Tesla Previews Humanoid Robot, but Musk Cautions It Is Not Ready Just Yet

This video screen grab made from Tesla AI Day 2022 livestream shows Elon Musk standing on stage next to Optimus the humanoid robot in Palo Alto, California on September 30, 2022. (AFP/ Handout/ Tesla)
This video screen grab made from Tesla AI Day 2022 livestream shows Elon Musk standing on stage next to Optimus the humanoid robot in Palo Alto, California on September 30, 2022. (AFP/ Handout/ Tesla)
TT

Tesla Previews Humanoid Robot, but Musk Cautions It Is Not Ready Just Yet

This video screen grab made from Tesla AI Day 2022 livestream shows Elon Musk standing on stage next to Optimus the humanoid robot in Palo Alto, California on September 30, 2022. (AFP/ Handout/ Tesla)
This video screen grab made from Tesla AI Day 2022 livestream shows Elon Musk standing on stage next to Optimus the humanoid robot in Palo Alto, California on September 30, 2022. (AFP/ Handout/ Tesla)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on Friday the electric vehicle maker's eagerly anticipated humanoid robot "Optimus" would cost under $20,000 and cautioned it still had way to go before becoming fully functional.

"There's still a lot of work to be done to refine Optimus and prove it," Musk told the electric vehicle maker's "AI Day" event being held at a Tesla office in Palo Alto, California.

Musk said existing humanoid robots are "missing a brain" – and the ability to solve problems on their own. By contrast, he said, Optimus would be an "extremely capable robot" that Tesla would aim to produce in the millions. He said he expected it would cost less than $20,000.

Tesla said the company had developed a prototype for its robot in February. That early model walked out to wave at the crowd on Friday, and Tesla showed a video of it doing simple tasks, such as watering plants, carrying boxes and lifting metal bars at a production station at Tesla’s California plant.

Musk and Tesla representatives acknowledged that there was a lot of work to be done to achieve the goal of a mass-produced, low-cost robot, using Tesla-designed technology that would be capable of replacing humans at work.

Other automakers, including Toyota Motor and Honda Motor, have developed humanoid robot prototypes capable of doing complicated things like shooting a basketball, and production robots from ABB and others are a mainstay of auto manufacturing.

But Tesla is alone in pushing the market opportunity for a mass-market robot that could also be used in factory work.

A next-generation Tesla bot, which was rolled on stage by staff, will use Tesla-designed components, including a 2.3 kWh battery pack carried in its torso, a chip system and actuators to drive its limbs. The robot is designed to weigh 73 kg.

"It wasn’t quite ready to walk. But I think it will walk in a few weeks," Musk said.

Musk has described the event as intended to recruit workers, and the engineers on stage catered to a technical audience. They detailed the process by which Tesla designed robot hands and used crash-simulator technology to test the robot’s ability to fall on its face without breaking.

Musk, who has spoken before about the risks of artificial intelligence, said the mass rollout of robots had the potential to "transform civilization" and create "a future of abundance, a future of no poverty." But he said he believed it was important that Tesla shareholders had a role in vetting the company’s efforts.

"If I go crazy, you can fire me," Musk said. "This is important."

Tesla also discussed its long-delayed self-driving technology at the event. Engineers working on the auto self-driving software described how they trained software to choose actions, such as when to merge into traffic, and how they sped up the computer decision-making process.

In May, Musk said that the world's most valuable car maker would be "worth basically zero" without achieving full self-driving capability, and it faces growing regulatory probes, as well as technological hurdles.

Musk has said he expects Tesla will achieve full self-driving this year and mass produce a robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedal by 2024.

At an "Autonomy" event in 2019, Musk promised 1 million robotaxis by 2020 but has yet to deliver such a car.



OpenAI Starts Testing Ads in ChatGPT

The OpenAI logo is seen in this illustration taken May 20, 2024. (Reuters)
The OpenAI logo is seen in this illustration taken May 20, 2024. (Reuters)
TT

OpenAI Starts Testing Ads in ChatGPT

The OpenAI logo is seen in this illustration taken May 20, 2024. (Reuters)
The OpenAI logo is seen in this illustration taken May 20, 2024. (Reuters)

OpenAI has begun placing ads in the basic versions of its ChatGPT chatbot, a bet that users will not mind the interruptions as the company seeks revenue as its costs soar.

"The test will be for logged-in adult users on the Free and Go subscription tiers" in the United States, OpenAI said Monday. The Go subscription costs $8 in the United States.

Only a small percentage of its nearly one billion users pay for its premium subscription services, which will remain ad-free.

"Ads do not influence the answers ChatGPT gives you, and we keep your conversations with ChatGPT private from advertisers," the company said.

Since ChatGPT's launch in 2022, OpenAI's valuation has soared to $500 billion in funding rounds -- higher than any other private company. Some analysts expect it could go public with a trillion-dollar valuation.

But the ChatGPT maker burns through cash at a furious rate, mostly on the powerful computing required to deliver its services.

Its chief executive Sam Altman had long expressed his dislike for advertising, citing concerns that it could create distrust about ChatGPT's content.

His about-face garnered a jab from its rival Anthropic over the weekend, which made its advertising debut at the Super Bowl championship with commercials saying its Claude chatbot would stay ad-free.


Social Media ‘Addicting the Brains of Children,’ Plaintiff’s Lawyer Argues in Landmark Trial

Teenagers pose for a photo while holding smartphones in front of a Meta logo in this illustration taken September 11, 2025. (Reuters)
Teenagers pose for a photo while holding smartphones in front of a Meta logo in this illustration taken September 11, 2025. (Reuters)
TT

Social Media ‘Addicting the Brains of Children,’ Plaintiff’s Lawyer Argues in Landmark Trial

Teenagers pose for a photo while holding smartphones in front of a Meta logo in this illustration taken September 11, 2025. (Reuters)
Teenagers pose for a photo while holding smartphones in front of a Meta logo in this illustration taken September 11, 2025. (Reuters)

Comparing social media platforms to casinos and addictive drugs, lawyer Mark Lanier delivered opening statements Monday in a landmark trial in Los Angeles that seeks to hold Instagram owner Meta and Google's YouTube responsible for harms to children who use their products.

Instagram's parent company Meta and Google's YouTube face claims that their platforms addict children through deliberate design choices that keep kids glued to their screens. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.

Jurors got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining defendants.

Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt spoke of the disagreement within the scientific community over social media addiction, with some researchers believing it doesn’t exist, or that addiction is not the most appropriate way to describe heavy social media use.

‘Addicting the brains of children’

Lanier, the plaintiff's lawyer, delivered lively first remarks where he said the case will be as “easy as ABC” — which stands for “addicting the brains of children.” He said Meta and Google, “two of the richest corporations in history,” have “engineered addiction in children’s brains.”

He presented jurors with a slew of internal emails, documents and studies conducted by Meta and YouTube, as well as YouTube’s parent company, Google. He emphasized the findings of a study Meta conducted called “Project Myst” in which they surveyed 1,000 teens and their parents about their social media use.

The two major findings, Lanier said, were that Meta knew children who experienced “adverse events” like trauma and stress were particularly vulnerable for addiction; and that parental supervision and controls made little impact.

He also highlighted internal Google documents that likened some company products to a casino, and internal communication between Meta employees in which one person said Instagram is “like a drug” and they are “basically pushers.”

At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury.

Plaintiff grew up using YouTube, Instagram

KGM made a brief appearance after a break during Lanier’s statement and she will return to testify later in the trial. Lanier spent time describing KGM's childhood, focusing particularly on what her personality was like before she began using social media.

She started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, Lanier said. Before she graduated elementary school, she had posted 284 videos on YouTube.

The outcome of the trial could have profound effects on the companies' businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

Lanier said the companies’ lawyers will “try to blame the little girl and her parents for the trap they built,” referencing the plaintiff. She was a minor when she said she became addicted to social media, which she claims had a detrimental impact on her mental health.

Lanier said that despite the public position of Meta and YouTube being that they work to protect children, their internal documents show an entirely different position, with explicit references to young children being listed as their target audiences.

The attorney also drew comparisons between the social media companies and tobacco firms, citing internal communication between Meta employees who were concerned about the company’s lack of proactive action about the potential harm their platforms can have on children and teens.

“For a teenager, social validation is survival,” Lanier said. The defendants “engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation,” he added, speaking about “like” buttons and similar features.

Meta pushes back

In his opening statement representing Meta, Schmidt said the core question in the case is whether the platforms were a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles. He spent much of his time going through the plaintiff’s health records, emphasizing that she had experienced many difficult circumstances in her childhood, including emotional abuse, body image issues and bullying.

Schmidt presented a clip from a video deposition from one of KGM‘s mental health providers, Dr. Thomas Suberman, who said social media was “not the through-line of what I recall being her main issues,” adding that her struggles seemed to largely stem from interpersonal conflicts and relationships.

He painted a picture — with KGM’s own text messages and testimony pointing to a volatile home life — of a particularly troubled relationship with her mother.

Schmidt acknowledged that many mental health professionals do believe social media addiction can exist, but said three of KGM’s providers — all of whom believe in the form of addiction — have never diagnosed her with it, or treated her for it.

Schmidt stressed to the jurors that the case is not about whether social media is a good thing or whether teens spend too much time on their phones or whether the jurors like or dislike Meta, but whether social media was a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles.

A reckoning for social media and youth harms

A slew of trials beginning this year seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children's mental well-being. Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the Los Angeles trial, which will last six to eight weeks.

Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

A separate trial in New Mexico, meanwhile, also kicked off with opening statements on Monday. In that trial, Meta is accused of failing to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.

A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.


AI No Better Than Other Methods for Patients Seeking Medical Advice, Study Shows

AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters and a robot hand are placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration created on June 23, 2023. (Reuters)
AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters and a robot hand are placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration created on June 23, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

AI No Better Than Other Methods for Patients Seeking Medical Advice, Study Shows

AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters and a robot hand are placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration created on June 23, 2023. (Reuters)
AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters and a robot hand are placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration created on June 23, 2023. (Reuters)

Asking AI about medical symptoms does not help patients make better decisions about their health than other methods, such as a standard internet search, according to a new study published in Nature Medicine.

The authors said the study was important as people were increasingly turning to AI and chatbots for advice on their health, but without evidence that this was necessarily the best and safest approach.

Researchers led by the University of Oxford’s Internet Institute worked alongside a group of doctors to draw up 10 different medical scenarios, ranging from a common cold to a life-threatening hemorrhage causing bleeding on the brain.

When tested without human participants, three large-language models – Open AI's Chat GPT-4o, ‌Meta's Llama ‌3 and Cohere's Command R+ – identified the conditions in ‌94.9% ⁠of cases, ‌and chose the correct course of action, like calling an ambulance or going to the doctor, in an average of 56.3% of cases. The companies did not respond to requests for comment.

'HUGE GAP' BETWEEN AI'S POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL PERFORMANCE

The researchers then recruited 1,298 participants in Britain to either use AI, or their usual resources like an internet search, or their experience, or the National Health Service website to ⁠investigate the symptoms and decide their next step.

When the participants did this, relevant conditions were identified in ‌less than 34.5% of cases, and the right ‍course of action was given in ‍less than 44.2%, no better than the control group using more traditional ‍tools.

Adam Mahdi, co-author of the paper and associate professor at Oxford, said the study showed the “huge gap” between the potential of AI and the pitfalls when it was used by people.

“The knowledge may be in those bots; however, this knowledge doesn’t always translate when interacting with humans,” he said, meaning that more work was needed to identify why this was happening.

HUMANS OFTEN GIVING INCOMPLETE INFORMATION

The ⁠team studied around 30 of the interactions in detail, and concluded that often humans were providing incomplete or wrong information, but the LLMs were also sometimes generating misleading or incorrect responses.

For example, one patient reporting the symptoms of a subarachnoid hemorrhage – a life-threatening condition causing bleeding on the brain – was correctly told by AI to go to hospital after describing a stiff neck, light sensitivity and the "worst headache ever". The other described the same symptoms but a "terrible" headache, and was told to lie down in a darkened room.

The team now plans a similar study in different countries and languages, and over time, to test if that impacts AI’s performance.

The ‌study was supported by the data company Prolific, the German non-profit Dieter Schwarz Stiftung, and the UK and US governments.