Elon Musk and Donald Trump have ended their friendship. Tensions flared between them mid-week, with both exchanging sharp criticisms. Four days after their public clash, I declare Musk the loser of this battle; the seemingly unstoppable force has met its match with the immovable object.
According to colleagues Hugo Lowell and Andrew Ross: On Thursday, Elon Musk mocked Donald Trump’s bounce by commenting on his connection with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The US president threatened to revoke federal contracts and tax incentives for Musk’s companies during this extraordinary social media spat that erupted among his former allies. This latest jab at Trump highlights Musk’s criticism of a Republican spending bill.
“Without me, Trump would lose the election, the Democrats would gain control of the House, and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk tweeted on X.
The repercussions were swift. Tesla’s stock, already grappling with difficulties, plunged 15%, wiping approximately $150 billion off the market. The implications for Trump and the Republican Party could take longer to unfold, as the midterm elections for the US Congress won’t occur until later next year.
When Trump and Musk were allies, many liberals predicted a tumultuous public fallout. I didn’t anticipate such an outcome. Musk appeared robust and allied with the formidable Trump. The Republican campaign needed a substantial cash influx, which Musk could provide.
However, Trump revealed last week that several of his closest advisers have left dramatically, victims of what he termed “Trump craziness.” Musk seems to follow a similar pattern. A notable example is Steve Bannon, once a top strategist for Trump, who was ousted from the White House but is now hosting a podcast scrutinizing Trump’s actions. Bannon spent last week calling for Musk’s ousting. Trump, not realizing he is often the common denominator in these fiery departures, appears similar to Musk; by Sunday, he had tweeted about the Los Angeles riots, retweeting Vice President JD Vance with patriotic emojis while targeting California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The conflict between Musk and Trump underlined America’s dependency on a single company for its space capabilities. During his outburst, Musk threatened to dismantle SpaceX’s Dragon Rocket. What would the nation do without him? In a pinch, perhaps another billionaire with a rocket could suffice, even with a pop star on board.
This spat has also brought to light Musk’s relative vulnerabilities. Musk threatened to dismantle the Dragon Rocket and quickly backed down from his ultimatum regarding requests on X. Meanwhile, Trump has remained silent online, not retaliating against Musk. This indicates the overarching theme of his second administration; Musk often targets those with less power and wealth, but when faced with significant challenges, he retreats. Recall his enthusiastic challenge to Mark Zuckerberg about arranging a cage fight in 2023. Zuckerberg responded, both intrigued and more robust, while Musk seemed outmatched. He eventually backed down. As for Trump, he claims he could save money by canceling government contracts with Musk. Musk replied, “Make my day,” but subsequently scaled back his threats.
In the long term, what does this tragic unraveling of alliances mean for Trump and Musk? To date, Musk has reportedly lost about $90 billion in net worth, an astounding figure according to the Bloomberg Billionaire Index. He remains the world’s wealthiest individual with nearly $100 billion.
Perhaps the bigger loser is democracy itself. Recently, he polled his followers about establishing a centrist political party he wants to call the “American Party.” He possesses the resources to make it a reality but has not indicated any centrist political inclinations over the past two years. His presence in political gatherings has proven more repulsive than magnetic, significantly affecting key elections like the Wisconsin Supreme Court contest earlier this year.
Read more about how the Trump-Musk feud reveals the perils of concentrating power in one individual here.
Read more about the mutual damage inflicted by Trump and Musk here.
Discover more about the economic consequences of their feud concerning Tesla here.
AI isn’t as capable of making movies as executives claim
Last Thursday, I attended a showcase featuring eight short films generated using the Runway Artificial Intelligence tool. In a pre-screening discussion, Runway’s co-founder and chief design officer Alejandro Matamala-Ortiz stated that the two-hour AI-generated film was “close.” Lionsgate executives explained to New York Magazine that there are many invisible production processes beyond just the final footage shown in theaters. Lionsgate has entered a contract with Runway, using some of its archives to train AI for cutting-edge projects.
The film I observed had a quality that echoed the executives’ comments on AI. Six of the eight shorts evoked little emotion. They lacked character and depth, resembling placeholders. While AI can create any imaginable image, the film lacked true creativity. The smooth, composite textures from multiple AI-generated images rendered them as intriguing and stylish as a basic first draft. If directors don’t take the time to elevate their work beyond a typical mid-journey output, why would anyone want to watch them? One film, an anime revenge story centered around cherry blossom trees, made me chuckle. Another claimed to document the sporadic emergence of cicadas but primarily featured lens flares. It felt reminiscent of a mid-tier student film; most entries were muddled, and the cinematography lacked distinct perspectives. Runway claimed to have received 6,000 submissions from 300 creators in 2022. I shiver at the thought of a Clockwork Orange-style scenario where someone had to view all those entries.
After viewing these shorts, I believed they resembled student films, potentially due to the early stages of production techniques that filmmakers are grappling with. Since its submission to the IT Film Festival in April, Runway has introduced new features to its tools, with Google recently releasing its own video generation tool, Veo 3. The output is more refined compared to what I viewed last week.
The remaining two films ventured into compelling territories. One was a video essay titled Total Pixel Space, which proved to be thought-provoking. This meditation on the nature of AI-generated images emphasized how few images we encounter in realistic situations versus those that never happened, offering unfortunate insights into our visual culture.
“Total Pixel Space represents both ultimate determinism and ultimate freedom, laden with possibilities that await consciousness to shape meaning through choices,” the film’s narration stated. I noted that it highlights AI-rendered images confined to pixel parameters on screens but unable to exist physically. Considering our mortality, the film poses a poignant question: how will you utilize your time and choices? What do you choose to imbue with meaning?
“Total Pixel Space” won the Grand Prize in the contest. While it was a triumph, the film poses a specific challenge to Matamala-Ortiz’s viewpoint. If one extrapolates from the film festival output, will you really witness a two-hour video essay delineating the trajectory AI films will take? It’s rather rare for such a film to maintain interest for that long.
Another editor developed a character and her inner life—a fundamental requirement for live-action films—yet this seems an insurmountable hurdle in AI-produced cinema. AI struggles to recreate consistent facial expressions across various scenarios. Despite these limitations, I still advocate for short films. Occasionally, a surge of creativity produces stunning montages, capable of suggesting interdimensional travel. AI can produce hundreds of diverse backgrounds in seconds, achieving scenes that would otherwise require significant budgets. Editing can utilize these capabilities for impactful effects. Perhaps that’s the ultimate goal of AI: serving as an enhancer rather than a sole creator. Lionsgate’s VP remarked on similar ideas, indicating that AI tools can make a $100 million film appear even larger and more cinematic. “We amplify elements, ensuring a more significant, filmic experience,” he told New York.
This week’s AI News
What do you want to share with us?
The Guardian has introduced a new feature within its app, developed in collaboration with computer scientists from Cambridge University.
The secure messaging function allows you to send messages to Guardian staff directly through the app, presenting a potential channel for news stories. To utilize this feature, tap on the three bars located at the bottom right of the Guardian app, scroll down to “More From the Guardian,” and select “Secure Messaging.” By saving a passphrase—consisting of randomly generated words—you can then create a secure channel for your messages. Sending a message to the Guardian operates similarly to ordinary app traffic, providing a layer of anonymity not found in traditional texting. Unlike conventional messages, secure messaging masks your activity on your device, making it appear as though you’re simply browsing the news.
For more detailed information about secure messaging, click here.
Wider technology
Source: www.theguardian.com
