment and should be very helpful even when using robotic arms. One can tap the signals of the brain, send it to the brain-machine implant and to the robotic hand, for example, and back. If one grabs a glass of water, it can easily control the movement through space because the patient knows its shape, weight, texture, temperature, among other factors.
The Neuralink team also aims to use the brain-machine interface to “give back” one’s vision by tapping into the visual center of the brain.
SYNTHETIC SPEECH
With its ability to tap into specific signals of the brain, Neuralink also has the potential to create synthetic speech for people who are paralyzed or those with neurological conditions that do not allow them to speak.
These are just some of the things we can see Neuralink will be used for in the future. While all these seem to be fantastical, according to Neuralink, what they’re doing is not pulled from thin air but based on decades of neurological foundation.
Ultimately, with the dream of human-AI symbiosis, as more technologies develop, the use for Neuralink’s brain-machine implant will evolve. Elon Musk mentioned before that perhaps one day, it will be used for telepathic communication between humans or perhaps even drive a Tesla. Or perhaps, in the future, one can upgrade one’s knowledge and download terabytes of information with a blink of an eye through Starlink.
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
