AI Daily: OpenAI argues to keep countersuit against Musk
Confident Investing Starts Here:
COUNTERSUIT: Microsoft (MSFT)-backed OpenAI is arguing to keep its countersuit against Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk in the trial over for-profit shift, Reuters reports. OpenAI says the Tesla CEO's motion to dismiss the ChatGPT maker's claims has 'no grounding in facts,' and that its countersuit should be included in the expedited trial, rather than put on hold.
AI PLATFORM GPTBOTS.AI: Aurora Mobile (JG) announced the integration of newly updated DeepSeek-R1-0528-a groundbreaking open-source reasoning AI model that rivals proprietary giants like OpenAI's o3 and Google's (GOOG, GOOGL) Gemini 2.5 Pro-into its leading enterprise-grade AI platform GPTBots.ai. This significant update, released by DeepSeek, brings enhanced reasoning capabilities and developer-friendly features, further empowering GPTBots.ai to deliver cutting-edge AI solutions to enterprises worldwide. The DeepSeek-R1-0528 model brings substantial advancements in reasoning capabilities, achieving notable benchmark improvements such as AIME 2025 accuracy rising from 70% to 87.5% and LiveCodeBench coding performance increasing from 63.5% to 73.3%. These enhancements empower GPTBots.ai users to tackle complex tasks in domains like math, science, business, and programming with greater precision and efficiency. Additionally, the model's reduced hallucination rate, along with support for JSON output and function calling, ensures seamless integration into business workflows, delivering reliable and consistent results. These improvements align perfectly with the mission of GPTBots.ai to provide secure, scalable, and enterprise-ready AI solutions.
AI INITIATIVE: Tevogen (TVGN) provided stockholders a detailed overview of its artificial intelligence initiative, Tevogen.AI, aimed at integrating advanced machine learning into its ExacTcell technology to enhance target identification and preclinical processes. Tevogen.AI currently has two proprietary technologies, PredicTcell and AdapTcell, both with patents pending. The company also highlighted strategic partnerships with Microsoft, providing AI expertise and cloud computing infrastructure, and Databricks, supplying data engineering and analytics capabilities. Tevogen plans to expand its headquarters for the Tevogen.AI team.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla facing potential major statewide ban on all sales: 'Not capable'
The California Department of Motor Vehicles moved one step closer to enacting a staggering 30-day ban on Tesla vehicle sales, vigorously arguing during a weeklong hearing that the company misled consumers over the capabilities of its "Full Self-Driving" and "Autopilot" technologies, with deadly results, Business Insider reported. "These labels and descriptions represent specifically that [Tesla]'s vehicles will operate as autonomous vehicles, which they could not and cannot do," said Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, per The News Wheel. What's happening? In 2022, the California DMV filed a formal accusation alleging that Tesla "made or disseminated statements that are untrue or misleading, and not based on facts, in advertising vehicles as equipped, or potentially equipped, with advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) features." Specifically, the DMV accused Tesla of using names and messaging that strongly indicate its cars can operate fully autonomously without the need for human monitoring or intervention. "But vehicles equipped with those ADAS features could not at the time of those advertisements, and cannot now, operate as autonomous vehicles," the accusation said. After years of delay, in mid-July, the DMV finally got the chance to make its case before an administrative judge, arguing that Tesla advertised its driver-assist features as if they offered full autonomy while saying otherwise in the fine print. In making its case, the DMV cited Tesla's own ads, including one stating, "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat." "To me, 'Autopilot' means it can drive itself or do things on its own," testified Melanie Rosario, commander-sergeant of the DMV Valley Area Command, per Business Insider. Lawyers for Tesla argued that the company never claimed its vehicles could operate fully independently of a human operator. "Cars with Full Self-Driving capabilities are currently not capable of driving themselves," Matthew Benedetto, an attorney representing Tesla, said during the hearing, Business Insider reported. Do you think Tesla can bounce back from its recent struggles? Yes It depends on Elon's actions I don't think it's struggling Nope Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. What would be the implications if Tesla sales are banned in California? The hearing came at a crucial time for Tesla, as the company's recent sales slump continued through the second quarter of 2025. In the period from April through June, the EV maker's net income dropped 16% compared to a year prior, The Wall Street Journal reported. As the nation's most populous state, California represents a crucial market for EV makers. With Tesla registrations in the state already dropping more than 20% during the first quarter of 2025, per the California Energy Commission, a 30-day ban on sales could be tough for Tesla to bounce back from. The outcome of the DMV's accusation also has broader implications for the future of self-driving technology, how it operates, and who is legally responsible when it fails. Bryan Walker Smith, a member of the Society of Automotive and Aerospace Engineers who testified as an expert witness at the Tesla hearing, called the difference between driver-assistance technology and fully autonomous self-driving "a dam that separates the land from the sea." "Every driver needs to know without ambiguity or doubt or any confusion an answer to this basic question: am I driving?" Smith testified, per Business Insider. In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, Tesla autonomous-driving technology has been involved in several major incidents, including at least one fatal wreck. In 2018, Walter Huang, an engineer for Apple, died after his Tesla operating in Autopilot mode crashed in Mountain View, California. Later investigations revealed that Huang had complained about the Autopilot's performance prior to the crash, according to ABC-affiliate KGO. Another example came in 2022, when a Tesla came to an abrupt stop while driving at highway speeds on the Bay Bridge connecting San Francisco and Oakland, resulting in an eight-car pileup. The driver said the Tesla had been operating in "Full Self-Driving" mode at the time of the incident, per KGO. What's being done about the safety of autonomous vehicles? Tesla has made some improvements in the time since the aforementioned accidents, though improvements do not change whether the company was liable for those cases. With Tesla already having rolled out a test fleet of autonomous robotaxis in Austin, Texas, and seeking to soon do the same in San Francisco, observers of autonomous-vehicle technology are watching the California proceedings closely. In the absence of comprehensive federal regulation, autonomous vehicles in the U.S. largely have been regulated on a state-by-state basis, according to the law firm Frost Brown Todd. This patchwork regulatory framework is bad for companies, which require clear, consistent guidelines that they can design their technologies to comply with. It is also bad for consumers, many of whom may lack a clear understanding of what these technologies are capable of and what risks they entail. To help fill this regulatory void, you can use your voice and contact your elected representatives in Washington, telling them that you think developing federal safety standards for autonomous vehicles should be a top priority. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
44 minutes ago
- Forbes
Apple's AI About-Face Isn't A Failure. It's A Lesson In How To Innovate.
Apple computer, iPad, and Home at home. It's been just over a year since Apple unveiled its long-anticipated foray into generative AI, teasing the launch of a new brain for Siri that would take the iPhone experience to the next level. The company was already late, but at least it had gotten in the game with its own vision. Apple Intelligence, as they called it, would leverage its strength in consumer devices rather than copying the OpenAIs of the world. And yet, one year later, the AI game is still largely being played without Apple. The new Siri hasn't materialized, and the company was forced to announce an indefinite delay at its Worldwide Developers Conference in June. Senior execs said the new version of Siri hadn't met Apple's high standards, forcing them to go back to the drawing board. The story got even worse when Bloomberg reported that Apple had held internal talks about buying Perplexity and was considering using technology from Anthropic or OpenAI to power the new Siri, rather than its own large language models. For years, people have been concerned that Apple is losing its innovative edge–and they may be right. The company hasn't produced a truly groundbreaking product since the Apple Watch in 2015, and each new iPhone model seems less thrilling and more incremental than the last. Still, the news out of Cupertino may actually be a sign of progress. The fact that Apple reversed course on developing its own AI technology isn't necessarily a sign of weakness. Apple's leadership may be demonstrating a healthy amount of self-awareness and executing a strategy that plays to its strengths. The rest of us might be getting an essential lesson in how companies should manage innovation by focusing on what we're great at rather than wasting resources trying to be something we're not. The Three Big Jobs of Innovation Large-scale corporate innovation can be a complex beast, inviting all manner of methods and systems and metrics. But at its core, innovators need to do three things: 'Dream It,' 'Build It,' and 'Scale It.' The 'Dream It' job is all about exploration. It involves basic research and widespread exploration. It's about asking 'What if…?' 'Dream It' innovation is the kind of work that went on at Xerox PARC and Bell Labs: places where the internet was first invented. It's what Google X was established to do. Some Google X projects look like Project Loon, a short-lived initiative to provide internet connectivity to Africa by launching a fleet of broadcast balloons. Other projects become things like Waymo, the first successful driverless car service. 'Dream It' initiatives are usually too early-stage to worry about things like market share, product refinement, or shipping dates. Places with 'Dream It' cultures encourage freedom, curiosity, and permission to chase questions most firms would never fund. The 'Build It' job is about creating new things. It's about design and prototyping. If 'Dream It' looks like freeform writing, 'Build It' looks like ruthless editing. It's about asking 'How might we…?' 'Build It' innovation is the kind of work that goes on at Nike and IDEO. The best builders focus on a clear vision for their service or product and then iterate it until it delights the end user. Dyson does this in household products like fans and vacuums. The philosophy of its founder, Sir James Dyson, is that 'things should just work properly.' Dyson rejects the popular image of himself as a wild-haired inventor, saying: 'It undermines the testing and rigour of bringing an invention to life, of people working together to achieve something.' He doesn't want to be seen as a 'Dream It' guy… And then there's the 'Scale It' job. This part is critical, because an innovation is an invention that has socioeconomic impact. Scaling takes a finished concept and catapults it to wider success. The 'Scale It' job involves things like go-to-market strategies, channel relationships, staged investment plans, and relentless customer feedback loops. Many dreamers and builders stumble at this point because they don't know how to turn their brilliant ideas into reality. Microsoft is a master scaler. Whether it's Microsoft Office, Azure, Teams, or its OpenAI partnership, the company excels at rolling technology out to millions of enterprise users and making it the industry standard. When it comes to innovation, every company needs to Dream It, Build It, and Scale It. And each of these three jobs require very different types of people, processes, and cultures. Some companies manage to do it in-house by creating subsidiaries or divisions. Others build walls between different parts of the business and try to give each the freedom to focus on what they do best. Years ago, Frito-Lay exec Joe Ennen went so far as to divide his organization into three functions. The goal was to get each group to focus on one specific job, be it dreaming it, building it, or scaling it. Play Your Position Of course, the real challenge is that a company's overall culture will lend itself to only one of these jobs. Frito-Lay has always been best at scaling ideas, not dreaming them up. And when companies attempt to be something they're not, they're like quarterbacks trying to be linebackers. They run into frustration and costly dead ends that waste resources and divert attention from their true calling. It's better to play your position. Most pharmaceutical giants are scalers. Pfizer has been likened to a venture fund, identifying smaller firms that dreamt up promising drugs, then funding and scaling them with its massive marketing and distribution network. The company didn't invent the COVID vaccine – it partnered with the small German biotech firm, BioNTech, that pioneered mRNA-based therapies. And that brings us to Apple. Apple has always been the very best at the 'Build It' job. As Steve Jobs put it succinctly: 'Real artists ship.' And while Apple's era-defining products like the iPhone and iPad have given it a reputation as a genius inventor, its success is actually built on borrowing ideas and turning them into great products. Apple builds what other people dreamed up. Apple didn't dream up the multitouch technology crucial for the iPhone and iPad; it acquired it by buying FingerWorks in 2005. Neither did they invent the graphical user interface or the mouse that became the foundation of the Mac. Those ideas were taken from Xerox after Apple executives visited its Palo Alto Research Center in the late 1970s. The PARC researchers were dreamers – they didn't see the world-changing nature of the cool stuff they'd envisioned. Jobs was a builder, later saying he realized within ten minutes the revolutionary potential of what he saw at PARC. Apple's genius was to edit those unpolished ideas into user-friendly products that could be manufactured at a low cost and sold at accessible prices. It edited down those dreams into tools that felt inevitable once you used them. The iPhone didn't create new technologies. It curated the most promising ones into a compelling experience. Even Siri isn't an Apple invention – the company bought it from Stanford Research International (SRI). That's why it's called Siri. In that light, Apple's search for external help with AI is a smart move. It isn't a betrayal of its innovative identity; it's a reaffirmation of its identity as the builder company archetype. If it can take Perplexity's or OpenAI's technology and mold it into the next great Apple products that delight customers, it will be doing precisely what it did with macOS, the iPhone, and Siri. Ironically, OpenAI has decided to do the inverse. The company just spent $6.5 billion to acquire iPhone designer Jony Ive's startup, IO, this year, with the aim of building 'amazing products that elevate humanity.' What Makes You Great? Any leader struggling with how to approach innovation should start with one fundamental question: Who are we? You should look back at all the things your company has done in the past and determine what you're best at. If you've done better at basic research and developing new ideas, you're likely a dreamer. If you've had more success at rapid prototyping and understanding market needs, you fit the builder mold. If you're excellent at formulating go-to-market strategies, developing sales channels, and engaging customers, you're a natural scaler. Once you have clarity about who you are, you can stop trying to be what you're not and start looking for partners who can fill the innovation gaps. True innovation isn't about doing everything yourself; it's about knowing what kind of innovator you are. Apple's search for a partner that can supercharge its AI capabilities will be fascinating to watch, but it shouldn't cause investors to lose sleep. The time for worry is when Apple stops exploring partnerships to build the next great innovation.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
"A Lot Of Us Can't Afford Groceries": People Are NOT Impressed By The News That Elon Musk Is On Track To Become The World's First Trillionaire
Editor's Note: While we can't endorse what X has become, we can bring you the worthwhile moments that still exist there, curated and free of the surrounding chaos. In case you want to feel worse about your bank account than you already do, Elon Musk is on track to become the world's first trillionaire in 2027. As a millennial with zero hope of buying a house near my friends and family, I know that's just what I want to hear about on a Monday morning: the rich growing absurdly richer. Like, so wealthy that it's difficult to even fathom. Related: According to Forbes, Elon's net worth currently sits at $412 billion, up a whopping $6.4 billion in the past trading day. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO remains the richest man in the world despite all the backlash he faced during his time with DOGE. Over the past year, several publications have reported the likelihood of Elon being the first to hit this disgusting milestone, but a recent, viral tweet has sparked further conversation. Understandably, the internet is not pleased. Many people pointed out that he has the means to solve world hunger and homelessness, but has not: Related: Others shared thoughts about us as a society... ...and their thoughts on capitalism: Related: Folks pointed out that people are struggling to buy groceries: Some focused on how ridiculous the idea of a trillionaire is: Related: This account suggested a wealth cap: And finally, this person summed it up perfectly: What do you think of all this? LMK in the comments below! Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
