Feed aggregator

• Anthropic’s Claude chatbot now has an on-demand memory feature
• The AI will recall past chats only when a user specifically asks
• The feature is rolling out first to Max, Team, and Enterprise subscribers before expanding to other plans

Anthropic has given Claude a memory upgrade, but it will only activate when you choose. The new feature allows Claude to recall past conversations, providing the AI chatbot with information to help continue previous projects and apply what you've discussed before to your next conversation.

The update is coming to Claude’s Max, Team, and Enterprise subscribers first, though it will likely be more widely available at some point. If you have it, you can ask Claude to search for previous messages tied to your workspace or project.

However, unless you explicitly ask, Claude won’t cast an eye backward. That means Claude will maintain a generic sort of personality by default. That's for the sake of privacy, according to Anthropic. Claude can recall your discussions if you want, without creeping into your dialogue uninvited.

By comparison, OpenAI’s ChatGPT automatically stores past chats unless you opt out, and uses them to shape its future responses. Google Gemini goes even further, employing both your conversations with the AI and your Search history and Google account data, at least if you let it. Claude’s approach doesn't pick up the breadcrumbs referencing earlier talks without you asking it to do so.

Claude remembers

Adding memory may not seem like a big deal. Still, you'll feel the impact immediately if you’ve ever tried to restart a project interrupted by days or weeks without a helpful assistant, digital or otherwise. Making it an opt-in choice is a nice touch in accommodating how comfortable people are with AI currently.

Many may want AI help without surrendering control to chatbots that never forget. Claude sidesteps that tension cleanly by making memory something you summon deliberately.

But it’s not magic. Since Claude doesn’t retain a personalized profile, it won’t proactively remind you to prepare for events mentioned in other chats or anticipate style shifts when writing to a colleague versus a public business presentation, unless prompted mid-conversation.

Further, if there are issues with this approach to memory, Anthropic’s rollout strategy will allow the company to correct any mistakes before it becomes widely available to all Claude users. It will also be worth seeing if building long-term context like ChatGPT and Gemini are doing is going to be more appealing or off-putting to users compared to Claude's way of making memory an on-demand aspect of using the AI chatbot.

And that assumes it works perfectly. Retrieval depends on Claude’s ability to surface the right excerpts, not just the most recent or longest chat. If summaries are fuzzy or the context is wrong, you might end up more confused than before. And while the friction of having to ask Claude to use its memory is supposed to be a benefit, it still means you'll have to remember that the feature exists, which some may find annoying. Even so, if Anthropic is right, a little boundary is a good thing, not a limitation. And users will be happy that Claude remembers that, and nothing else, without a request.

You might also like

• You don’t have to explain everything to Claude anymore – it’s finally in your apps
• How Claude’s 3.7's new ‘extended' thinking compares to ChatGPT o1's reasoning
• I tried Claude's new Research feature, and it's just as good as ChatGPT and Google Gemini's Deep Research features

Google's Pixel 10 may be getting a lot of new features thanks to a new processor, camera systems and magnets.

Here are hints and the answers for the NYT Connections: Sports Edition puzzle for Aug. 13, No. 324

Windows 10 reaches its End of Life in October 2025, and a California resident is particularly disgruntled about this looming deadline.

He isn't alone, of course, but Lawrence Klein feels strongly enough that Microsoft is out of order in bringing the shutters down on Windows 10 in just a couple of months that he has fired up a lawsuit against the company.

As The Register reports, Klein has accused Microsoft of violating consumer legal code and business code (including false advertising law) by winding up support for Windows 10 too early, in his opinion.

The crux of the argument is that too many people remain on Windows 10 for the operating system to have support pulled (there are nuances here, which I'll come back to). And that some 240 million devices don't meet the hardware requirements to upgrade to Windows 11 – due to Microsoft setting those PC specifications at an unreasonable level – and the potential e-waste nightmare that could prompt.

In short, the upgrades required for Windows 11 - including TPM 2.0 security, as well as ruling out some surprisingly recent processors - aren't justified.

Furthermore, Klein argues that this upgrade timeline is all part of Microsoft's drive to push folks to use its Copilot AI with Windows 11, in a broader push to get more adoption for Copilot+ PCs - in other words, to buy new machines and discard old Windows 10 hardware (and again, we're back to that e-waste issue).

You can read the lawsuit in its entirety (it's a PDF) here, but that's the gist, and Klein argues that Microsoft should postpone killing off Windows 10 and wait until far fewer people are using the older operating system.

As the suit states: "[The] Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Microsoft to continue providing support for Windows 10 without additional fees or conditions until the number of devices running the operating system falls below a reasonable threshold, thereby ensuring that consumers and businesses are not unfairly pressured into unnecessary expenditures and cybersecurity risks [of running a Windows 10 PC without security updates]."

Is Klein justified in this lawsuit? In some respects, I think so, and while I don't imagine for a minute that this legal action will go anywhere in terms of the outcome of the suit itself, I've a feeling it could come into play, and be important, indirectly.

What do I mean by that exactly? Well, let's dive into the thinking behind Klein's lawsuit, and the key reasons why it might force Microsoft to sit up and take notice.

(Image credit: fizkes / Shutterstock)1. Windows 11's hardware requirements really are unreasonable

Do we really need TPM 2.0 forced upon us? Yes, it ushers in a better level of security, I don't dispute that – but hundreds of millions of PCs potentially heading to landfill seems too heavy a price to pay. For me, as already mentioned, the decision to rule out some relatively new CPUs in the Windows 11 specs is particularly baffling.

The key point here is that Microsoft has never pushed the PC hardware requirements as hard as it has with Windows 11, and that leaves it open to criticism, although this observation is nothing new. What is new, though, is that the lack of fairness in setting this higher hardware bar has become crystal clear with the number of people who are still using Windows 10, which brings us onto my next point.

(Image credit: Microsoft)2. This close to End of Life, there are clearly too many people still using Windows 10

The lawsuit cites outdated figures as to how many folks are still on Windows 10 - an estimate drawn from April 2025 suggests that 53% remain on the older OS. While that's no longer the case, the level remains high.

Based on the latest report from StatCounter (for July 2025), Windows 10 usage is 43%, which is very high with the End of Life deadline imminent. Normally, an outgoing Windows version would have way fewer users than this - Windows 7 had a 25% market share when it ran out of support (and it was a popular OS).

There are always holdouts when a new version of Windows comes out, but it's looking like this is going to be really bad with Windows 10's end of support. This is Klein's central argument, and I think it's a key factor that Microsoft doesn't appear to be taking into account - or perhaps doesn't want to face up to.

Maybe the software giant is thinking there'll be a last-minute flood of Windows 11 migration, but given the outlined hardware requirements problem, I doubt it.

(Image credit: NATNN / Shutterstock)3. Proving the cynics right?

Another part of Klein's case against Microsoft is the assertion that the company is using Windows 10's end of support and Windows 11 upgrades to persuade people to buy new PCs that major in AI, namely Copilot+ PCs. And indeed Microsoft hasn't helped itself here, openly pushing these Windows 11 devices as the lawsuit points out – and that includes intrusive full-screen advertisements piped to Windows 10 machines.

That feels like a crass tactic, and makes it seem like part of this is indeed about pushing those Copilot+ laptops. Yes, by all means, advertise Copilot+ PCs and their AI abilities (which are limited thus far, I should note) – but don't do it in this way, directly at Windows 10 users, and expect that to be viewed in anything other than a negative and cynical light.

(Image credit: Shutterstock)4. Microsoft has already made a concession, true - but it's not enough

It's worth noting that not everything Klein puts forward in this suit seems reasonable. I don't think you can argue that 10 years of support is stingy, which is what Microsoft has given Windows 10. However, Klein picks out 'transitional' support in his lawsuit, meaning the length of support after a succeeding OS has been launched – four years in this case – which isn't entirely fair and looks lean. The problem here is not the length of time for support as such, but the different circumstances around hardware requirements.

Also, calling Windows 11 'wildly unpopular' as Klein does at one point is equally unfair - even if adoption of the operating system has been very sluggish, admittedly. There's a definite bias towards shooting the OS down across all fronts, and I think that weakens Klein's argument.

But my main bone of contention here is that Klein ignores the concession Microsoft has made in terms of the extended year of support for consumers who want to stay on Windows 10. As the lawsuit states, this extra support through to October 2026 can be had for the price of $30, but recently, Microsoft introduced the ability to get this extension for free, well, kind of. (Financially, you won't pay a penny, but you need to sync some PC settings to OneDrive, and I don't think that requirement is too onerous myself.)

That was an important move by Microsoft, which it isn't given any credit for here, but that said, I still don't think the company goes far enough. As I've said before, an extra year of support is certainly welcome, but Microsoft needs to look at a further extended program for consumers.

So, while the lawsuit does go off the rails (at least for me) around these issues, it does effectively put a spotlight on how we're looking at measuring support, and a different perspective other than a hard timeframe. Instead of talking about 'x' years of extended coverage, it mentions a level of Windows 10 adoption that should be reached before Microsoft pulls the plug on support for the OS.

I think that's a valuable new angle on this whole affair, and while 10% of total Windows users – which is the low bar Klein sets for Windows 10 – maybe feels too low, there's an interesting conversation to be had here. (The other route Klein's suit suggests, which others have raised, is Microsoft simply relaxing the hardware requirements for Windows 11 - but I think at this stage of the game, we can safely conclude that this won't be happening.)

(Image credit: MAYA LAB / Shutterstock)5. Under pressure

My final point in terms of why this lawsuit could prove a compelling kick in the seat of the pants for Microsoft is that while, as already observed, I can't see Klein triumphing over the company, it's more fuel to the fire in the campaign to stave off a potentially major e-waste catastrophe.

Simply put, the PR around this – and it has been spinning up headlines aplenty over the past couple of days – is another reason for Microsoft to sit up, take notice, and maybe do some rethinking over exactly how Windows 10's End of Life is being implemented.

We've already seen one concession – the aforementioned free route to get extended support for Windows 10 – in recent times, which surely must have been a reaction to the frustration that Klein and many others feel. So, perhaps this lawsuit could be the catalyst to prod Microsoft into going further in its appeasement of the unhappy Windows 10 users out there – fingers crossed, at any rate.

You might also like

• Microsoft finally fixes one frustrating Windows 11 pop-up – just as a more irritating one arrives to take its place
• Microsoft promises to crack one of the biggest problems with Windows 11: slow performance
• Microsoft has all but given up on Windows 11 SE – and it looks like the war against Chromebooks has been lost

Instead of a toy, the adult-aimed meal includes a collectible tin filled with postcards and stickers, honoring one of McD's retro mascots.

The surprise coincides with the announcement of Swift's 12th album, called The Life of a Showgirl.

• Tesla’s Dojo supercomputer dream ends after leadership changes and mass departures reshape its AI strategy
• The Dojo project looked to revolutionize autonomous driving before internal shifts halted its momentum
• Samsung’s $16.5 billion chip deal with Tesla marks a major turn in AI development

Tesla has shut down its Dojo supercomputer team, in what appears to be a major shift in the company’s artificial intelligence plans.

Reports from Bloomberg claim the decision followed the exit of team leader Peter Bannon and the loss of about 20 other staff members to a newly formed venture called DensityAI.

The remaining team members will now be reassigned to other computing and data center projects within Tesla.

Leadership exit triggers Tesla shake-up

The Dojo system was originally developed around custom training chips designed to process large amounts of driving data and video from Tesla’s electric vehicles.

The aim was to use this information to train the company’s autonomous driving software more efficiently than off-the-shelf systems.

However, CEO Elon Musk said on X it no longer made sense to split resources between two different AI chips.

Tesla has not responded to requests for comment, but Musk has outlined the company’s focus on developing its AI5 and AI6 chips.

He said these would be “excellent for inference and at least pretty good for training” and could be placed in large supercomputer clusters, a configuration he suggested might be called “Dojo 3.”

The company’s shift away from the Dojo project comes amid broader restructuring efforts that have seen multiple executive departures and thousands of job cuts.

Tesla has also been working on integrating AI tools such as the Grok chatbot into its vehicles, expanding its AI ambitions beyond self-driving technology.

Tesla’s plans for future AI computing infrastructure and chip production after Dojo rely heavily on outside technology suppliers, with Nvidia and AMD expected to provide computing capabilities, while Samsung Electronics will manufacture chips for the company.

Samsung recently secured a $16.5 billion deal to supply AI chips to Tesla, which are expected to power autonomous vehicles, humanoid robots, and data centers.

Musk has previously said Samsung’s new Texas plant will produce Tesla’s AI6 chip, with AI5 production planned for late 2026.

For now, Musk appears confident that Tesla’s chip roadmap will support its ambitions.

But with the original Dojo team largely gone and reliance on external partners increasing, the company’s AI trajectory will depend on whether its new chips and computing infrastructure can deliver the results Musk has promised.

You might also like

• Researchers hack into a Gemini-powered smart home by hijacking Google Calendar
• These are the best NAS devices around
• We've also rounded up the best cloud storage platforms on offer

Days after the president's call for a "new" census, the top official overseeing the Census Bureau told employees that Congress, not Trump, has final say over the tally, NPR has exclusively learned.

(Image credit: Anna Moneymaker)

• The non-profit group behind Wikipedia has lost its legal challenge against the Online Safety Act
• The Wikimedia Foundation opposes the possibility of being subjected to the most stringent rules
• London's High Court said the decision isn't a "green light" for Ofcom to implement new rules if they impede Wikipedia's operations

The non-profit behind Wikipedia has lost its legal fight against the Online Safety Act – but it may still be on the right track to resist mandatory age checks.

On Monday, August 11, 2025, London's High Court dismissed the judicial review that the Wikimedia Foundation issued in May to challenge the categorization under the upcoming implementation of the law.

The judge stressed, however, that the decision doesn't give "Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations," leaving therefore room for further legal recourse.

Not age checks on Wikipedia – for now

(Image credit: Getty Images)

Starting from July 25, 2025, all online platforms that display adult-only or potentially harmful materials are required to verify their users' age before allowing them to access such content.

Besides the most obvious names, social media apps like Reddit, X, or Bluesky, dating apps such as Grindr, and even the music streaming giant Spotify are amongst the websites you may not expect to have been impacted by age verification.

This is because, under the latest implementation of the Online Safety Act, these platforms fall into Category 1 of the scope of the law. This categorization requires providers to follow the most stringent rules, including a duty of care to shield minors from so-called "legal but harmful content."

This is exactly what Wikipedia is worried about – and tried to challenge in Court. The group has argued, in fact, that forcing its UK volunteer contributors to get verified would undermine their rights to privacy, safety, free speech, and association.

Commenting on the Monday ruling, the Wikimedia Foundation said: "While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the Court’s ruling emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA is implemented."

Could the Wikipedia case set a precedent?

While the goal of the UK's Online Safety Act of protecting children online is certainly crucial, its implementation has so far been met with a strong backlash among technologists, politicians, and everyday users alike.

Privacy experts are especially concerned about how the UK's current age-checking solutions could lead to data breaches and misuse. Others are also worrying about "a risk of overreach" that could lead to undermining people's rights to free speech and access to information.

While calling to repeal the Online Safety Act, millions of Brits have also turned to the best VPN apps to avoid giving away their most sensitive data to access a host of content on the web.

Whether other providers could (and will) follow Wikipedia's legal path is too early to know. Yet, this development certainly opens up a precedent for similar platforms to challenge the UK's Online Safety Act's categorization.

You might also like

• Age verification requirements have landed in the UK – how the internet will change, and what about your privacy?
• No, VPNs don't guarantee absolute anonymity – but too many users still think they do
• VPN demand skyrockets in the UK as age verification checks are enforced

Sony's eighth-gen console is just as relevant as ever. These are the all-time best games on the PS4.

Syria’s trying to emerge from a multi-layered financial crisis since opposition fighters toppled the regime late last year and formed a government. It’s been given a boost by the US lifting most sanctions, but efforts are hampered by a lack of liquidity.

If you want the fastest phone, it would be hard to choose between the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra and the Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max. The two run head-to-head in every benchmark Olympics, and each can claim victory in some event or other.

My question is, why do you need the fastest phone? I review all of the best phones for weeks at a time, and I can promise every flagship phone you’ll find is already fast enough – and maybe even too fast.

Smartphone speed relies on many components, but the most important is the application processor – the CPU. That’s the Apple A18 Pro in the best iPhone and the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite (ahem, for Galaxy) in the fastest Androids.

Samsung makes its own chips, but they aren’t as fast as Qualcomm’s best platform, which is why Samsung phones use somebody else’s CPU. Actually, Samsung Semiconductor makes the chips, and they might as well be a whole different company from Samsung Mobile Experience, the phone division.

The Pixel 9 Pro and Pixel 9 Pro XL use the Tensor G4 chipset (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)

What about Google? Google designs its own chips, similar to Apple, and then has them produced by a foundry company like Samsung or TSMC. In fact, Google and Samsung Semiconductor worked so closely in the past that Google’s Pixel chips were accused of being repackaged Samsung Exynos products, with all the baggage that implies.

The upshot is that Google’s Tensor chips have never won a benchmark contest. Google has never announced ‘the world’s fastest phone,’ only the ‘fastest Pixel.’ But here’s the truth – it doesn’t matter. Google’s best Pixel phones have never suffered because of slower performance.

Google phones haven't been the fastest for a long time

I’ve been using Pixel phones for years - since before they were Pixel phones. I had the first Google Nexus One phone, and that may have been the last time Google raced for the speed trophy.

The Nexus One came with the first 1GHz mobile processor I’d ever seen, the Qualcomm Snapdragon S1. It enabled amazing features like live wallpapers: colorful pixels chasing around a grid behind the app icons. Live wallpapers are still available on most phones today, but they’ve fallen out of fashion because they are still a processing and battery hog.

The Pixel 9 Pro is the fourth fastest phone on my list of the Best Android phones. The Galaxy S25 Ultra and S25 Plus are both faster, and so is the OnePlus 13. But my SIM card lived in my Pixel 9 Pro for more time than any other Android phone. It’s a great phone, even though it isn’t the best at most things. It’s just great, with features that I find invaluable, and it works reliably well.

I have all these phones, and I usually pick the one in the middle, the Pixel 9 Pro (Image credit: Future | Alex Walker-Todd)

I have never noticed a performance lag on any Pixel in recent years. I reviewed the Pixel 7 Pro, the Pixel 8 Pro, and the Pixel 9 Pro, and I kept every one of those phones in my pocket long after the review ended because they were such a delight to use.

I can use literally any phone one can buy in the US. If performance truly mattered, I would choose a faster phone.

I chose the Pixel because it’s best at making calls and typing messages. My Pixel 9 Pro is the best phone for managing notifications and screening out Spam calls. It has solid cameras and the best-in-class photo editing that I need (with or without AI).

Leaks are dumb, but benchmarks leaks are the dumbest

That’s what makes this time of year so frustrating. Google has announced its upcoming Made By Google event: the annual Pixel parade. It’s even teased the Pixel 10 family with new colors coming. The leaks are dripping out fast, like always, and they come with the same complaints as last year.

Every year, somebody leaks Pixel benchmarks for the upcoming phones. Every Pixel phone this year will likely use the rumored Google Tensor G5 chipset, like every Pixel in 2024 used the Tensor G4 platform – from the Pixel 9a to the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. That means a benchmark test for any Pixel 10 model might give us a hint about the performance of the whole Pixel 10 family.

The Pixel 9a uses the same Tensor G4 as the Pixel 9 Pro (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)

Pixel benchmark leaks are never good news if you care about owning the fastest phone. So every year, I read the technorati complaining that Pixel phones won’t keep up with the next iPhone (or frankly any iPhone from the last 2 years), and it’s going to be killed by Samsung’s best. Ugh, spare me, please!

Google could make a faster Pixel, but why?

I don’t know why Google chooses a slower chipset for its Pixel phones. I can guess, but it doesn’t really matter. Is Google saving money? Are the phones saving power? Is the chip really more focused on AI edge computing than raw processing? It doesn’t matter. Pixel phones are fast enough.

In fact, Pixel phones can do everything Google says they can do, unlike some faster phone makers. I’m still waiting for the promised AI features from Apple and Samsung, but I don’t remember Google overpromising Gemini’s ability to make career decisions for me (Siri) or turn out the lights when it detects I’m asleep (Bixby).

I wonder if my iPhone 16 Pro is too fast. Why does it need all that power? I don’t play AAA games on my phone because they don’t really exist. I’m not a music producer or a video editor, and I only record video in 4K Pro-Raw once when I first buy the phone – until I see how big the video files get.

What if - and hear me out - these phones are needlessly fast? (Image credit: Future / Philip Berne)

Why is my Galaxy S25 Ultra this fast? There’s still a delay when I use most AI features, as the phone communicates with various AI clouds. But Android has even fewer high-powered apps than iOS.

I can play Call of Duty at the highest settings with phones that are much slower than this Galaxy, and the real benefit of Qualcomm’s latest platform is its efficiency – every Snapdragon 8 Elite phone has demonstrated incredible battery life compared to other Android phones.

If you’re worried about Pixel 10 or Pixel 10 Pro Fold performance because of some benchmark results you saw leaked online, I don’t wanna hear about it. That’s not what Pixel is about, and I’m sure the Pixel 10 will look great, even without the benchmark crown.

You might also like

• New Google Pixel 10 rumor suggests it could ditch physical SIMs and go eSIM only
• The Pixel 9 Pro was our Phone of the Year in 2024, but I can't see a repeat in 2025 – here’s why
• If the Google Pixel 10 Pro Fold gets this rumored upgrade, I’ll recommend it over any other folding phone

The satellite internet provider's Residential plan is down from $120 to $99 a month in some areas, and you can get the Residential Lite Plan for $65 monthly (down from $80).

• Sandisk and SK Hynix propose flash-powered high-bandwidth memory to handle larger AI models
• High Bandwidth Flash could store far more data than DRAM-based HBM for AI workloads
• Energy savings from NAND’s non-volatility could reshape AI data center cooling strategies

Sandisk and SK Hynix have signed an agreement to develop a memory technology which could change how AI accelerators handle data at scale.

The companies aim to standardize “High Bandwidth Flash” (HBF), a NAND-based alternative to traditional high-bandwidth memory used in AI GPUs.

The concept builds on packaging designs similar to HBM while replacing part of the DRAM stack with flash, trading some latency for vastly increased capacity and non-volatility.

AI memory stacks to handle larger models at lower power demands

This approach allows HBF to provide between eight and sixteen times the storage of DRAM-based HBM at roughly similar costs.

NAND’s ability to retain data without constant power also brings potential energy savings, an increasingly important factor as AI inference expands into environments with strict power and cooling limits.

For hyperscale operators running large models, the change could help address both thermal and budget constraints that are already straining data center operations.

This plan aligns with a research concept titled “LLM in a Flash,” which outlined how large language models could run more efficiently by incorporating SSDs as an additional tier, alleviating pressure on DRAM.

HBF essentially integrates that logic into a single high-bandwidth package, potentially combining the storage scale of the largest SSD with the speed profile needed for AI workloads.

Sandisk presented its HBF prototype at the Flash Memory Summit 2025, using proprietary BiCS NAND and wafer bonding techniques.

Sample modules are expected in the second half of 2026, with the first AI hardware using HBF projected for early 2027.

No specific product partnerships have been disclosed, but SK Hynix’s position as a major memory supplier to leading AI chipmakers, including Nvidia, could accelerate adoption once standards are finalized.

This move also comes as other manufacturers explore similar ideas.

Samsung has announced flash-backed AI storage tiers and continues to develop HBM4 DRAM, while companies like Nvidia remain committed to DRAM-heavy designs.

If successful, the Sandisk and SK Hynix collaboration could create heterogeneous memory stacks where DRAM, flash, and other persistent storage types coexist.

Via Toms Hardware

You might also like

• Forget talking to a human ever again - Apple is rolling out AI chatbots in its customer service app
• These are the best business laptops available to buy right now
• And you should take a look at the best office chairs we've tried

Here are hints and answers for the NYT Strands puzzle for Aug. 13, No. 528.

Here are some hints and the answers for the NYT Connections puzzle for Aug. 13, #794.

Here are hints and the answer for today's Wordle for Aug. 13, No. 1,516

Dreame's new lineup includes many of the premium features from the X50 Ultra, including threshold crossing.

The smart camera system includes two 2K resolution cameras for a complete view of the outside of your home.

Few will forget the tumultuous few weeks during 2023 when OpenAI co-founder and CEO Sam Altman was fired and then returned to his position at the pioneering Artificial Intelligence company. Perhaps it's no surprise that such a startling turn of events is now fodder for a major motion picture.

Little is known about the Amazon Studios/MGM production beyond a smattering of casting news and rumors. What we do know is that Andrew Garfield (star of The Social Network) is cast as Sam Altman, and Monica Barbaro is playing former Interim OpenAI CEO Mira Murati. Beyond that, we have a handful of stars, including Cooper Hoffman, Jason Schwartzman, and Billie Lourd, who remain unassigned to roles (none of them seem a good fit for Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella). On Tuesday, Chris O'Dowd (Black Mirror, The IT Crowd) joined the list, but without any details on who the Irish actor would be playing.

No doubt, the film is full of high drama, some absurdity, and juicy roles, but perhaps none will blend it all like the casting of X owner and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 with Altman before walking away in 2018, has been a thorn in Altman's side for almost a decade – even during the Altman firing turmoil. Musk inserted himself, highlighting an unsigned letter full of accusations against Altman.

Things between the two men haven't improved. In recent days, Altman and Musk have tussled over ChatGPT's position in the Apple Store. Musk contends Apple is unfairly highlighting and promoting its AI partner over X's AI offering, the freshly updated Grok.

Sparks are flying

Musk tweeted this week: "Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation. xAI will take immediate legal action.”

To which Altman replied: "This is a remarkable claim given what I have heard alleged that Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn't like.”

Clearly, an on-screen depiction of their toxic relationship could be cinematic gold. But who will play Musk opposite Garfield's Altman?

Ike Barinholtz (The Studio) has been rumored, but nothing is confirmed. Could O'Dowd be the true "Musk" in waiting?

From our perspective, though, there's no question which of the two should play Musk. Anyone who's spent any time around him knows Musk has an odd, quirky, and off-kilter energy. O'Dowd is too low-key key but Barinholtz? If you watched any part of Apple TV+'s Emmy-nominated The Studio, you know Bariholtz, who plays studio exec Sal Saperstein, has just the right blend of kinetic energy, unpredictability, and odd pathos to pull it off.

At least that's our hope. A movie called Artificial about the darkest days of OpenAI's history won't be worth watching unless it gets very, very real.

You might also like

• Sam Altman says the super-powerful ChatGPT-5 Pro might be coming to Plus accounts, but with one big limitation
• ChatGPT users are not happy with GPT-5 launch as thousands take to Reddit claiming the new upgrade ‘is horrible’
• ChatGPT just created the most ironic movie plot for Final Destination 7, and I would actually stream it over other truly awful installments in the franchise
• Google Gemini has started spiraling into infinite loops of self-loathing – and AI chatbots have never felt more human