Somehow, in between gutting the federal government and running Tesla and SpaceX, Elon Musk has found time to launch a $97.4 billion takeover bid for OpenAI, said Kelsey Piper in Vox. That seemingly lowball offer — the ChatGPT-maker is thought to be worth more than $300 billion — was quickly rejected by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman last week.

A year before Elon Musk helped start OpenAI in San Francisco, philanthropist and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen already had established his own nonprofit artificial intelligence research laboratory in Seattle.

Meta, AI entrepreneurs, academics, and other charities and activists are criticizing the startup's plan to shed its ties to its non-profit parent.

AI is blaming a former OpenAI employee after Grok briefly censored responses about Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

OpenAI is considering granting new voting rights to its nonprofit board in a move that could help it fight an unsolicited takeover bid from Elon Musk, the Financial Times reported last night. Citing people familiar with the discussions,

Elon Musk recently attempted an unsolicited takeover of OpenAI that was rejected. Now the creator of ChatGPT wants to make sure that any future coups from the world's richest man won't be successful.

Elon Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, determined that over half of his posts on X are false or misleading—yet most of his political falsehoods go unchecked.

OpenAI is reportedly exploring the introduction of special voting rights for its non-profit board to maintain control as it faces an unsolicited takeover attempt from Elon Musk, according to the Financial Times.

OpenAI, the artificial intelligence research lab, is under fire for its plans to transition from a non-profit to a for-profit business.

Grok AI briefly blocked search results linking Elon Musk and Donald Trump to misinformation due to an unauthorized system prompt change.

But on Monday, Grok got out the rags and brushes. With the same query came a much more nuanced answer: Six paragraphs of tap-dancing around the “complex question” that depends on the measure of “misinformation,” concluding that “no single entity is universally agreed upon as the definitive answer.”