“He snapped and called me a jackass,” Achiam testified.
Achiam said that around 50 to 60 employees had gathered during a February 2018 company all-hands meeting for a question-and-answer session ahead of Musk’s planned departure from the startup he cofounded with Altman.
According to Achiam, then a research scientist at OpenAI, Musk said he was leaving because Tesla, Musk’s electric car company, would soon compete with OpenAI for elite AI talent, creating a “conflict of interest.”
“He also indicated a general lack of confidence in OpenAI’s overall path,” Achiam said, adding that Musk “wanted to go and do his own thing and sort of pursue AGI in his own way.”
“It sounded like he wanted to race towards AGI, like he wanted to build it very fast, because he was very worried that someone else, if they got it, would do the wrong thing with it,” Achiam said.
Achiam said he and a few others were concerned that racing toward AGI was a “fairly unsafe proposition,” telling the jury that Musk was proposing something that seemed “reckless.”
“We didn’t know whether a science fiction super intelligence bootstrapping event where you set the thing running one night, and you come back the next morning, and it’s so unbelievably smart it can crack encryption and take over the world was a science fiction scenario or not?” he said.
When an OpenAI lawyer asked whether Musk may have been trying to push him out of his “comfort zone” by calling him a jackass — as Musk has alluded to in his own previous testimony in the case — Achiam said no.
“I don’t think that was why he called me that. I think he was just upset that he had been challenged,” Achiam said.
After the meeting, Achiam told the jury that a few colleagues expressed their gratitude to him. At the next company all-hands, he was presented with a trophy “to commemorate the exchange, and in thanks for having stood up to Elon.”
The trophy, Achiam said, was a gold statue depicting a “jackass” with an inscription: “Never stop being a jackass for safety.”
A slew of high-profile artists have recently made headlines for downsizing, postponing, or outright canceling their arena tours, from heartthrob Zayn Malik and chart-topper Post Malone to legacy girl group the Pussycat Dolls, who were refreshingly candid with fans about why only one of their scheduled US dates would go ahead.
“When we announced the PCD FOREVER Tour, we hoped to bring the show to fans across the world,” the group said in a statement. “After taking an honest look at the North American run, we’ve made the difficult and heartbreaking decision to cancel all but one of the North America dates.”
Although Malik, Malone, and fellow tour canceler Meghan Trainor have cited other reasons for their changes of heart — health struggles, scheduling challenges, and family obligations, respectively — fans and media outlets alike have speculated that low ticket sales could be at least partially to blame. As the internet began circulating screenshots from each tour’s Ticketmaster venue maps showing swaths of still-empty seats, some have dubbed this phenomenon “blue dot fever,” framing the trend as a backlash against a broken, overpriced ticketing system.
But while it’s well-documented that live music lovers are fed up with forking over piles of cash, don’t get too excited: This probably isn’t a sign that the great concert-ticket squeeze is coming to an end. More likely, it’s a series of hiccups in the average concertgoer’s cost-benefit analysis.
As Rebecca Haw Allensworth, visiting professor at Harvard Law School, previously told Vox: “Most of the drive behind those really big, expensive concerts is just people’s willingness to pay.”
The concert industry is still booming for bona fide A-listers
That privilege is largely reserved for superstars like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — figures whose concerts are designed as grand spectacles and treated as once-in-a-lifetime opportunities — and the new generation of pop giants following in their wake.
Olivia Rodrigo experienced such intense demand for her forthcoming arena trek that she added over 20 shows to her original schedule, including a 10-show run at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, breaking Jay-Z’s record for the longest residency. Harry Styles will play a whopping 30 shows at Madison Square Garden later this year — and despite prime tickets costing four figures, his fans flocked to the presale in record numbers.
These success stories aren’t reserved for artists making strictly pop music either, but rather for artists making fabulously popular music, whatever the genre. Noah Kahan, a folk-rock phenom whose first-week album sales rival those of Sabrina Carpenter and Billie Eilish, comfortably sold out his 2026 stadium tour — more than 1 million tickets across 30 concerts, per The Wall Street Journal. Even with Ticketmaster’s Face Value Exchange — a program artists can opt into that prohibits resellers from charging more than face value — the toll to see Kahan up close this summer could run about $500 per fan. When tickets went on sale, even nosebleed seats hovered around the three-figure mark.
These eye-popping price tags have become standard fare for big stars, especially since pandemic restrictions lifted; the average ticket price in 2026 is $144, Fortune reported, compared to $82 in 2020.
Peering into their hollow wallets, fans tend to blame Live Nation, which a federal jury recently found liable for holding an illegal monopoly. Still, much of the problem can be traced to simple supply and demand. Superfans of Rodrigo, Styles, and Kahan have evidently deemed these splurges worthwhile, signaling to the live event industry that there’s still money on the table. If people are willing to pay, ticket prices are likely to keep rising. Live Nation reported record-high concert attendance in 2025 and $3.79 billion in revenue in the first quarter of 2026 alone, a 12% increase from the same period last year.
Meanwhile, the live-music boom may have led some artists to overestimate their star power and sales potential.
“The acts that really have community around them, and authenticity, are doing incredibly well,” Howie Schnee, president and co-owner of the concert promotion company CEG Presents, told me. “Noah Kahan is an obvious example of that. And of course, in the jam-band world, Billy Strings and Phish and Goose — a lot of people who follow those acts, that’s their No. 1 favorite band. Could anyone ever say the Pussycat Dolls are their favorite act?”
Mid-tier pop stars are trying — and failing — to take advantage of the moment
The Pussycat Dolls perform in 2008.
Vince Bucci/Getty Images for Maui and Sons
The symptoms of “blue dot fever” are more contained than they may appear, Schnee said, noting they’re more indicative of overenthusiastic booking strategies than “emblematic of the industry overall.”
Although Malone is a popular artist by any metric, he’s currently in the midst of a countrified rebrand, and it’s unclear how many fans will follow his tour bus into new territory. Tickets for his next tour, co-headlined by Jelly Roll, went on sale before Malone’s new album was even finished — prematurely assuming the size and eagerness of his paying audience.
Malik, Trainor, and the Pussycat Dolls, meanwhile, have all achieved commercial success and cultural relevance in the past — but one No. 1 hit from a decade ago doesn’t justify the rising cost of an arena ticket today.
In an era when a ticket to any average pop concert threatens to break the bank — we’re not even counting the rising costs of transportation and accommodation to get to the concert in the first place — fans are becoming more selective. Personally, as a proud pop girl who grew up with “Buttons” and “Don’t Cha” on my iPod, it’s no contest: I’d rather skip the Pussycat Dolls reunion gimmick ($120 for upper bowl at Madison Square Garden; I checked) and put that money towards a more expensive ticket to see Rodrigo sing “Drivers License” live.
As for Schnee, in just a few days, he’s bringing his family to see Bruce Springsteen at Madison Square Garden. Even as someone with more than 30 years of industry experience, he found the total cost mind-boggling: “Throw in gas, parking, food, whatever,” he quickly calculated, “it becomes $1,400 for one night.”
Schnee added that he wouldn’t swallow that expense for any average Joe with a guitar. If an artist is charging arena prices, they better be having an arena-sized impact on the zeitgeist.
Despite the economic anxiety and uncertainty plaguing many of us, Schnee said, the demand to see some artists in the flesh is “recession-proof” — emphasis on some.
“People definitely have to make a decision,” he concluded. “They can’t do it all.”
A Trident II D5 missile launched from an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine during a test launch.
John Kowalski/US Navy Photo
The Pentagon is betting on relative newcomers like Anduril to mass-produce cheap missiles for future wars.
US officials are chasing low-cost cruise missiles and low-cost hypersonics amid stockpile concerns.
The push explores whether “disruptive new entrants” can scale weapons production fast enough for war.
The Pentagon is preparing to test low-cost missiles from a handful of “disruptive” defense tech companies in hopes of rapidly scaling the US military’s stockpile of affordable cruise and hypersonic missiles.
The Department of Defense announced agreements Wednesday with four companies — Anduril, CoAspire, Leidos, and Zone 5 Technologies — to launch the “Low-Cost Containerized Missiles” (LCCM) program aimed at producing large numbers of cheap cruise missiles.
Another defense startup, Castelion, will support the development and production of low-cost hypersonic weapons.
The effort, focused on “disruptive new entrants,” reflects a broader Pentagon push to expand the US military industrial base beyond the traditional defense giants — “prime” contractors like Lockheed Martin or RTX — amid growing concerns about America’s ability to produce sufficient munitions during a major conflict.
Those concerns are not theoretical. The US war against Iran has shown how quickly a serious fight can burn through high-end munitions and has raised concerns about how long US missile stockpiles could last in a prolonged conflict.
The Department of Defense is looking to “cheap mass” — inexpensive missiles built in large numbers — that could give the military more staying power when demand for precision strike capabilities outpaces traditional production. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated repeatedly the value of that cheap mass when other stocks run dry.
The Pentagon said in a release that it hopes to procure more than 10,000 low-cost cruise missiles over three years beginning in 2027, via firm-fixed-price production contracts “creating a pathway for rapid and repeatable production of high‑volume, lethal strike capabilities.”
The department plans to begin buying test missiles from all four LCCM companies in June 2026, ahead of military assessments.
Castelion, a defense startup developing the Blackbeard hypersonic missile, is set to receive a multi-year procurement contract for at least 500 of its hypersonic weapons annually once those munitions pass testing.
Several participating firms, which were not named in the release, are expected to scale production without direct military investment, a model officials described as designed to reward speed, innovation, and private capital.
Officials framed the initiative as part of the Trump administration’s effort to build what they refer to as an “Arsenal of Freedom,” leveraging private-sector investment rather than relying solely on government-funded development.
The hunt for low-cost munitions extends beyond this initiative. The Pentagon’s research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is also searching for solutions to develop low-cost missiles that can be built in a mere days rather than months.
“We are moving beyond the traditional prime contractors to expand our industrial base, accelerating testing timelines, and sending a clear, long-term demand signal to innovative new entrants,” said Michael Duffey, Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment, in Wednesday’s release on the new DoD effort.
American Airlines was the first US carrier to return to Caracas in April.
Jesus Vargas/Getty Images
American Airlines and United Airlines are flying to Venezuela again.
It comes after US officials tore up a 2019 order barring US carriers from flying in the country.
Caracas airport used to be a bustling gateway, but economic turmoil had pushed airlines to retreat.
Venezuela is open again, and American Airlines and United Airlines aren’t wasting time restarting service.
Both carriers have announced they will return to Caracas, the capital city, after yearslong hiatuses.The airlines last flew to Venezuela in 2019 and 2017, respectively. Delta also left in 2017 but has not announced plans to return.
American resumed flights from Miami to Caracas on April 30; the flight uses an Embraer E175 operated by the carrier’s wholly owned regional subsidiary Envoy Air. American will add a second daily E175 flight to Caracas starting May 21.
United will resume daily flights to Caracas from its Houston George Bush Intercontinental hub on August 11, using a Boeing 737 Max 8.
American’s return to Venezuela is initially limited to the capital, Caracas, though service to Maracaibo — a coastal city in the northwest where it also used to fly — has also been cleared by the Department of Transportation. United has only applied for Houston so far.
The reopening comes after Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy rescinded a prior order barring operations in Venezuela amid security concerns and political instability.
These are American and United’s Caracas flight schedules:
Before 2019, it flew up to 5,000 flights annually from cities like Dallas-Fort Worth, New York, and San Juan, and was the largest US operator in Venezuela.
United’s flight is not yet showing in Cirium, but based on the August launch date, it’ll run roughly 280 flights between Houston and Caracas through 2026.
United has historically had a much smaller presence in Venezuela than American. It operated 225 flights on the route in 2017, though it operated for only half the year; it flew about 500 in 2016.
Demand is expected to be driven primarily by “VFR” (visiting friends and relatives) traffic among the large Venezuelan diaspora in Florida, though the nation is also bracing for more international tourists and business travelers.
The boarding gate for American’s relaunch to Caracas.
CHANDAN KHANNA / AFP via Getty Images
While United won’t face any competition from Houston, American will compete in Miami with the Venezuelan carrier Laser Airlines, which relaunched flights on May 1 using a leased Airbus A320 from US-based Global Crossing Airlines. The jet can hold about twice as many people as Envoy’s E175.
Laser cannot operate its own aircraft in the US because Venezuela’s aviation regulator is rated below international safety standards by US authorities.
Nearly two dozen other foreign airlines also serve Venezuelan cities, with about 40,000 flights collectively scheduled for 2026, per Cirium — less than a third of the roughly 130,000 the airport handled at its 2013 peak, during its era as a key gateway for oil, business, and international travel.
Revived service to Venezuela comes after Duffy, in January, tore up a 2019 order restricting flights and reopened its skies to commercial flights.
“By restarting service to Venezuela, American will offer customers the opportunity to reunite with families and create new business and commerce with the United States,” Nat Pieper, American’s chief commercial officer, said in January.
There were festivities at the gate in Miami before the flight.
CHANDAN KHANNA / AFP via Getty Images
The airline said it worked with regulators and other key stakeholders to assess security and ensure a safe return.
The Trump administration has targeted undocumented Venezuelans living in the US as part of its mass deportation effort, and accused some of being violent gang members. Direct commercial flights offer Venezuelans a way to self-deport, should they choose to.
Many have since returned, including LATAM, Avianca, and Copa Airlines, as well as European carriers like TAP Air Portugal, Iberia, and Turkish Airlines.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published in April when the first US airline resumed Venezuela flights, and has been updated.
Meta’s Alexandr Wang shared his hope that the “animosities” between AI leaders would cool.
Bloomberg/Getty Images
Alexandr Wang said that tensions between some AI leaders are “unfortunate.”
He hopes the rivalries will cool. “Maybe it gets worse, then it gets better,” he said.
Wang, who faced criticism from Meta’s former chief AI scientist Yann LeCun, said he had since met with the AI researcher.
Tensions are high in AI.
The leaders of AI don’t seem to be on the best of terms. Feuds abound, from Sam Altman and Dario Amodei to Altman and Elon Musk — the latter of which is playing out in court.
Meta’s chief AI officer, Alexandr Wang, has his own rivalries. On the “Core Memory” podcast, Wang called any hostilities in the AI industry “unfortunate.”
“My real hope is that all these animosities subside over time and then people sort of come together and realize we are building this incredibly important technology,” Wang said. “It’s important for all of us to be really thoughtful about that as we build it.”
Yann LeCun, Wang’s former colleague, is one of his primary critics. The ex-Meta chief AI scientist called Wang “inexperienced” and said that he didn’t fully understand AI researchers.
On the podcast, Wang said that he saw LeCun in India a few weeks after the comment. LeCun also congratulated the Meta Superintelligence Labs on its launch of Muse Spark AI model, he said.
“Yann is a notable, very outspoken person,” LeCun said. “I think everyone always knows what Yann is thinking.”
Wang applied his optimistic philosophy to his relationship with LeCun: hopefully, as the company nears superintelligence, it will get better. LeCun did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
Host Ashlee Vance said that it seemed like relationships in the AI community were getting worse.
“Maybe it gets worse, then it gets better,” Wang replied.
Vance also referenced another AI leader: OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The duo was once roommates. Then Wang’s Superintelligence Lab launched a poaching campaign — armed with Meta’s checkbook — that targeted staff of major AI labs, including OpenAI.
In June, Altman said that Meta’s luring of talent via large compensation packages could hurt them. “I don’t think that’s going to set up a great culture,” Altman said.
On the podcast, Vance said that he texted Altman about the interview with Wang. “He did not have flattering things to say,” Vance said.
Wang didn’t directly comment on his relationship with Altman. OpenAI didn’t respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
The Meta AI leader voiced empathy for his fellow AI heads. There are “various mischaracterizations about them,” he said.
“What’s out there is never always correct,” Wang said. “It can be frustrating, but I choose to just channel it into the work that we’re doing.”
Scott Goodwin founded $30 billion credit-focused manager, Diameter Capital.
FII
Scott Goodwin, the founder of $30 billion Diameter Capital, spoke Tuesday at the Sohn conference.
Goodwin has been a critic of private credit funds that are overly exposed to software.
He identified three areas where his firm is investing to capitalize on some funds’ pain.
Diameter Capital founder Scott Goodwin opened his Sohn conference presentation Tuesday with a blunt assessment of private credit.
Goodwin, whose firm manages $30 billion and invests across different credit opportunities, has been critical of private credit managers that have loaded up on loans to asset-light companies exposed to disruption from artificial intelligence. In a letter to investors from earlier this year, he predicted a “reckoning” in the private credit space.
Tuesday’s presentation went further, as Goodwin said the portfolio construction of private credit portfolios overly exposed to sectors like software is “almost criminal.”
After years of rapid growth in private credit, concerns over credit quality and about how AI could disrupt software have driven record-high investor redemption requests at some of the biggest funds.
“A lot of things were missed, but mostly the pace of technology change,” he said. The most “acute” problems will emerge from private credit funds raised in 2021 and 2022, when software valuations were near their peak, and growth in the asset class pushed managers to seek out bigger and bigger deals.
“You cannot have 40, 50, 60% of your portfolio in a single sector,” he said.
Now, there are opportunities for managers like himself.
Diameter’s analysis found that between $150 billion and $200 billion of loans from private credit funds in need of liquidity will be sold on the secondary market in the coming years. The firm has already done 15 of these deals over the last two months, Goodwin said, including picking up some loans to companies that Diameter was already lending to.
The sell-off in publicly traded BDCs has left some portfolios with strong underlying holdings undervalued, and Diameter expects to scoop up some of them at the right price, Goodwin said. And the pullback in direct lending over the coming years should allow firms with staying power the ability to negotiate better terms with companies in need of capital.
“This is not a systemic issue,” Goodwin said about the credit markets as a whole, but new funds need to “know the names” of companies they’re lending to.